Politics

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

I thought that Romney looked very out of his element. Clear win for Obama.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Thank god that debate is over. While foreign affairs are important, we have more pressing issues domestically. Didn't watch a minute of it and I am glad it's over.


vote for gary johnson

 

[Buster Bluth]

I thought that Romney looked very out of his element. Clear win for Obama.

Hahaha

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I thought that Romney looked very out of his element. Clear win for Obama.

Is that you, Chris Matthews? In other news, Schieffer did very well tonight as moderator even though barry interrupted romney about 18 times

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I think the role of government is greater than the libertarian POV (not sure if you are or not, just saying). I believe the government does have a responsibility to ensure that those at the bottom are not left out entirely and are given opportunities. School, paved roads, energy, are all roles of the government. As i stated, any law can be taken advantage of but just because some take advantage of unemployment does not mean everyone should suffer. You also say the government has no role in welfare than say its OK for them to give tax breaks for hedge funds. That's welfare, that's a handout. Everyone, including you benefit from a government program. Scholarship money, sick leave, food stamps, school lunches, etc.

I do agree with you concerning Obama's use of drone's. Any adult male killed by drones is labeled a terrorist which is why civilian casualties are so low. The NDA Act is complete BS. No one should be held indefinitely without trial. I think that is a scary precedent and am ashamed the President did not veto it.

Pull out the US Constitution. If you don't have one, google it. Show me where it says the federal government is responsible for schools and energy and I'll send you $20.00

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Hahaha

The polls all show the same result. CBS had Obama winning 53-23. Averaging all of the instant polls has Obama by 16. Maybe it won't swing the needle. But this was a clear win for Obama.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Don't you get it? There's nothing to win in an FP debate.

 

[GoIrish41]

Obama schooled Romney on foreign policy by exposing, once again, his flipflopping nature on multiple issues. The "battleship" comment was priceless, and it also revealed Romney as out of his league when it comes to being commander in chief. Best line of the night was the military policies of the 1980s, social policies of the 1950s and economic policies of the 1920s. Was it just me or was Romney sweating like Nixon in the 1960 debate?

 

[NDBoiler]

The polls all show the same result. CBS had Obama winning 53-23. Averaging all of the instant polls has Obama by 16. Maybe it won't swing the needle. But this was a clear win for Obama.

On the flip side, wouldn't a sitting president be expected to be comfortable in a foreign policy debate with a state governor who is not going to have the same level of intimate foreign policy knowledge? I didn't watch the debate, but if there is any doubt in an undecided voter's mind about Pres. Obama in this one, he might as well start packing his bags now IMO.

 

[arrowryan]

After watching this debate I now know who I'm voting for.

 

[arrowryan]

Obama schooled Romney on foreign policy by exposing, once again, his flipflopping nature on multiple issues. The "battleship" comment was priceless, and it also revealed Romney as out of his league when it comes to being commander in chief. Best line of the night was the military policies of the 1980s, social policies of the 1950s and economic policies of the 1920s. Was it just me or was Romney sweating like Nixon in the 1960 debate?

The "horses and bayonets" comment made me LOL

 

[IrishAlum1997]

Marines respond to Obama debate comment, tweeting that they still use bayonets


Way to go for the laughs, CIC. You really told him.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

This president cannot defend his record and is out of ideas.

Economy: teachers, roads and bridges.

Combine this with Big Bird, bayonets and free birth control and I call it a campaign of absolute desperation.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Don't you get it? There's nothing to win in an FP debate.

Sorry. I just keep forgetting how wise you are.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Marines respond to Obama debate comment, tweeting that they still use bayonets


Way to go for the laughs, CIC. You really told him.

He said "fewer." Is that not accurate?

 

[IrishAlum1997]

He said "fewer." Is that not accurate?

I'm, not sure, is it? According to our men and women on the front lines defending our liberty, it would seem they are still very much an important part of our military defense. When contrasted to horses, which are obviously used much less than they were 100 years ago, CIC looks like an uninformed smarta$$ rather than providing respectful counterpoint.

We will see in 2 weeks how that resonated.

 

[Ndaccountant]

I'm, not sure, is it? According to our men and women on the front lines defending our liberty, it would seem they are still very much an important part of our military defense. When contrasted to horses, which are obviously used much less than they were 100 years ago, CIC looks like an uninformed smarta$$ rather than providing respectful counterpoint.

We will see in 2 weeks how that resonated.

Exactly. Anyone read what the those in the UK thought about the debate? They said the exact same thing as you. They saw Obama as petty, mocking and outright unpresidential. The one thing he had going for him over Romney this whole time was people liked him. Did that change after the last two debates?

 

[tadman95]

Marines respond to Obama debate comment, tweeting that they still use bayonets


Way to go for the laughs, CIC. You really told him.

They must have been really pissed when Bush sent them into Afghanistan and Iraq with outdated body armor, and in some cases none.

Just sayin' their objections seem as much politically motivated as reality based.

 

[tadman95]

Pull out the US Constitution. If you don't have one, google it. Show me where it says the federal government is responsible for schools and energy and I'll send you $20.00

I'm hard pressed to see how 50 states having 50 different ideas of how to run and pay for school systems or 50 different energy policies is good idea. The inequities and/or differences in priorities by states would be tremendous. There simply has to a standard bearer to have some semblance of equality for the country as a whole. as imperfect as it sometimes.

Trying to use the Constitution as justification to do away with these systems/protections is short sighted at best IMO.

 

[GoIrish41]

I think it is instructive to look at the states that know the candidates best. For example, in Romney's home state of Mass. he is behind by 16 points. In Mich., where Romney was born and his father was a beloved governor, he is down by 6 points. In Wisc., where VP candidate Ryan resides, the ticket is down by 3 points. That has to be more than troubling for the GOP.

 

[WaveDomer]

The takeaways from last night will be: Romney looked and sounded like the POTUS while President Obama looked like the challenger. The petty exchange Obama had about ships and weapons, the sequestration, and people checking the Op Ed to see Romney was right about managed bankruptcy.

President Obama's team is now talking about how to win without Ohio. Get ready to watch the Preference Cascade. The media now will start doing positive stories on Romney because they want to start building that relationship.

Regarding the Insta Polls, if you look deeper when you see who they trust as CIC on FP it's even. If you look at independents, they swing heavy to Romney. That's what Romney was going for. The partisans are set. The partisans also like Red Meat. That's why partisan Dems liked the Battleship line. Independents don't like that and didn't like that. That's also why partisan Reps are dismayed Romney didn't go after Obama on Libya. But that's also why we sit here and Romney is about to change his address.

 

[Ndaccountant]

I'm hard pressed to see how 50 states having 50 different ideas of how to run and pay for school systems or 50 different energy policies is good idea. The inequities and/or differences in priorities by states would be tremendous. There simply has to a standard bearer to have some semblance of equality for the country as a whole. as imperfect as it sometimes.

Trying to use the Constitution as justification to do away with these systems/protections is short sighted at best IMO.

But why shouldn't the states prioritize? If a state wants to move in one direction, why shouldn't they be allowed? I understand your point, but there is a difference between setting minimum standards and full blown control. I would much rather have states offering different things. Some would succeed, some wouldn't. But at least we as residents could choose.

 

[tadman95]

But why shouldn't the states prioritize? If a state wants to move in one direction, why shouldn't they be allowed? I understand your point, but there is a difference between setting minimum standards and full blown control. I would much rather have states offering different things. Some would succeed, some wouldn't. But at least we as residents could choose.

I understand your point also. The problem, as I see it, is we really can't afford for some to not succeed, can we?

In this case (education) as in many cases, if everyone would do the right thing then the need to have some oversight would not be needed. The problem is "the right thing" (whatever that is?) can be corrupted to other purposes and with the influences of special interest these days even oversight is suspect at best.

I really don't know how we find a balance to better serve everyone. I do think the influence that "special interests" have is out of control and is undermining the foundations the Constitution created.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I'm hard pressed to see how 50 states having 50 different ideas of how to run and pay for school systems or 50 different energy policies is good idea. The inequities and/or differences in priorities by states would be tremendous. There simply has to a standard bearer to have some semblance of equality for the country as a whole. as imperfect as it sometimes.

Trying to use the Constitution as justification to do away with these systems/protections is short sighted at best IMO.

1) You're hard pressed to find education and energy in the US Constitution.

2) States can do this more efficiently and have the freedom to design, implement, and fund these systems as they see fit.

3) You can cry equality and fairness all you want, but a fatter, more involved federal government will only compound these problems, not fix them. The war on poverty started in the 60's. Guess what...nowhere near ending.

4) No President (D or R) has the authority to sidestep the Constitution to legislate "fairness" or "equality." Any who does is leading us to a soft tyrrany.

5) US Dept of Education 2012 Budget: $74 BILLION.
US Dept of Energy 2012 Budget: $27 BILLION.

Before you bleeding hearts scream, "poor people will be living in the cold and dark!" and "kids won't be able to read or write!", NO. I'm saying these policies, decisions, revenues, and budgets are constitutionally left to the states, not Washington DC. I don't question the motive or the nobleness. I detest the avenue to which we put forth these efforts.

 

[Ndaccountant]

I understand your point also. The problem, as I see it, is we really can't afford for some to not succeed, can we?

In this case (education) as in many cases, if everyone would do the right thing then the need to have some oversight would not be needed. The problem is "the right thing" (whatever that is?) can be corrupted to other purposes and with the influences of special interest these days even oversight is suspect at best.

I really don't know how we find a balance to better serve everyone. I do think the influence that "special interests" have is out of control and is undermining the foundations the Constitution created.

Let me ask you the flip side.....is it okay to bring down some to make sure we are collectively more equal?

I agree that no regulation would be needed in a perfect world, but this world is far from perfect. My personal view is that we spend more time focusing on how to bring the bottom closer to the top rather than looking at how to push the top even higher. Agree everyone needs a strong education, but the more we focus on education equality the more likely our top continue to get passed over on a worldwide scale. We need to focus on doing both.

 

[RDU Irish]

Isn't that what the 15% goes to? I am not saying they should pay 0 tax, just a reduced amount if it is not their principle source of work.

15% capital gains rates apply to LONG TERM gains for investments held longer than one year. SHORT TERM gains are taxed as ordinary income, thus day traders are taxed on profits at the highest income tax rates. However, they do not pay FICA since their income can all be allocated to investments, not technically work.

If you think a bunch of people are getting rich day trading, you are crazy. A vast majority lose their butt and run back to work after their "program" falls apart. Only people destined never to invest think there is some free lunch out there in the markets.

 

[PraetorianND]

1) You're hard pressed to find education and energy in the US Constitution.

2) States can do this more efficiently and have the freedom to design, implement, and fund these systems as they see fit.

3) You can cry equality and fairness all you want, but a fatter, more involved federal government will only compound these problems, not fix them. The war on poverty started in the 60's. Guess what...nowhere near ending.

4) No President (D or R) has the authority to sidestep the Constitution to legislate "fairness" or "equality." Any who does is leading us to a soft tyrrany.

5) US Dept of Education 2012 Budget: $74 BILLION.
US Dept of Energy 2012 Budget: $27 BILLION.

Before you bleeding hearts scream, "poor people will be living in the cold and dark!" and "kids won't be able to read or write!", NO. I'm saying these policies, decisions, revenues, and budgets are constitutionally left to the states, not Washington DC. I don't question the motive or the nobleness. I detest the avenue to which we put forth these efforts.

Your entire argument would be valid if not for the Commerce Clause and case law.

 

[Ndaccountant]

15% capital gains rates apply to LONG TERM gains for investments held longer than one year. SHORT TERM gains are taxed as ordinary income, thus day traders are taxed on profits at the highest income tax rates. However, they do not pay FICA since their income can all be allocated to investments, not technically work.

If you think a bunch of people are getting rich day trading, you are crazy. A vast majority lose their butt and run back to work after their "program" falls apart. Only people destined never to invest think there is some free lunch out there in the markets.

You are correct. I was speaking more towards dividends (mainly because I am an income investor), but your point is spot on.

 

[Bluto]

This is where you and I probably couldn't disagree more. I think a better understanding of what capitalism really stands for is needed.

A doctor can be more efficient with ____ device--and save more people--and that is capitalism. It's a capital-intensive device (i.e. expensive). If I'm reading you correctly, you're probably against the profit seekers.

You know the difference between the nonprofits and the for-profits is only 7% right? The average profit margin of the S&P 500, last I checked, was 7%. Everyone else is still charging a price, at 7% discount I guess.

The drive for a profit has decreased the cost of every good and service since its inception. Where there is a free market we see prices plummet and quality rise. But we don't have a free market with medicine. We have a oligopoly of huge multi-national drug companies and a federal government controlling just who enters the marketplace (i.e. FDA). Not knocking the FDA's goal, but it does have its drawbacks.

One of the Marxists' biggest criticism of capitalism is that it the system often ended up in a monopoly/oligopoly setting. That's what has happened in medicine. We need policies that bring it back into the free market (i.e. open up state lines), not policies who simply force more costumers for either the monopolistic corporations or the government. That has never been a winner, long term, for the consumer.

As for education, for-profit schools can be a terrible thing. Can be. When regulations were too young with universities like Phoenix, they signed up homeless folks just for the federal aid. A lot of bad stuff happened in the short term. But sensible regulations catch up. I really don't know how anyone can oppose vouchers. Really, I just don't. To me it's just public schools, who get money for every kid in school, bitching about what they see as a runaway slave. The bigger plantation, the bigger the state check every year. I think we'd all be kidding ourselves if we thought that double-dipping superintendents couldn't be just as bad for our children as the Gordon Geckos of the world.

Hey Buster. This is a good post. I disagree with some of it of course (shocking I'm sure) but I'll explain that after I get off work. I know you will be waiting on pins and needles.

 

[RDU Irish]

Friend from Ireland was blown away that our private elementary school had ZERO government funding. He could not fathom why no dollars followed the kids. I really can't either. It really takes the choice away from parents. If you are going to allow home schooling and private schools, what reason do you have for NOT providing some level of funding for the education of those citizens while the others are 100% covered?

This issue is 100% teacher union IMO. Competition scares the hell out of them.