EPTEdit: need to fix this link.
President Obama Re-Elected - Page 126
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
Edit: need to fix this link. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On June 13 2012 22:35 paralleluniverse wrote: Where are the welfare payments and Medicare in that graph? Here you go sir, a more detailed summary courtesy of the CBO. The Federal Budget The graphic is too large to post here. Right now, you have a $1.3 Trillion dollar gap to cover. The cost of Social Security is going to escalate as the population ages. So what get's cut? Romney has indicated that he would not touch defense spending, or corporate tax loopholes to increase revenue. Also bear in mind that Romney wants to decrease the income tax rate, decreasing revenue further. To be honest, unless you increase revenue, it seems like you'd have to gut almost all social 'welfare' programs and Medicare, such as veterans benefits and food stamps, to get close to balancing the budget. Which would be so unpopular I can't imagine Romney actually doing that. The Bush tax cuts represent $6.2 trillion in lost revenue from 2002 - 2011. It seems foolish to me to pretend to balance the budget without considering how to make more money. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On June 14 2012 03:26 Defacer wrote: To be honest, unless you increase revenue, it seems like you'd have to gut almost all social 'welfare' programs and Medicare, such as veterans benefits and food stamps, to get close to balancing the budget. Which would be so unpopular I can't imagine Romney actually doing that. I think you overestimate the backlash that would occur. I'm not sure that's the correct answer, but it's without a doubt an option that is on the table. The claim that "If we just undo Bush everything would be right" is just extremely dishonest. If we undid the spending programs of FDR, our government would be rich as hell. I'm not so much advocating this particular strategy as much as I'm just pointing out a flaw in the perspective that particular graph portrays. It's a far more complicated problem than that graph lays out. | ||
|
Synwave
United States2803 Posts
Then again Ive always figured Im far to simple for these concepts because I forget it is about consolidating power, not fixing things. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On June 14 2012 03:26 Defacer wrote: The Bush tax cuts represent $6.2 trillion in lost revenue from 2002 - 2011. It seems foolish to me to pretend to balance the budget without considering how to make more money. This figure is not the whole story though. How much increase in PI taxes and other tangential benefits did it net us? Higher GDP, attracting corporate business, retainment of corporate business, research and development reinvestment, etc. Nobody EVER tries to find the actual answer, they just use figures or deny figures in a manner that helps them achieve what they percieve to be the correct agenda. | ||
|
AmorFatiAbyss
51 Posts
Democratic forms of government are unsuited to reality, because the people are unsuited to reality. They want to be lied to. They want to have their cake and eat it too. I guess the proper solution is to just pretend we are in no financial troubles at all until the shit hits the fan. That's where people like Krugman become useful. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On June 14 2012 03:36 BluePanther wrote: I think you overestimate the backlash that would occur. I'm not sure that's the correct answer, but it's without a doubt an option that is on the table. The claim that "If we just undo Bush everything would be right" is just extremely dishonest. If we undid the spending programs of FDR, our government would be rich as hell. I'm not so much advocating this particular strategy as much as I'm just pointing out a flaw in the perspective that particular graph portrays. It's a far more complicated problem than that graph lays out. I don't think Romney has the balls. There's enough conservative voters out there that still rely on welfare for them not to have serious buyer's remorse if Romney actually cut those programs substantially. I'm not disagreeing with your general statement at all. I'm aware that ending the Bush tax cut doesn't come close to balancing the budget. But neither is, say, deleting Food stamps completely. It doesn't come close to solving the problem. And there's plenty of people arguing that by removing those social welfare programs, you're just pushing people further below the poverty line which isn't good for the economy either. Let's just agree that neither candidate seems to have a real plan that both helps the middle-class AND reduces the deficit. | ||
|
Lightwip
United States5497 Posts
On June 14 2012 03:39 Synwave wrote: Call me simplistic but the easiest way to cut a deficit is to spend less while making the same. No need to make more money. Then again Ive always figured Im far to simple for these concepts because I forget it is about consolidating power, not fixing things. Politicians seem to agree with you. That's why we pretty much get nothing done and don't increase revenue. | ||
|
Synwave
United States2803 Posts
On June 14 2012 04:46 Lightwip wrote: Politicians seem to agree with you. That's why we pretty much get nothing done and don't increase revenue. Where did I say this was a good thing. Or do you mean they agree with my first two sentences? In which case please explain your logic. | ||
|
danl9rm
United States3111 Posts
On June 14 2012 03:39 Synwave wrote: Call me simplistic but the easiest way to cut a deficit is to spend less while making the same. No need to make more money. Then again Ive always figured Im far to simple for these concepts because I forget it is about consolidating power, not fixing things. This is exactly what I tell all my friends/relatives that work more and more and more each year to pay off their debts. Stop working more and start spending less. I think our nation could do the same. That said, that's not the most pressing issue to me, and so will not influence my vote. The most pressing issue to me is the unfettered killing of the unborn. Because of that, I cannot vote for Obama. I will be forced to vote for whoever is left. I guess that's Romney. | ||
|
stk01001
United States786 Posts
On June 14 2012 05:13 danl9rm wrote: This is exactly what I tell all my friends/relatives that work more and more and more each year to pay off their debts. Stop working more and start spending less. I think our nation could do the same. That said, that's not the most pressing issue to me, and so will not influence my vote. The most pressing issue to me is the unfettered killing of the unborn. Because of that, I cannot vote for Obama. I will be forced to vote for whoever is left. I guess that's Romney. This is the problem with our country, voters like yourself are willing to ignore the real concrete issues like the economy, healthcare, wars etc and vote for a cantidate simply because he's "pro life"... which Romney is not by the way. He's come out multiple times in the past as pro choice, he's changing now to appease the republican base. He's a somewhat rational guy so I'm sure he's pro choice.. I mean to say abortion should be outlawed is a ridiculous sentiment during times when overpopulation and poverty is out of control.. Republicans,, they love to protect you when your the fetus of a single mom with 5 kids making $15,000 a year but as soon as your born.. your on your own!! Anyway don't wanna turn this into a whole abortion debate.. I'm just saying it's silly to vote for a cantidate due to a stance on a single social issue.. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
I'm not sure why that's even a political issue these days for presidential elections. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On June 14 2012 06:29 BluePanther wrote: The President cannot do jack about abortion. Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, and the president plays NO ROLE in the constitutional amendment process. I'm not sure why that's even a political issue these days for presidential elections. Is it true that Mitt wants to make a constitutional amendment effectively banning gay marriage, or is that a gross exaggeration? | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
On June 14 2012 06:29 BluePanther wrote: The President cannot do jack about abortion. Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, and the president plays NO ROLE in the constitutional amendment process. I'm not sure why that's even a political issue these days for presidential elections. With people like those of the congregation of Westboro Baptist Church protesting funerals and Florida preachers burning Qur'ans, I think its easy enough to see why ridiculous over-extensions of personal morality are still a part of presidential elections. The notion of what it means to be a politically salient citizen in the United States is in a state of chaotic disrepair. | ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
On June 14 2012 06:29 BluePanther wrote: The President cannot do jack about abortion. Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, and the president plays NO ROLE in the constitutional amendment process. I'm not sure why that's even a political issue these days for presidential elections. You do realize Roe v Wade is actually a Supreme Court decision and not written law? You also realize that the President appoints the Supreme Court Justices, right? While the President cannot directly change the law, a presidential election absolutely could have an impact on the issue of abortion. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On June 14 2012 06:36 Defacer wrote: Is it true that Mitt wants to make a constitutional amendment effectively banning gay marriage, or is that a gross exaggeration? Doesn't matter, he won't get a 2/3 vote of both chambers of Congress. Amending the Constitution is hard. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 14 2012 06:42 TheToast wrote: You do realize Roe v Wade is actually a Supreme Court decision and not written law? You also realize that the President appoints the Supreme Court Justices, right? While the President cannot directly change the law, a presidential election absolutely could have an impact on the issue of abortion. Unless the Court is somehow stacked with a bunch of Justice Clarence Thomas Clones, I doubt that Roe v. Wade is going anywhere (even though it is an awful decision). There's too much respect for stare decisis. Landmark decisions on par with Roe v. Wade are very rarely overturned. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On June 14 2012 06:58 xDaunt wrote: Unless the Court is somehow stacked with a bunch of Justice Clarence Thomas Clones, I doubt that Roe v. Wade is going anywhere (even though it is an awful decision). There's too much respect for stare decisis. Landmark decisions on par with Roe v. Wade are very rarely overturned. So, should proclamations and promises to restore the 'morality' of America by the Romney Camp be largely ignored since there's not much he can actually do about them (abortion, gay rights) anyway? Or are there still moves he can make? | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 14 2012 08:04 Defacer wrote: So, should proclamations and promises to restore the 'morality' of America by the Romney Camp be largely ignored since there's not much he can actually do about them (abortion, gay rights) anyway? Or are there still moves he can make? Realistically, the most that Romney can do is push legislation that limits federal funding for abortions. Think about it this way: Romney is no more pro-life than Bush was, and the Bush administration barely changed the legal landscape with regards to abortion rights. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On June 14 2012 06:42 TheToast wrote: You do realize Roe v Wade is actually a Supreme Court decision and not written law? You also realize that the President appoints the Supreme Court Justices, right? While the President cannot directly change the law, a presidential election absolutely could have an impact on the issue of abortion.  I mean, technically they can change it, and there are currently 4 votes to change it (if you read into the comments in Casey AND make the assumption that Alito and Roberts would side with Scalia and Thomas (which I doubt is guaranteed)). But to destroy all our jurisprudence on implied fundamental rights would be a disaster. It would make being gay illegal again in many states, and would PROMPTLY spur a constitutional amendment that would set back the religious right far more than Roe. Roe is a weird opinion, but it makes a lot of practical sense. More likely is that the right to abort will always be there, the question is how much the state is allowed to skirt around the ruling in the zealotry states that keep trying to ban it. | ||
| ||
