Politics

[IrishJayhawk]

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...

W did, indeed, surround himself with people who had advocated for military action in Iraq for years (Wolfowitz, Cheney, etc.). That's way more credible than the swiftboat stuff.

 

[Bluto]

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

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...

Here's the problem with your argument. Clinton did not invade Iraq so that statement is moot. As far as I know most people (on the left or right) did not believe Bush was going to institute Marshall law. Finally, none of those nutty ideas became a part of the DNC'S campaign strategy. Wish I could say the same thing about the GOP and crazy ideas but I can't.

Anyhow, here's an interesting fact check from Fox about Romney's statements during the debate.
FACT CHECK: Romney oversimplifies debt 'inferno' | Fox News

 

[Buster Bluth]

You kids today and your wacky electoral hijinx!

I know right?! hahah

The system is screwing us, why not screw it back? What's the worst that can happen?

(someone inserts Adolf Hitler picture)

 

[GoIrish41]

Here's the problem with your argument. Clinton did not invade Iraq so that statement is moot. As far as I know most people (on the left or right) did not believe Bush was going to institute Marshall law. Finally, none of those nutty ideas became a part of the DNC'S campaign strategy. Wish I could say the same thing about the GOP and crazy ideas but I can't.

Anyhow, here's an interesting fact check from Fox about Romney's statements during the debate.
FACT CHECK: Romney oversimplifies debt 'inferno' | Fox News

So, you are just going to take the word of the liberal media?

 

[Downinthebend]

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're writing in Ron Paul for senate/governor/etc? ????

 

[connor_in]

Here's the problem with your argument. Clinton did not invade Iraq so that statement is moot.
So it was wrong of W to use Clinton & Brit intel...This is strictly you calling moot so I call BS As far as I know most people (on the left or right) did not believe Bush was going to institute Marshall law.
I suggest you check out the wonderful popular left wing sites Huffpo, Dem Underground, Daily Kos...that is where I got that particular theory..BTW most R's have not embraced birtherism or muslim...Rev Wright's chruch was bad enough and it was not muslim
Finally, none of those nutty ideas became a part of the DNC'S campaign strategy. Wish I could say the same thing about the GOP and crazy ideas but I can't.
W let the swift boaters work for themselves, he didn't do it...but at least we know as part of this years campaign strategy Mitt is a felon, a murderer, etc
Anyhow, here's an interesting fact check from Fox about Romney's statements during the debate.
FACT CHECK: Romney oversimplifies debt 'inferno' | Fox News

see above bold

 

[connor_in]

So, you are just going to take the word of the liberal media?

But I thought all FNC put out was lies/RNC talking points...you can't believe a thing they say...right????

 

[Downinthebend]

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.

If we had constitutional spending we could probably cut tax revenue by that much (or more).

 

[Buster Bluth]

You're writing in Ron Paul for senate/governor/etc? ????

The governor is not up for reelection in Ohio. I'm not sure about the Mandel/Brown election. Mandel, on paper, seems like a genuine guy. But I don't know enough about him at this point in time.

 

[Rhode Irish]

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?

OK, not sure why I am bothering with this because this is moving goal posts 101, but the Democrats argument is not simply that Romney won't give details and therefore it's a bad plan. When they make the "details" argument, they are trying to get people to ask themselves how Romney is going to pay for his plan. Now, yes, Romney has said he plans to pay for a 20% across-the-board rate reduction by eliminating credits and deductions. The democratic response to this is that there is no possible way that you can slash rates by 20% across-the-board and pay for it only through elimination of credits and deductions and have it be revenue neutral. There simply aren't enough "loopholes" to offset a 20% rate reduction, so you're either going to blow up the deficit even further, or you're going to cut spending in a way that most democrats believe is socially irresponsible.

In addition, the elimination of credits and deductions in exchange for lower rates will be a windfall for rich people and harmful to the middle class, because rich people are better positioned to withstand the loss of the mortgage deduction, student loan interest deduction, child tax credit, etc., and they stand to benefit more from the rate reduction. The democrats believe that the republicans believe that this system will ultimately be beneficial to everyone because of "trickle down" economics. Of course, republicans will not admit this because even the average voter recognizes trickle down economics as a repulsively stupid idea.

So, to summarize, the democrats' response to Romney's "tax plan" is that it is not possible to pay for such a plan in the manner in which he says he intends to, so that calls into question his plan for the deficit and/or the government's social contract with its citizens. Obviously, you are evidence that the democrats' argument is not universally persausive, as you have said you implicitly trust Romney based on his experience as a venture capitalist. Many people are in agreement with you; others sympathize with the democrats' argument and view Romney's venture capital background as more of a minus than a plus. That is essentially what the election boils down to, right? Or do you just ignore the possibility that the other side has any point or basis for their beliefs?

 

[GoIrish41]

But I thought all FNC put out was lies/RNC talking points...you can't believe a thing they say...right????

There is no question that they put out RNC talking points and bend the facts in almost unbelievable ways. (Just as MSNBC does). So when even Fax says he's lying, it is becomes almost indisputable. Or do you need Rush to acknowledge it too?

 

[Bluto]

see above bold

So yeah I looked around at various polls of GOP voters in regards to the "birther" issue. The low percentage I found was 21% the high is in this poll of GOP primary voters.

Poll: 51 percent of GOP primary voters think Obama born abroad - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com

As for Bush relying on "Clinton" era intelligence that is a mistatement because the staff at the CIA does not turnover with a new president, the director maybe but not the analysts. That being said from all accounts I have read the CIA was dubious of this claim of weapons of mass distruction and Dr. Evil aka Dick Chaney pushed this position and cooked up a lot of stuff on his own.

Anyhow, I listen to the "bastion" of liberal media NPR and not once did I hear anybody claim Marshall law was around the corner. None of what you have presented seems to dispute the claims I made of the GOP consistently floating insanely blatant lies as a part of day to day policy making and or campaign strategy.

 

[Buster Bluth]

OK, not sure why I am bothering with this because this is moving goal posts 101, but the Democrats argument is not simply that Romney won't give details and therefore it's a bad plan. When they make the "details" argument, they are trying to get people to ask themselves how Romney is going to pay for his plan. Now, yes, Romney has said he plans to pay for a 20% across-the-board rate reduction by eliminating credits and deductions. The democratic response to this is that there is no possible way that you can slash rates by 20% across-the-board and pay for it only through elimination of credits and deductions and have it be revenue neutral. There simply aren't enough "loopholes" to offset a 20% rate reduction, so you're either going to blow up the deficit even further, or you're going to cut spending in a way that most democrats believe is socially irresponsible.

In addition, the elimination of credits and deductions in exchange for lower rates will be a windfall for rich people and harmful to the middle class, because rich people are better positioned to withstand the loss of the mortgage deduction, student loan interest deduction, child tax credit, etc., and they stand to benefit more from the rate reduction. The democrats believe that the republicans believe that this system will ultimately be beneficial to everyone because of "trickle down" economics. Of course, republicans will not admit this because even the average voter recognizes trickle down economics as a repulsively stupid idea.

This is all well said. I think it goes along with an analogy I read on the Huffington Post earlier:

Suppose Governor Romney said that he wants to drive a car from Boston to Los Angeles in 15 hours. And suppose some analysts employed tools of arithmetic to conclude that "If Governor Romney wants to drive from Boston to LA in 15 hours, it is mathematically impossible to avoid speeding." After all, the drive from LA to Boston is about 3,000 miles, so to take only 15 hours would require an average of 200 miles per hour. Certainly other road trips are possible -- but the particular one proposed here is not.

Especially in this inflamed campaign environment, one can imagine the frenzied responses. The Obama campaign might put ads out that say Romney wants to speed or is going to speed. Romney's campaign might respond by saying the study is a "joke" and "partisan," that he supports speeding laws and would never, ever speed, and it is ridiculous to suggest that he would. The Romney campaign and its surrogates might say that the analysts must be wrong because they don't even know what his road plan is or which car he would drive. Besides, Romney never really said he wanted to go LA, he might want to go somewhere closer; he could get to LA without speeding if he took more than 15 hours; he could get somewhere else in 15 hours without speeding. And so on.

Well, what if it didn't actually get to 20%? What if it was 19.9%...or 15%...or 10%? What if 20% was the goal, and that he'd aim to get there at the end of two terms? What if the loopholes being closed were heavy on the corporate side? What if he closed loopholes by tax brackets, and closed them on the rich? (In that sense....what if it were a sly way or actually raising taxes?)

What if drastic cuts to military spending and useless discretionary spending (does it exist?) helped offset it?

What if the lowering of the corporate rate while closing loopholes benefited small businesses and created an environment where they could start up and expand, leading to higher returns? After all, isn't everyone not getting a loophole ultimately paying for the other guy?

So yeah, if he can't, right now, get to LA in 15 hours...what if he got to Indianapolis. That's certainly doable, and certainly progress. It's certainly, ahem, "FORWARD."

So, to summarize, the democrats' response to Romney's "tax plan" is that it is not possible to pay for such a plan in the manner in which he says he intends to, so that calls into question his plan for the deficit and/or the government's social contract with its citizens.

I disagree, what falls into question is the "20%" buzzword he is selling for votes. Obviously, if it's mathematically impossible then it can't be done. Romney would know that better than us two. That doesn't mean it won't be his general philosophy and I think that, generally, closing unfair loopholes and making a more hospitable environment for the middle class/small business is something everyone can get behind.

Obviously, you are evidence that the democrats' argument is not universally persuasive, as you have said you implicitly trust Romney based on his experience as a venture capitalist.

He's done a bit more than be a venture capitalist. Not that being a venture capitalist is a bad thing at all.

Many people are in agreement with you; others sympathize with the democrats' argument and view Romney's venture capital background as more of a minus than a plus.

If I recall correctly, some key folks in the Democratic Party backed way off of Obama's disdain for Romney's venture capitalist past. I believe a few said that he was an excellent businessman, and lamented the President's campaign a bit.

That is essentially what the election boils down to, right? Or do you just ignore the possibility that the other side has any point or basis for their beliefs?

I think they do have points. Many, in fact. I thought your right up was perfectly fine and agreed with a lot of it.

I guess I treat projects and criticisms like I would a CBO report. "Under X, Y, Z, this will be the cost." I think we're putting the wrong things in concrete terms, on both sides. None of the things are actually concrete. Is it Romney's fault for constantly saying "20% cut".....ummm, yeah. News flash: it's campaign season.

 

[ND NYC]

OK, not sure why I am bothering with this because this is moving goal posts 101, but the Democrats argument is not simply that Romney won't give details and therefore it's a bad plan. When they make the "details" argument, they are trying to get people to ask themselves how Romney is going to pay for his plan. Now, yes, Romney has said he plans to pay for a 20% across-the-board rate reduction by eliminating credits and deductions. The democratic response to this is that there is no possible way that you can slash rates by 20% across-the-board and pay for it only through elimination of credits and deductions and have it be revenue neutral. There simply aren't enough "loopholes" to offset a 20% rate reduction, so you're either going to blow up the deficit even further, or you're going to cut spending in a way that most democrats believe is socially irresponsible.

In addition, the elimination of credits and deductions in exchange for lower rates will be a windfall for rich people and harmful to the middle class, because rich people are better positioned to withstand the loss of the mortgage deduction, student loan interest deduction, child tax credit, etc., and they stand to benefit more from the rate reduction. The democrats believe that the republicans believe that this system will ultimately be beneficial to everyone because of "trickle down" economics. Of course, republicans will not admit this because even the average voter recognizes trickle down economics as a repulsively stupid idea.

So, to summarize, the democrats' response to Romney's "tax plan" is that it is not possible to pay for such a plan in the manner in which he says he intends to, so that calls into question his plan for the deficit and/or the government's social contract with its citizens. Obviously, you are evidence that the democrats' argument is not universally persausive, as you have said you implicitly trust Romney based on his experience as a venture capitalist. Many people are in agreement with you; others sympathize with the democrats' argument and view Romney's venture capital background as more of a minus than a plus. That is essentially what the election boils down to, right? Or do you just ignore the possibility that the other side has any point or basis for their beliefs?

if i am Obama, at the next debate, i would pull out a bag of popcorn and offer to yield all 90 minutes of my time to Romney in order for him to explain in full detail his new tax plan...

 

[Bluto]

Kind of off topic but I'm home sick watching the South Carolina vs Georgia game. S.C. looks pretty damn good on both sides of the ball and kicked the crap out of the Dogs start to finish. Anyhow...resume.

 

[Buster Bluth]

So yeah I looked around at various polls of GOP voters in regards to the "birther" issue. The low percentage I found was 21% the high is in this poll of GOP primary voters.

Poll: 51 percent of GOP primary voters think Obama born abroad - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com

The 51% came from Alabama. These people:

The CNN poll at the bottom said that 11% of Americans believe that he was born outside the US. 11%.

 

[Buster Bluth]

if i am Obama, at the next debate, i would pull out a bag of popcorn and offer to yield all 90 minutes of my time to Romney in order for him to explain in full detail his new tax plan...

..and then you would proceed to lose 47/50 states.

 

[tadman95]

Kind of off topic but I'm home sick watching the South Carolina vs Georgia game. S.C. looks pretty damn good on both sides of the ball and kicked the crap out of the Dogs start to finish. Anyhow...resume.

I think they are legit! Sorry, back to topic.

 

[Bluto]

The 51% came from Alabama. These people:

The CNN poll at the bottom said that 11% of Americans believe that he was born outside the US. 11%.

Lol. The scary thing though is that those knuckleheads have a huge influence on the party platform and policy at this point and it seems to get nuttier with each passing year.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Lol. The scary thing though is that those knuckleheads have a huge influence on the party platform and policy at this point and it seems to get nuttier with each passing year.

...and now you're seeing why Romney pretended to be a "severely" conservative Republican from 2007 until the primaries this spring.

 

[ND NYC]

The 51% came from Alabama. These people:

The CNN poll at the bottom said that 11% of Americans believe that he was born outside the US. 11%.

"that thar" is Exhibit A for why myself (and some like me) have left the Republican aka Tea Party and become Independents.
not the party i used to be proud of at all. its been hijacked.

 

[ND NYC]

...and now you're seeing why Romney pretended to be a "severely" conservative Republican from 2007 until the primaries this spring.

i want a president who doesnt "pretend" to be anyone other than himself.
i want to know WHO the hell it is I'm voting for-not some creation of primary poilling.

guys like Reagan and W had their faults, to be sure, but at least they were true to their core beliefs and never "pretended" to be anything they werent.

 

[tadman95]

"that thar" is Exhibit A for why myself (and some like me) have left the Republican aka Tea Party and become Independents.
not the party i used to be proud of at all. its been hijacked.

That's pretty much me too. I started having doubts sooner though, when Reagan's tax cuts and "trickle down" theory produced record deficits and record tax increases. Stuff started not adding up.

 

[Downinthebend]

i want a president who doesnt "pretend" to be anyone other than himself.
i want to know WHO the hell it is I'm voting for-not some creation of primary poilling.

guys like Reagan and W had their faults, to be sure, but at least they were true to their core beliefs and never "pretended" to be anything they werent.

Vote for Ron Paul.

 

[ND NYC]

Vote for Ron Paul.

ahhh...he's full of **** too.

 

[GoIrish41]

...and now you're seeing why Romney pretended to be a "severely" conservative Republican from 2007 until the primaries this spring.

When I was in the Navy a couple of decades ago, my ship pulled into the Phillipines. To go from the base to the town of Olongapo, we had to cross a bridge over a river. Many of the sailors who had been there before called in "Sh*t River" because it was where all of the sewage in the city drained. While crossing the bridge, I watched many Americans toss coins into the river and watching young children jump into the river to retreive them. Each time they tossed a coin, children would jump into the filthy water and those who threw the coins would laugh their heads off. I think even all these years later, it was the most dispicable thing I have ever seen. This whole scenario was possible because the Phillipines was by and large a destitute country. There was no safety net from their government for them to fall back on, and their despiration was real, and terrible. The Americans who were throwing the coins were, in that environment, incredibly wealthy compared to those who lived in Olongapo, even on their enlisted Navy pay (which, trust me, wasn't much).

When I first heard Mitt Romney's 47% statement, this was the first thing that popped into my head. He is fabulously wealthy and has never known poverty, or the despiration that human beings feel when they are trapped in it. The contempt that he showed the American people who didn't have the same breaks that he enjoyed when he called them victims who wouldn't take responsible for their own lives brought back images of those souless idiots who were throwing coins in the river. Nobody wants to be poor -- they don't choose to be in their situations. The fact that he wants to give the fabulously rich another dime at the expense of those who are suffering is disturbing. If he is to keep his promises about his tax cuts and increases in defense spending, he will have to cut into the safety net that prevents this nation's poor from feeling the kind of profound despiration I saw in the Phillipines. He wants to be the President -- he's not playing a game Buster. It is not OK for him to pretend to be something so he can win. This is serious business and we need a serious, honorable person to run this country. Not someone who doesn't care about anything but getting elected.

 

[HereComeTheIrish]

"Crazy" Joe is holding his own. Ryan is searching...

 

[irish1958]

The Republican mantra to "reduce job killing regulations" and get the "economy going" has a few problems. For example, during the "job killing" Clinton administration, the job killing regulation to regulate componding pharmacies by the FDA was struck down by the republican majority on the Supreme Court and then ignored by the anti-regulation Bush administration.
Fast forward to 2012 and the fungal meningitis epidemic. How many are still in favor of this type of job killing regulations?
Most regulations are enacted to address misconduct or to avoid serious problems, such as this, not to kill jobs.
Not regulating leads to massive problems (banking, health, food safety etc.)

 

[irish1958]

When I was in the Navy a couple of decades ago, my ship pulled into the Phillipines. To go from the base to the town of Olongapo, we had to cross a bridge over a river. Many of the sailors who had been there before called in "Sh*t River" because it was where all of the sewage in the city drained. While crossing the bridge, I watched many Americans toss coins into the river and watching young children jump into the river to retreive them. Each time they tossed a coin, children would jump into the filthy water and those who threw the coins would laugh their heads off. I think even all these years later, it was the most dispicable thing I have ever seen. This whole scenario was possible because the Phillipines was by and large a destitute country. There was no safety net from their government for them to fall back on, and their despiration was real, and terrible. The Americans who were throwing the coins were, in that environment, incredibly wealthy compared to those who lived in Olongapo, even on their enlisted Navy pay (which, trust me, wasn't much).

When I first heard Mitt Romney's 47% statement, this was the first thing that popped into my head. He is fabulously wealthy and has never known poverty, or the despiration that human beings feel when they are trapped in it. The contempt that he showed the American people who didn't have the same breaks that he enjoyed when he called them victims who wouldn't take responsible for their own lives brought back images of those souless idiots who were throwing coins in the river. Nobody wants to be poor -- they don't choose to be in their situations. The fact that he wants to give the fabulously rich another dime at the expense of those who are suffering is disturbing. If he is to keep his promises about his tax cuts and increases in defense spending, he will have to cut into the safety net that prevents this nation's poor from feeling the kind of profound despiration I saw in the Phillipines. He wants to be the President -- he's not playing a game Buster. It is not OK for him to pretend to be something so he can win. This is serious business and we need a serious, honorable person to run this country. Not someone who doesn't care about anything but getting elected.

Exactly. In my medical practice I attempted to maintain about 12 to 15 % Medicaid and 10% write-off. I practiced in a very wealthy area and was one of the very few physicians who would take these people; they are the are the 47%. Over more than 40 years of practice, I have served thousands of the infamous 47%, and the number of scammers and free loaders were minuscule. It really irritates me to hear those whose only exposre to the "lazy and shiftless dole-accepting entitled 47% is to view these people through the window of their BMWs harp on reducing their "entitlements" to pay for a massive tax reduction for the very wealthy.

 

[HereComeTheIrish]

Exactly. In my medical practice I attempted to maintain about 12 to 15 % Medicaid and 10% write-off. I practiced in a very wealthy area and was one of the very few physicians who would take these people; they are the are the 47%. Over more than 40 years of practice, I have served thousands of the infamous 47%, and the number of scammers and free loaders were minuscule. It really irritates me to hear those whose only exposre to the "lazy and shiftless dole-accepting entitled 47% is to view these people through the window of their BMWs harp on reducing their "entitlements" to pay for a massive tax reduction for the very wealthy.

Well said, brah....