2012 Elections in the USA

I predicted awhile back that Romney would pick Ryan or Rubio. The selection of Ryan is being described by some as both bold and risky. I would agree. He's a smart guy and is to be commended for fighting for what he believes in. The problem is that his budget proposals are on the wrong side of the polls, by wide margins. Poll after poll has shown that most Americans support raising taxes on higher incomes, support cuts to defense over social programs, and will support minor but not major cuts to social programs.

Simpson-Bowles had a balanced approach to addressing the deficit, both raising revenues and cutting spending. While Obama didn't endorse it, neither did Congress. Paul Ryan was on the committee and actually voted against it. But at a high level, Obama favors a balanced approach and most Americans do as well. The Republican approach is unbalanced and relies on deep spending cuts. When you get to the specifics of the Republican approach, even Tea Party supporters reject it.

Republicans gave away Trillions to the wealthiest Americans. Now they say the only option to avoid a debt crisis is to accept drastic cuts to programs that benefit the poor and middle class. You have to be a sucker to accept this argument. And that is why Romney selected the slickest proponent of this false argument to be his VP.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;425143]Then you should have no problem going back to the Clinton spending levels, too. We can adjust them upward for the nominal increase in the population.[/QUOTE]So we do acknowledge that the last time Republicans and Romney's economic team where in command they fucke3d up even if Hubbard is your best friend.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;425143]Have you been keeping up with current events? Any idea what has been happening to defense spending? Considering that defending the nation is one of the few federal powers explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, I think that there are plenty of other programs to cut, prior to doing more damage to our national security.[/QUOTE]I think reversing the Defense cuts is the dumbest thing in Romney's plan. Obama actually used a Republican thinker Robert Gates to make the decisions on where the military should be cut. Then he sent Panetta, the Democrats budget cutter, to do the work. I also think he should keep the 2014 date for withdrawing from Afghanistan just like Bush gave Obama cover for retreating from Iraq. Romney and Ryan have no military experience even though they would have been of age during Vietnam and Desert Storm respectively.

The reason we need change is that Obama has underperformed relative to expectations. Many of Romney's and other Republican policies are screwy. Luckily we all know how to adapt to bad government.

[QUOTE=Esten;425152]very interesting.[/QUOTE]You did truncate my words. Why did you leave out "in the hyper-competitive SEC". Please elaborate. Inquiring minds want to know. Toymann.

Ps. Just so we can be clear we are talking about college football. Just in case you didn't notice. LMAO

I couldn't resist Toymann, I guess conservatives just don't have any sense of humor.... ;)

[QUOTE=Esten;425153]Poll after poll has shown that most Americans support raising taxes on higher incomes.[/QUOTE]Smart liberals like Esten know that this is a specious argument. Given that 50% of the poll respondents don't pay any income taxes, what they hear is the pollster asking them "Do you support taxing other people so the government can give the money to you?", and so of course they answer "Yes, I support raising taxes on the other guy".

Try taking a poll of people who actually pay income taxes and see if you get the same results.

[QUOTE=Esten;425153]Republicans gave away Trillions to the wealthiest Americans.[/QUOTE]Once again you're turned it around backwards. The Republicans didn't give away trillions to anyone because it was in fact the individual citizen's money to begin with. Only in liberal la-la land does a decision not to take somebody's money from them by force equal giving them money.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 425147]He's burnishing his AP creds with generic, non-chica-specific posts. I guess he is hoping that my post, requesting specific corroborating information. Which should be extremely easy for him to obtain (given his location in Recoleta). Will fall off the first page and he can try to return without anyone noticing.

According to his own posts, he's been mongering in Bs As since '04/'05, so he shouldn't have any trouble getting the rest of us comfortable with that issue.

Maybe he just isn't big enough to admit the error in his ways in making fun of disabled people.[/QUOTE]It was pouring rain here (in Buenos Aires, where I live, and YOU DON"T) all day and night yesterday so it wasn't particularly convenient for me to walk / drive over to the corner of Ayacucho and Santa Fe just to look at the location of a flower stand. How about this: if you are standing outside of the "monger mansion" looking at the street there is a Colombian restaurant "Los recuerdos" (as you enter "los recuerdos" the bar is on the right and the tables are on the left) to your right, a university directly in front and to the left, and a Subway directly to the left and on the corner. A half a block down to the right on the corner there is a new coffee place opening up where "drink stop" used to be. Any more irrelevant questions?

I certainly was not making fun of disabled people; Toymann appears to have an undiagnosed case of Asperger's Syndrome and if it is indeed the case it would explain his repetitive personal attacks and borderline erratic behavior.

[QUOTE=Toymann;425150]The Razorback firing was a classic example of horsesh$t liberalism driven by feminazi media bitchs. Clinton didn't lose his job for lying about a trist (IN THE OVAL OFFICE NO LESS). That said, as a cocks fan I couldn't help a rye smile as your program has given us fits the last couple of years. It's a shame your teams' administration bowed to liberal media pressure. Since when does being a bad husband, mean you should be fired from your job (that he was doing an amazing job at, I might add). The whole incident fell under the "no harm no foul" approach as far as I was concerned. Us cocks fans will take it any way we can in the hyper-competitive SEC though. I do send my condolences out to RazerBack fans. I just HATe feminazis and the ***** driven culture they have instilled in the US over the past 30 years. GO SEC DUDE. Toymann[/QUOTE]Long has been busy bending over so that A&M could screw Arkansas. My understanding is that A&M will replace Arkansas as your permanent SEC West opponent. A&M will replace Arkansas against LSU for the Black Friday game. And A&M has apparently gotten out of its 10 game commitment vs. Arkansas at Jerry World. This year or next is the last one between our 2 teams until they meet on a rotating basis. So, Long probably fired Petrino because he was feeling emasculated by A&M and needed to feel like a big boy again.

It's too bad I have enjoyed our rivalry.

[QUOTE=Jackson;425157]Smart liberals like Esten know that this is a specious argument. Given that 50% of the poll respondents don't pay any income taxes, what they hear is the pollster asking them "Do you support taxing other people so they government can give the money to you?", and so of course they answer "Yes, I support raising taxes on the other guy".

Try taking a poll of people who actually pay income taxes and see if you get the same results.

Once again you're turned it around backwards. The Republicans didn't give away trillions to anyone because it was in fact the individual citizen's money to begin with. Only in liberal la-la land does a decision not to take somebody's money from them by force equal giving them money.[/QUOTE]What liberals seem to forget is how well our economy functioned when government was smaller and people were more self-sufficient. It would have been nice to see what our country could have been like if you took the government of Thomas Jefferson and added in the technology improvements of today. But Roosevelt started the government dependency trend and we have been living beyond our collective means ever since. And the Federal Reserve has hidden the decline in our standard of living through inflation.

[QUOTE=Dccpa;425168]It's too bad I have enjoyed our rivalry.[/QUOTE]You not lying fella. Been some killer games over the years. Damn Feminazi's! Hate them all. Good luck with the new coach, you'll be good next year with those players coming back. Monger On Dude. Toymann

[QUOTE=Dccpa;425169]What liberals seem to forget is how well our economy functioned when government was smaller and people were more self-sufficient. It would have been nice to see what our country could have been like if you took the government of Thomas Jefferson and added in the technology improvements of today. But Roosevelt started the government dependency trend and we have been living beyond our collective means ever since. And the Federal Reserve has hidden the decline in our standard of living through inflation.[/QUOTE]Your statement about the decline in the standard of living going as far back as Roosevelt is intriguing. You also alluded to the possiblity of "utopia" had Jeffersonian governments continued. Please elaborate given human nature's tendency to self-destruct.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt;425179]Your statement about the decline in the standard of living going as far back as Roosevelt is intriguing. You also alluded to the possiblity of "utopia" had Jeffersonian governments continued. Please elaborate given human nature's tendency to self-destruct.[/QUOTE]I'll let DCCpa answer for himself. However, the decline, in my opinion dates to Theodore Roosevelt and his progressive ideals and his misguided vision and belief that man should be the arbiter of fairness. The began the encroachment upon our rights and freedoms and the decay of self-reliance and rugged individualism (ironic, given TR's image).

[QUOTE=Dccpa;425169]What liberals seem to forget is how well our economy functioned when government was smaller and people were more self-sufficient.[/QUOTE]
What time period are you talking about ?
How were standard of living metrics better then, vs. more recently (eg. under Clinton) ?
How were seniors better off without Social Security and Medicare ?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Thanks

[QUOTE=Jackson;425157]The Republicans didn't give away trillions to anyone because it was in fact the individual citizen's money to begin with. Only in liberal la-la land does a decision not to take somebody's money from them by force equal giving them money.[/QUOTE]Your ideological arguments are always entertaining Jackson, but make little sense in the real world.

There is a legal obligation to pay for services rendered, whether services are provided by a company or a government. In the case of a government, the services and obligations are ultimately determined by the people themselves, through our democratic election process. A government must be paid for. The Bush Tax Cuts contributed to subsequent deficits, meaning the government was not paid for.

What do you want, free government?

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=Esten;425198]There is a legal obligation to pay for services rendered, whether services are provided by a company or a government. In the case of a government, the services and obligations are ultimately determined by the people themselves, through our democratic election process. hat do you want, free government?[/QUOTE]You wrote "Republicans gave away trillions to the wealthiest Americans." You're starting to sound like Walleye on carried interest. Not only is the logic in your first post nonsensical, as Jackson pointed out, but the Bush tax cuts made the income tax system more progressive, according to the Congressional Budget Office and even the Citizens for Tax Justice.