Printable View
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 426949]The Job Creators with their Tax Breaks are NOT CREATING JOBS!
THAT IS THE TRUTH!
So, tell us Why THEY should Get Them?[/QUOTE]I agree. Tax breaks for businesses should be eliminated and their tax rates should be lowered. If there were a reasonable, fair, stable set of rules and Congress and the President weren't handing out special favors to campaign contributors and constituents, we'd be light years ahead. There would be more jobs.
Member#2041, most Republicans will never be completely honest about the success of the Stimulus, because it's too central to their core belief about limited government. They don't believe the government can effectively help the economy, despite abundant analyses that TARP and the Stimulus saved the United States from a far worse economic condition.
The 8% prediction was made by Christina Romer in January 2009, but the layoffs then accelerated much more than economists were forecasting. This threw off the baseline in Stimulus forecasts, but otherwise the predicted effects were pretty much on target. Later in 2010, Romer said [i]"One could have presented it differently. If we'd only talked about the effect of the stimulus on the change in unemployment [instead of predicting the unemployment rate itself]... it would have been better." [/i]
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/06/AR2010080606271.html[/url]
Republicans spend much less time refuting the claim that the Stimulus created or saved millions of jobs, because there are numerous economic analyses out there supporting this claim. It's easier to make people think of the Stimulus as a failure by focusing on the 8% prediction. This is a Republican deception that must be exposed at every opportunity.
[QUOTE=Tiny12; 426930][url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444813104578016873186217796.html?mod=googlenews_wsj[/url]
An excerpt, because you have to read to the end to get their line of reasoning,
"In reality, the biggest difference between this recovery and others hasn't been the nature of the crisis, but the nature of the policy prescriptions. Mr. Obama's chief anti-recession idea was a near trillion-dollar leap of faith in the Keynesian "multiplier" effect of government spending. It was the same approach that didn't work in the 1930s, didn't work in the 1970s, didn't work in 2008, and didn't work in such other nations as Japan. It didn't work again in 2009.[/QUOTE]WSJ is a right-wing news organization with the same owner as Fox News. Furthermore, this looks like an opinion piece not an economic analysis. Relying on one such article is like me presenting an opinion piece from HuffPost as proof. Tiny, I thought your research was more robust than that. If you want the truth about economic issues you need to look at what a broad spectrum of economists say, not Rupert Murdoch's News Corp media.
Look up the Chicago Booth poll of 40 economists on the 2009 stimulus. 92 percent agreed that the stimulus succeeded in reducing the jobless rate. On the harder question of whether the benefit exceeded the cost, more than half thought it did, one in three was uncertain, and fewer than one in six disagreed.
The USA Economic Policy Debate Is a Sham
[url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-23/the-u-s-economic-policy-debate-is-a-sham.html[/url]
John Williams of Shadowstats. Com keeps the real government statistics as they were calculated prior the the numerous adulturations over the years. [url]http://www.shadowstats.com/[/url]
According to Williams, there has been an actual net loss of jobs during the term of the Obama adminstration. Yet the BLS, bureau of lying statistics has done another recalculation and decided that even more jobs have been created in the last 4 years. The level of statistical lying in the Obama administration is starting to rival what occured under Reagan when the OMB would project 10% GDP growth so that the Gramm-Rudman budget cuts would not take effect.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 426937]You did not disappoint with your dodging of the origianl question regarding Obama and the Stimulus with total B / S.
Where is your defense of Obama's own promises in his own words regarding the upper level of unempolyment if the Stimulus was enacted and the rate of unemployment he promised by this date. You don't even dispute his promise of cutting the deficit by 50% during his first term, when he entered office the deficite was $10. 5 Trillion, now it's over $16 Trillion and growning. Answer? You don't really have one for a failed president and a failed policy.
You are just like Team Obama, crowed about 94, 000 jobs created in August while sweeping under the carpet the 368, 000 people who fell out of the work force. We have argued this point on the board before, sure unemployment is coming down not because the economy is creating jobs but because the BLS keeps reducing the size of the workforce, which is at a 30 year low. If you counted all the folks who want a job but can not fine one the unemployment rate is way over 10, more like 14 to 15.
I guess the next thing you are going to tell me is how it's a good thing the workforce is decreasing in size as it means more people now need to depend on the government, free food, free housing, free cell phones, free money![/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Member #2041;426883]Something that they learned from the Republicans during the Clinton and Bush administrations.[/QUOTE]Member this is the last time I will waste effort responding to you. Do you really think that evading Senate rules started in the last 10-20 years? If so, I have some ecologically sensitive land in Florida which I would like to show you. Someone can look up which particular Senator developed and implemented this idea, but it really doesn't matter. Your baseless answer did not address the main issue which is that one of the most signifcant pieces of legislation in the last several years was passed by virtue of evading Senatorial rules. The policies of both parties that the ends justify the means is a symptom of our dying political system.
[QUOTE=Esten; 426957]WSJ is a right-wing news organization with the same owner as Fox News. Furthermore, this looks like an opinion piece not an economic analysis. Relying on one such article is like me presenting an opinion piece from HuffPost as proof. Tiny, I thought your research was more robust than that. If you want the truth about economic issues you need to look at what a broad spectrum of economists say, not Rupert Murdoch's News Corp media.
Look up the Chicago Booth poll of 40 economists on the 2009 stimulus. 92 percent agreed that the stimulus succeeded in reducing the jobless rate. On the harder question of whether the benefit exceeded the cost, more than half thought it did, one in three was uncertain, and fewer than one in six disagreed.
The USA Economic Policy Debate Is a Sham.
[url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-23/the-u-s-economic-policy-debate-is-a-sham.html[/url][/QUOTE]Esten, you place too much emphasis on what the majority believes. Getting off the subject, sometimes I think you think government should rule based on polls and what the majority wants. This would be anathema to the founding fathers, who believed in personal liberty.
I agree that the stimulus reduced the jobless rate. I don't believe it was worth the cost. We're awash in debt. This gets back to what Member 2041 and I were arguing about. Other countries have gone through recessions worse than ours over the last 20 years and they emerged without having mortgaged their futures. They spent less and ended up with better results, including lower unemployment. Actually, after the 1998 Asian economic crisis, some of the countries had to do things that were the opposite of what Keynes would have recommended during a recession. They raised interest rates and got rid of subsidies and lowered government spending. The IMF and/or the market made them do it. They emerged with vibrant economies, and growth rates and unemployment rates that we'd envy. As the WSJ pointed out, interest rates went up to 14% when Reagan was president, but we still ended up with a vibrant recovery.
Japan did something similar to what we're doing. It has very large public debt and a stagnant economy, over 20 years after the crash.
The Huffington Post isn't in the same league with the WSJ.
[url]http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/117xx/doc11706/08-24-arra.pdf[/url]
Yes, there are assumptions made in the econometric modelling.
============================
http://factcheck.org/2012/09/romneys-stump-speech/
[QUOTE=Miami Bob; 426998][url]http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/117xx/doc11706/08-24-arra.pdf[/url]
Yes, there are assumptions made in the econometric modelling.[/QUOTE]I just scanned it so may be missing something. FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROGRAM it looks like we went $814 billion more into debt for a temporary increase in GDP (total goods and services generated by the USA) of about $850 billion, using midpoints in their table. I'm not an economist but know something about business and investments. And a $814 billion investment for a temporary $850 billion increase in sales is a pretty bad deal. You'd go bankrupt pretty quickly doing that on a much smaller scale. Using midpoints again, the gross wages through the years in the table of those who were employed who otherwise would not have been might be around $250 billion, which again is much less than we spent.
This was published in August, 2010. It's old.
[QUOTE=Dccpa;426972]Member this is the last time I will waste effort responding to you. Do you really think that evading Senate rules started in the last 10-20 years? If so, I have some ecologically sensitive land in Florida which I would like to show you. Someone can look up which particular Senator developed and implemented this idea, but it really doesn't matter. Your baseless answer did not address the main issue which is that one of the most signifcant pieces of legislation in the last several years was passed by virtue of evading Senatorial rules. The policies of both parties that the ends justify the means is a symptom of our dying political system.[/QUOTE]No, of course I don't believe this started in the past 20 years. But I DO believe that it is only during this time that the Democrats got nearly as good / ruthless / disciplined at it as the Republicans have been for much longer.
Good Morning.
Just a little something to think about.
Is it class warfare, to counter the extreme concentration of wealth and income that has occurred in the USA since the beginnings of the g w Bush presidency? Were w's policies that permitted so great a concentration of wealth effectively a class warfare on the part of the representative of the top. 5% against the other 99. 5% of the population. The doctor, lawyer, small business person earning $1 million dollars yearly may have more economically in common with the average worker than those in the top. 5.
Opinion piece by a pulitzer prize winning journalist-an opinion, but something to think about:
[url]http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html[/url]
I remember a history professor explaining[opinion, but a learned one] that the french revolution occurred when the top 9. 5% realized that they had more in common with the 99. 5% than the wealthiest aristocrats.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States[/url]
Yes, wiki is not a good source on it's own because anyone with any background or point of view can post. I posted this link so you can look at the footnotes and see the sources of the factual statements. The bottom line is that both income and wealth have become very concentrated in the top. 5-radically so since the time of reagan. This breaks a trend of increasing equality beginning after the end of the great depression / wwII. Has this trend starting in the late 70's and early 80's, itself been a form of "class warfare"?
I personally am very disappointed with Obama and the mitt. I will vote for Obama because mitt's choice of paul ryan[I would love to see 10 years of his income tax returns] meaNS THAT MITT will likely adapt the extreme supply sider point of view in searching for solutions to the dammed mess the USA economy is in today. As estan has pointed out, this extreme supply sider point of view-per the univ of chicago survey of the leading economists- is a small extreme viewpoint. I am specially referring to the very Herbert Hooverish view that stimulus does not create jobs- rather, we need to unleash the power and ability to accumulate wealth of the top. 5% of this nation and they will solve the problems with the help of the invisiable hand of the free market.
Mitt's income tax returns-to me the answer is likely that mitt took advantage of the 2009 amnesty to report hidden over-seas funds. There would be an outrage if this is revealed. Everything would be legal, but smell like old fish for someone who wants to be elected president.
One year ago, I was planning and hoping to vote for mitt. I read QUITE A BIT ABOUT HIM. There was a series in the New Yorker about his transition from the private to the public sector. I cannot remember the source, but there was a quotation from an interview mitt gave while governor. He said that working in the private sector was much easier: his job was to create value only for his shareholders within the bounds of the law. In the public sector there are many different conflicting public policy goals. I am disappointed by the policy choices he has made or is making. Having the personal skill set to govern as an autocrat at bain or the Olympic committee, is very different than leading the republican party and being a political leader to get things done in the capital.
I almost never post anything political on this forum because it is really about pussy and having fun in buenos aires and the personalities of the regulars. I am pretending that this is likely a different chatroom. Sorry for not proof reading. I will likely NOT READ ANYONES' REACTION TO THIS POSTING. HAVE FUN BOYS
Should Obama been a stronger and better leader-YES. Could the stimulus package has been more successful if it was not chopped up by the politicians in congress-yes. Is that on the dems-yes.
Does the way the 2008/09 stimulus and bail-outs were implemented means that stimulus is not a useful tool to jump start this economy, no
The Stimulus is what got the Auto Industry back into Business.
Romney said Fuck Them!
Why are you so many of you Blind and Deft? Also, can you not Read? You Can ONLY Listen Misinformations FOX Networks.
Deft, Blind and Dumb.
WTF?
[QUOTE=Miami Bob; 427019]Should Obama been a stronger and better leader-YES. Could the stimulus package has been more successful if it was not chopped up by the politicians in congress-yes. Is that on the dems-yes.
Does the way the 2008/09 stimulus and bail-outs were implemented means that stimulus is not a useful tool to jump start this economy, no[/QUOTE]
This what your and our Friends Governments care about Us.
Based on a True story.
[url]http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1448755/[/url]
[url]http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073240/[/url]
Greed is Good, Just Like A Pig.
The Meaning of Greed and Pigs are the Same.
Devour as much as you Can.
That is what the Republicans want us to, File Bankruptcy. So then they will look good.
Come On Wake Up.
Big business is holding millions from the people, so they can buy the Republicans.
Wake Up, see the trees before the forest. Not my quote, better men than I have said this, but I remember those great Men's Words.
[QUOTE=Tiny12; 427000]I just scanned it so may be missing something. FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROGRAM it looks like we went $814 billion more into debt for a temporary increase in GDP (total goods and services generated by the USA) of about $850 billion, using midpoints in their table. I'm not an economist but know something about business and investments. And a $814 billion investment for a temporary $850 billion increase in sales is a pretty bad deal. You'd go bankrupt pretty quickly doing that on a much smaller scale. Using midpoints again, the gross wages through the years in the table of those who were employed who otherwise would not have been might be around $250 billion, which again is much less than we spent.
This was published in August. 2010. It's old.[/QUOTE]
Some asshole said, I thing it might be Romney.
He Said Obama spent too much time playing Golf.
He has spent less time time off than most President in the last few years.
But Congress has taken two Vacations close together than Any other Congress.
No Pay No Work, Isn't that what You Want?
[url]http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/06/why-would-congress-take-a-five-week-vacation-with-all-the-problems-facing-the-country/[/url]
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 427042]Some asshole said, I thing it might be Romney.
He Said Obama spent too much time playing Golf.
He has spent less time time off than most President in the last few years.
But Congress has taken two Vacations close together than Any other Congress.
No Pay No Work, Isn't that what You Want?
[url]http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/06/why-would-congress-take-a-five-week-vacation-with-all-the-problems-facing-the-country/[/url][/QUOTE]Bush gave up golf after 9/11. He felt it was inappropriate to be playing golf while we were at war. Our current idiot in chief has no such concerns. No great surprise. Toymann
[url]http://politic365.com/2012/05/08/obamas-vacations-of-any-president-bush-racked-up-the-most/[/url]
[QUOTE=Toymann;427047]Bush gave up golf after 9/11. He felt it was inappropriate to be playing golf while we were at war. Our current idiot in chief has no such concerns. No great surprise. Toymann[/QUOTE]
Considering the cold relations between Obama and Netanyahu, the Iranian situation, and the failed Obama foreign policies, how could any American Jew or even Christians vote for Obama without thumbing their nose at Israel?
Isn't it obvious Obama doesn't like Israel, does anyone really think Obama would be any more congenial with Israel in a second term? He might show "more flexibility" with the Russians after the election but I doubt he will with Israel.
We need a POTUS that understands that Iran and other radical Muslim groups hate all none Muslins, be they Jew, Christian, atheist, or whatever, they want to convert you to teachings of Islam or kill you, there's no in between!
How can the United States or the World tolerate countries or groups who have openly called for the eradication of other nations and races of people from the face of the earth?
Appeasement perhaps? I think Hitler showed us how well that works, have you forgotten? I think these people are worse that Hitler, and perhaps soon they will be more powerful. Never forget, evil exist, it's real!
Don't think for a moment these radicals won't attack Israel or even the United States when they develop the capabilities, as WT69 would say 'Wake up'.
[QUOTE=Punter 127; 427106]Considering the cold relations between Obama and Netanyahu, the Iranian situation, and the failed Obama foreign policies, how could any American Jew or even Christians vote for Obama without thumbing their nose at Israel?
Isn't it obvious Obama doesn't like Israel, does anyone really think Obama would be any more congenial with Israel in a second term? He might show "more flexibility" with the Russians after the election but I doubt he will with Israel.
We need a POTUS that understands that Iran and other radical Muslim groups hate all none Muslins, be they Jew, Christian, atheist, or whatever, they want to convert you to teachings of Islam or kill you, there's no in between!
How can the United States or the World tolerate countries or groups who have openly called for the eradication of other nations and races of people from the face of the earth?
Appeasement perhaps? I think Hitler showed us how well that works, have you forgotten? I think these people are worse that Hitler, and perhaps soon they will be more powerful. Never forget, evil exist, it's real!
Don't think for a moment these radicals won't attack Israel or even the United States when they develop the capabilities, as WT69 would say 'Wake up'.[/QUOTE]The current US / European sanctions regime against Iran is working as intended and will probably "starve" Iran into serious negotiations within the next 6-12 months. Just yesterday the value of the Iranian Rial v. USD fell 17% IN ONE DAY and is now at an all-time low v. USD. Even the Israelis themselves are starting to see that starving the Iranians economically is a far better choice than launching a pre-emptive attack with an uncertain probability of success and guaranteed undesirable consequences. Plummeting real wages and 29% annual inflation are far more likely to lead to regime change than a military attack.
[url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9580540/Iranian-currency-plummets-to-record-low-as-US-sanctions-take-hold.html[/url]
[url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9577106/Iran-sanctions-may-provoke-Arab-Spring-of-its-own-Israel-claims.html[/url]
[url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444592404578029810117268752.html[/url]
Well, I'm Jewish, and most of my Jewish friends are voting for Obama. The fact is, all American Presidents are pro-Israel. Obama might not be pro-the Netanyahu regime, but neither are most American Jews, IMHO. The claim that Obama is anti-Israel is a myth - which is not to be confused with his having major issues with Netanyahu. But Netanyahu is not Israel, he's just the current, and hardest-line Israeli leader in quite some time. And that being said, it's silly to assume that most Jews are 1-issue voters, or even that Israel is the most important issue to most American Jews. Like everyone else, Jews are driven by the economy, and they are also very Liberal on social issues, and by and large repelled by the Romney swing to the ultra-conservative in social issues, and they care about the sort of Justices get nominated to the SCOTUS - and they want Liberals (note that 3 of the 4 Liberal Justices on the Court are Jews). I'd say most American Jews care more about the 1st two of these issues than about the nuances of how hard pro Israel an American President is, within the context that no American President ever has been, nor ever will be actually Anti-Israel - despite the Republicans' desire to perpetrate this myth that Obama actually is Anti-Israel.
[QUOTE=SnakeOilSales; 427107]The current US / European sanctions regime against Iran is working as intended and will probably "starve" Iran into serious negotiations within the next 6-12 months. Just yesterday the value of the Iranian Rial v. USD fell 17% IN ONE DAY and is now at an all-time low v. USD. Even the Israelis themselves are starting to see that starving the Iranians economically is a far better choice than launching a pre-emptive attack with an uncertain probability of success and guaranteed undesirable consequences. Plummeting real wages and 29% annual inflation are far more likely to lead to regime change than a military attack.
[url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9580540/Iranian-currency-plummets-to-record-low-as-US-sanctions-take-hold.html[/url]
[url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9577106/Iran-sanctions-may-provoke-Arab-Spring-of-its-own-Israel-claims.html[/url]
[url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444592404578029810117268752.html[/url][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Member #2041;427108]Well, I'm Jewish, and most of my Jewish friends are voting for Obama. The fact is, all American Presidents are pro-Israel. Obama might not be pro-the Netanyahu regime, but neither are most American Jews, IMHO. The claim that Obama is anti-Israel is a myth - which is not to be confused with his having major issues with Netanyahu. But Netanyahu is not Israel, he's just the current, and hardest-line Israeli leader in quite some time. And that being said, it's silly to assume that most Jews are 1-issue voters, or even that Israel is the most important issue to most American Jews. Like everyone else, Jews are driven by the economy, and they are also very Liberal on social issues, and by and large repelled by the Romney swing to the ultra-conservative in social issues, and they care about the sort of Justices get nominated to the SCOTUS - and they want Liberals (note that 3 of the 4 Liberal Justices on the Court are Jews). I'd say most American Jews care more about the 1st two of these issues than about the nuances of how hard pro Israel an American President is, within the context that no American President ever has been, nor ever will be actually Anti-Israel - despite the Republicans' desire to perpetrate this myth that Obama actually is Anti-Israel.[/QUOTE]In 2008 Obama's class warfare thing had me scared. But I thought there were several silver linings. He would be liberal on social issues. He would improve our standing in Islamic world and he would have a more balanced relationship with Israel. And he'd extract us from Iraq quickly and spend less money on military aid to foreign countries. He did none of the above. He's the worst of both worlds. A wasteful spender who keeps government involved in every aspect of our lives. Civil liberties were arguably better under Bush than Obama. Or at least there hasn't been a lot of change. Under Bush you didn't have federal cops busting medical marijuana outfits. Bush used drones wisely while Obama doesn't give a crap if he kills lots of civilians.
Romney swung to the right on social and foreign policy issues to get the religious conservative vote. If he were actually elected, I think he'd perform about the same or better on social issues than Obama.
[QUOTE=Tiny12; 427116]In 2008 Obama's class warfare thing had me scared. But I thought there were several silver linings. He would be liberal on social issues. He would improve our standing in Islamic world and he would have a more balanced relationship with Israel. And he'd extract us from Iraq quickly and spend less money on military aid to foreign countries. He did none of the above. He's the worst of both worlds. A wasteful spender who keeps government involved in every aspect of our lives. Civil liberties were arguably better under Bush than Obama. Or at least there hasn't been a lot of change. Under Bush you didn't have federal cops busting medical marijuana outfits. Bush used drones wisely while Obama doesn't give a crap if he kills lots of civilians.
Romney swung to the right on social and foreign policy issues to get the religious conservative vote. If he were actually elected, I think he'd perform about the same or better on social issues than Obama.[/QUOTE]I think it is nonsense to believe that Romney will not be so deeply indebted to the Religious Right if he actually wins, that he will not do their bidding. I take the man at his word, that what he has said in this election he supports. He actually supports. And the choice of Paul Ryan as his running mate confirmed this for me. And frankly, that is why I would never consider voting for him. Were he the same candidate who Governed Massachusetts, I could easily vote for him (pro-choice to a point, universal healthcare via a mandate that all folks carry insurance. But he has been crystal clear in disavowing every one of his "moderate" positions. And not only that, he clearly shows that his positions are not based in principle, but in getting himself elected. And in doing so, he missed any real opportunity for me to support him. Oh, and BTW, Obama DID get us out of Iraq. And Bush didn't use drones sufficiently to actually get any of the major terrorists that have planned attacks that have killed many Americans. Obama has.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;426984]Esten, you place too much emphasis on what the majority believes.[/QUOTE]Well, when it comes to a subject one is not an expert in (such as the economy, science, medicine, etc) , sometimes it helps to listen to what the experts say. That should at least be part of one's research when trying to learn the truth about something (doesn't mean you have to agree though).
There's an article out that a majority of economists surveyed by CNNmoney think Romney would be better for the economy. You probably won't dismiss that one.
[QUOTE]Getting off the subject, sometimes I think you think government should rule based on polls and what the majority wants. This would be anathema to the founding fathers, who believed in personal liberty.[/QUOTE]Sure, whatever that means.
[QUOTE=Esten; 425200]With the Ryan pick to boost his struggling campaign, Romney is hoping for a boost in the polls. People will be watching the polls, especially the electoral college to detect any shifts. If they shift in Obama's favor, it's all but over.
I am really shaking my head at what Romney has done. Lagging in the polls, what does he do? He makes scaling back Medicare an election focus. I thought the plan was to make it a referendum on Obama? This could turn quite badly for Republicans. We will see.
Electoral College 8/13/2012 (realclearpolitics) (270 to win)
Obama 237
Romney 191
Toss Ups 110
Toss Up States (Electoral Votes) :
Colorado (9) Obama +1.2
Florida (29) Obama +1.4
Iowa (6) Obama +1.0
Nevada (6) Obama +5.3
New Hampshire (4) Obama +2.6
North Carolina (15) Romney +1.0
Ohio (18) Obama +4.8
Virgina (13) Obama +3.2
Wisconsin (10) Obama +5.4[/QUOTE]
That first check-in was 08-13-12. Since then, 3 states moved from Toss Up to Leans Obama (Wisconsin, Ohio, New Hampshire), while 1 state moved from Leans Romney to Toss Up (Missouri). Quite a shift, and Obama increased his lead in most of the remaining toss ups. This is driven largely by two things. First, a good DNC convention that got the real Democrat message out (not the Fox News distortion of the Democrat message). Second, the video where Romney dissed 47% of the population. Thanks to Jimmy Carter's grandson.... poetic justice at its sweetest. Here's the new benchmark to judge the effect of the upcoming debates.
Electoral College 10/2/2012 (realclearpolitics) (270 to win)
Obama 269
Romney 181
Toss Ups 88
Toss Up States (Electoral Votes) :
Colorado (9) Obama +3.1
Florida (29) Obama +3.0
Iowa (6) Obama +3.5
Nevada (6) Obama +5.2
North Carolina (15) ---tie---
Virginia (13) Obama +3.7
Missouri (10) Romney +5.0
Saw this on Fox, a quote from a Republican woman running for the state senate in Illinois. I believe this is the most succinct description of ObamaCare I have seen: simple, easy to understand, and to the point. Enjoy
'Now let me get this straight. We are going to be gifted with a health care plan that we are forced to purchase, and fined if we don't, ' Bellar continues, 'signed by a president who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's broke. '
[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 427172]Saw this on Fox, a quote from a Republican woman running for the state senate in Illinois. I believe this is the most succinct description of ObamaCare I have seen: simple, easy to understand, and to the point. Enjoy
'Now let me get this straight. We are going to be gifted with a health care plan that we are forced to purchase, and fined if we don't, ' Bellar continues, 'signed by a president who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's broke. '[/QUOTE]
She left out the following: "and which happens to be a dead ringer for the plan that Mitt Romney implemented in Massachusetts while he was the Governor of that state."
What is most interesting about Obama-care is how it was based upon the principles long espoused by Conservative Republicans, such as the Heritage Foundation, who originally developed and promoted the concept of the universal mandate as a means of insuring that one's insurance purchase decision would not be subject to moral hazard, and that this concept was implemented the same way in Obama-care as it was by Romney in Massachusetts, and which was also advocated by John McCain during the last Presidential election. But the fact that Obama put his name on it caused all of these Republicans to suddenly run away from their own ideas, simply to attempt to deny Obama any sort of victory for having been the first to implement a national healthcare program for those other than the poor and elderly.
In actual fact, the vast majority of Democrats would have preferred a plan with either the government as the single payer, or the government providing a public option for those who could not afford private insurance. But Obama went with the far LESS expansive, long time Republican-advocated solution. And the lack of popularity of that decision is a result of his NOT doing what Democrats wanted, and seeing that Republicans had no problem whatsoever in abandoning their own ideas if it meant trying to poke Obama in the eye.
Member, she did not leave anything out.
As you allege ObamaCare is 'just like' the bill in Mass, please delineate point by point how it is the same. We should have some fun here considering ObamaCare only mimics the Mass plan in that of universal coverage. Check out the increases in costs of the plan, none of the promised 'savings'.
As you allege ObamaCare parrots a Republican plan, please delineate point by point what Republican plan that might be. This should also be fun since Republicans never proposed anything like ObamaCare.
Obama did not pass the one payer plan because he could not get the votes FROM HIS OWN PARTY! To pass what has become ObamaCare the Democrats and to cut deals with other Democrats to get their vote that if such 'bargaining' had taken place outside the House & Senate it would have been patently criminal. But what is a little criminal behavior among Democrats?
By the way, not one Republican voted for it, but it passed both House and Senate, so if Obama never had a filibuster proof lock on both houses just how did it pass without a single Republican vote?
As a sidebar.
I can predict before the debates even begin, Member, Snake and Esten to name a few will delcare Obama the winner regardless how he does.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;427180]Member, she did not leave anything out.[/QUOTE]Fundamentally, her complaint was about the fact that Obama-care has a universal mandate REQUIRING her to buy insurance. As I pointed out, and you either failed to read, or ignored, that is a Republican concept. It was developed by the Heritage Foundation and implemented by Romney in Massachusetts. In that glib quote which you claimed was comprehensive and concise, she actually had no substantive complaint about the program, just the people involved - other than the Universal Mandate. Which Obama lifted from the Heritage / Romney plans.
The simple fact is, Obama chose the Republican approach to healthcare - the other approaches would all have been MORE expansive, and MORE expensive. There is simply no way to insure that we cover everyone without incurring costs.
As far as costs go, what were costs doing PRIOR to Obama's program? They were rising at triple the rate of inflation. Take away Obama-care, and again, we can expect that health-care costs will again rise at triple the rate of inflation. The fact is, you cannot claim that costs will be higher under Obama-care, on a per-insured basis, than they were on a trajectory to be without Obama-care. The only added costs for Obama-care stem from more people actually getting coverage and medical care. And that's a GOOD thing.
The only direct cost comparison I can make is for my own health-care costs. And they will be cut in half under Obama-care compared to what I experience under my HIPAA plan that I currently have. They will revert back close to the levels I was paying before I was dropped from my insurer (adjusted for the trajectory that those costs were rising annually prior to Obama-care).
The biggest myth about health-care PRIOR to Obama's program is that Americans had good health care. SOME Americans did, but over 50 Million could not get coverage at all. In actual fact, almost every American was at risk of losing their coverage if they got sick. I personally was dropped from my coverage because I was diagnosed as a Diabetic, and a couple of years later, the company I worked for went out of business. As a result, the ONLY insurance I can obtain in the marketplace prior to Obama-care's full implementation is an abysmal HIPAA plan, which is far worse than the insurance I had previously, and would have chosen to continue to have. AND, it costs 3 times what my prior group coverage cost, and had less coverage across the board. And that situation could happen to everyone prior to Obama-care. What we need is a situation where folks can't be easily dropped by their carrier simply because they get diagnosed with a chronic condition. And over 20 Million Americans, including myself, have had that happen, and can finally again get the same coverage I had and paid for before I was dropped under Obama-care.
The fact is, until you tell us what the alternative was for providing coverage for the 50 Million Americans who didn't have access to insurance PRIOR to Obama-care, any anti-Obama-care argument is absurd and irrelevant.
You seem to suggest that it was not only acceptable, but Good that any American could get dropped from their coverage simply for getting sick, or having their employment situation change. Which is, of course, ridiculous, but that was the reality prior to Obama-care.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 427180]As a sidebar.
I can predict before the debates even begin, Member, Snake and Esten to name a few will delcare Obama the winner regardless how he does.[/QUOTE]And just like nearly everything else you post on this forum, this is simply factually incorrect. I believe Romney won the debate. What remains to be seen is to what extent that matters.
Obama or any President is not going to win an election with 8% unemployment. It's just too big of hurdle to overcome. Romney just needs to keep bringing up the facts.
Romney is very hard to attack because he does not lay out specifics. He is not cutting military, education or medicare. Well what is it he is going to cut and what are the unintended consequences of his policies? He is keeping like I forecast the benefits of Obamacare like preexisting conditions and children covered until they are age 26. Somehow this will magically happen without the tax increase. All the benefits and none of the sacrifice.
When Obama is swinging at Romney it is like swinging at vapor. There is nothing there to hit.
I am fairly convinced Romney wins in November. I do not see how Obama turns this around after tonight's pummeling.
[QUOTE=Big Boss Man; 427186]Obama or any President is not going to win an election with 8% unemployment. It's just too big of hurdle to overcome. Romney just needs to keep bringing up the facts.
Romney is very hard to attack because he does not lay out specifics. He is not cutting military, education or medicare. Well what is it he is going to cut and what are the unintended consequences of his policies? He is keeping like I forecast the benefits of Obamacare like preexisting conditions and children covered until they are age 26. Somehow this will magically happen without the tax increase. All the benefits and none of the sacrifice.
When Obama is swinging at Romney it is like swinging at vapor. There is nothing there to hit.
I am fairly convinced Romney wins in November. I do not see how Obama turns this around after tonight's pummeling.[/QUOTE]At the end of the day, Romney winning a debate still doesn't mean that a voter in Ohio who's job was saved by the auto bail-out will vote for Romney, who has already suggested that those workers SHOULD have lost their jobs as GM was forced into bankruptcy. Romney still can't win the election without winning Ohio. The 8% unemployment number is big, but Romney still has to establish that he'd be the President of the poor and the Middle Class who he has already dissed, and not just the wealthy.
BTW, John Kerry pummeled George W. Bush in the debates 8 years ago. Guess who won the election - because he won Ohio.
Romney looked very sharp in tonight's debate (as he needed to be) and clearly "won" the debate over Obama. Obama looked very uncomfortable up there and really shot himself in the foot by not showing up to the debate fired up, prepared and ready to issue a coup d'grace to Romney. Obama stammered, misspoke, and at times appeared very unpolished and flustered. Romney, on the other hand, spoke eloquently, fluidly and kept an even keel when Obama attacked him. Had Obama outdone Romney tonight he could have sealed the deal but this (non) performance by Obama may have just given Romney a legitimate chance to change people's minds.
Romney did all right. But Doppelganger is correct, I do think Obama won the debate.
As another poster noted, Romney was vapor, promising all good things and not always explaining how he gets it done. He reinforced his image as a guy who will say anything to get elected. He also seemed more agitated while Obama kept his cool.
Romney doubled down on the unpopular Medicare voucher plan. Obama effectively explained how a profit-driven industry could easily make a competing Medicare go bust. Romney continued to not explain how he offsets a 20% across-the-board tax cut without hurting the middle class. Obama countered this fairly tale by noting you can't do that, increase Defense spending, and balance the budget all at the same time, it's simple math.
When it boils down to the specifics, this debate just reinforced positions that have been helping Obama. People think the Clinton years were better than the Bush years, and it's clear which approach each candidate comes closest to. Expect the Obama campaign to continue running on the substantive positions which majorities of Americans agree with.
Well it is gratifying to see a little application of Psy-Ops 101 before the debate worked on some of the liberals on the board to get an honest assessment but not all, Esten still thinks Obama won on substance after Obama had his ass handed to him most of the evening. It must be embarrassing to have to have one of the moderators come to your rescue as Romney thrashes you.
A good debate and it shows without a teleprompter Obama rambles with no real direction. This is supposed to be the smartest guy in the room? For Democrats it must have been painful to watch their guy trot out the same old tired catch phrases from 2008 which don't get any traction today and quite frankly offend most folks intelligence. Of course we can always depend on Biden to help out with the 'middle class got buried' gems. Are you Democrats sure Biden is on your side?
Looking forward to the next debate, Obama found out that just being the Prez does not cut it, rock star status does not translate well in the real world. Obama just looked bad. On the morning news shows all the Obama reps looked as if they had just swallowed a dose of castor oil while the Romney reps look like the cat that got the canary.
Really looking forward to the Biden and Ryan debate, talk about King Kong vs the smurf!
[QUOTE=SnakeOilSales;427190]Romney looked very sharp in tonight's debate (as he needed to be) and clearly "won" the debate over Obama. Obama looked very uncomfortable up there and really shot himself in the foot by not showing up to the debate fired up, prepared and ready to issue a coup d'grace to Romney. Obama stammered, misspoke, and at times appeared very unpolished and flustered. Romney, on the other hand, spoke eloquently, fluidly and kept an even keel when Obama attacked him. Had Obama outdone Romney tonight he could have sealed the deal but this (non) performance by Obama may have just given Romney a legitimate chance to change people's minds.[/QUOTE]Wow! SOS. Good analysis.
I hate to say it but Obama has never been very good at debates. 2008 Democratic primaries or 2008 presidential debates. But there is a reason Obama does not shine in debates. I think Obama is worried that if he says what he really believes. You didn't build that. Obama will reveal his true self.
I will say, if Obama could say it like he sees it, Obama would be an effective debator. However, Obama sees the world through Karl Marx glasses, and Obama cannot let that slip. Consequently, we have Obama looking like Alfred E Newman on a bad day.
[url]http://factcheck.org/2012/10/dubious-denver-debate-declarations/[/url]
Surprisingly, the corrupt media was unable to protect their paper tiger, this time. I wouldn't count them (Obama and the State-run media) out, just yet. Jim Lehrer screwed up with both his format and his inability to talk over Romney and inability to cut Romney off, while offering Obama repeated lifelines.
What we saw last night was the metaphorical fatted-calf (Marxist-based American liberalism) being slaughtered, upon the return of the prodigal son (American virtue, descended, in part, from the Founding Documents).
Until Univision hit Obama with tough questions (about two weeks ago) , this man has never, ever faced tough questions and / or pointed attack within a forum that he (or his handlers) couldn't control or from which he couldn't be rapidly extricated. His failure last night was not due to lack of practice or having Lurch as a debate coach. Obama failed for two very simple reasons: 1) it is extremely difficult to defend abject failure (no matter how good you are with the TV camera) and 2) he is completely out of touch with the facts (as was clearly evident with his fact-less ramblings, last night). The first item is self explanatory: gas prices have doubled, economy has eroded, there are fewer people in the work force than anytime in the last 50 years, healthcare costs have gone up and during a time of economic crisis this president has given trillions of dollars to his cronies and political supporters (need I continue?). The latter (being out of touch with the facts) has more complex roots that have a direct causal relationship to the aforementioned catastrophic failure of his first and hopefully only, term.
Obama is a troglodyte, living in an ideological cave into which no intellectual light ever shines. All of his decisions (the ones Valarie Jarret doesn't make for him) occur within the limited context of an indoctrinated Marxist. So you have someone who is living in a made up world completely detached from the real world practicing and espousing a philosophy that is also made up and is divorced from reality. This is extremely difficult for the human brain to perpetuate on its own because all of the "truisms" and "trans-formative events" of one's existence are made up and are incorporated into one's mind through rote memorization as opposed to becoming intrinsically part of one's being through experiential learning. The problem for someone like Obama is running into someone who has the truth on his side, in a relatively ideologically neutral environment. You see, once you have told so many lies, it is nearly impossible to remember exactly what your version of the "truth" is.
The false narrative that has been playing in the press (I. E. Romney's campaign is failing, Obama has it in the bag, etc) are just a continuation of the practices that have allowed this completely unqualified buffoon to occupy the most important, secular position on earth. While it appears that some of the varnish is finally coming off, allowing the viewer to see the cheap scrap wood hidden under the finish, that too is part of the false narrative of the press. The American people started to see the error of their ways, shortly after selecting this moron to further destroy the economy. The monumental awakening that occurred last night was not that of the American people, finally seeing past the flimsy veneer, it was the forcible enlightening to the media that not only does the emperor have no clothes but also, a plurality of Americans have known it, for some time.
It is way too early to call this race. Unfortunately, there is time, motive and opportunity for Obama and his minions to foist an October surprise (my money is on bombing aspirin factories in Libya but, it could be any number of things) on us. There already are plenty of signs of the old Democrat-voter-fraud-machine working in high gear: military absentee ballots are down something like 80% from '08 (which I highly doubt is due to a lack of interest on behalf of the military) and legally instituted voter I'd laws are being cast aside by unelected, unprincipled folks.
However, I have to hold out the hope that the electorate can properly see the stark differences between the paths and chose the one that is uniquely American and reject the one rooted in Marxism, racism and class warfare.
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 427206]Surprisingly, the corrupt media was unable to protect their paper tiger, this time. I wouldn't count them (Obama and the State-run media) out, just yet. Jim Lehrer screwed up with both his format and his inability to talk over Romney and inability to cut Romney off, while offering Obama repeated lifelines.
What we saw last night was the metaphorical fatted-calf (Marxist-based American liberalism) being slaughtered, upon the return of the prodigal son (American virtue, descended, in part, from the Founding Documents).
Until Univision hit Obama with tough questions (about two weeks ago) , this man has never, ever faced tough questions and / or pointed attack within a forum that he (or his handlers) couldn't control or from which he couldn't be rapidly extricated. His failure last night was not due to lack of practice or having Lurch as a debate coach. Obama failed for two very simple reasons: 1) it is extremely difficult to defend abject failure (no matter how good you are with the TV camera) and 2) he is completely out of touch with the facts (as was clearly evident with his fact-less ramblings, last night). The first item is self explanatory: gas prices have doubled, economy has eroded, there are fewer people in the work force than anytime in the last 50 years, healthcare costs have gone up and during a time of economic crisis this president has given trillions of dollars to his cronies and political supporters (need I continue?). The latter (being out of touch with the facts) has more complex roots that have a direct causal relationship to the aforementioned catastrophic failure of his first and hopefully only, term.
Obama is a troglodyte, living in an ideological cave into which no intellectual light ever shines. All of his decisions (the ones Valarie Jarret doesn't make for him) occur within the limited context of an indoctrinated Marxist. So you have someone who is living in a made up world completely detached from the real world practicing and espousing a philosophy that is also made up and is divorced from reality. This is extremely difficult for the human brain to perpetuate on its own because all of the "truisms" and "trans-formative events" of one's existence are made up and are incorporated into one's mind through rote memorization as opposed to becoming intrinsically part of one's being through experiential learning. The problem for someone like Obama is running into someone who has the truth on his side, in a relatively ideologically neutral environment. You see, once you have told so many lies, it is nearly impossible to remember exactly what your version of the "truth" is.
The false narrative that has been playing in the press (I. E. Romney's campaign is failing, Obama has it in the bag, etc) are just a continuation of the practices that have allowed this completely unqualified buffoon to occupy the most important, secular position on earth. While it appears that some of the varnish is finally coming off, allowing the viewer to see the cheap scrap wood hidden under the finish, that too is part of the false narrative of the press. The American people started to see the error of their ways, shortly after selecting this moron to further destroy the economy. The monumental awakening that occurred last night was not that of the American people, finally seeing past the flimsy veneer, it was the forcible enlightening to the media that not only does the emperor have no clothes but also, a plurality of Americans have known it, for some time.
It is way too early to call this race. Unfortunately, there is time, motive and opportunity for Obama and his minions to foist an October surprise (my money is on bombing aspirin factories in Libya but, it could be any number of things) on us. There already are plenty of signs of the old Democrat-voter-fraud-machine working in high gear: military absentee ballots are down something like 80% from '08 (which I highly doubt is due to a lack of interest on behalf of the military) and legally instituted voter I'd laws are being cast aside by unelected, unprincipled folks.
However, I have to hold out the hope that the electorate can properly see the stark differences between the paths and chose the one that is uniquely American and reject the one rooted in Marxism, racism and class warfare.[/QUOTE]Break it down for us simple folks, my head is spinning. (3 smiles)
"Trickle down government" that about says it all. Explains why we are all hurting. Government is not the answer to our problems. Government is the problem.