|
|
On November 14 2012 02:55 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 02:12 BluePanther wrote:On November 13 2012 15:20 oneofthem wrote:
this question of when it is proper to consider a market solution is deeply important and interesting. besides the empirical uncertainties, there is the question of when is the neoclassical standard methodology of equilibrium analysis appropriate.
i'll just briefly say that there are results now (new stuff) that suggest a simple equilibrium analysis overestimate the number of optimal strategy firms even in a perfect market, and thus tend to underestimate the profit level (rent level) and monopolistic power. the reason for this is that in an equilibrium model, you assume the number of firms to be exogenous, but in the real dynamic world, where firms enter the market one by one, each one in fact makes it less profitable for the next guy to enter.
[Steve Keen & Russel Standish (2006):"Profit Maximization, Industry Structure, and Competition: A critique of neoclassical theory"]
this should be added to the known conditions (entry barrier etc etc etc) and also the idea that new things are always risky
there are some other stuff that im too sleepy to type out This is extremely noteworthy and is actually a huge problem with American taxation. Corporate classification happens on the state level, and despite being 50 states, most have come to accept the same ones (the race to the bottom has logical consequences here). It makes corporate structural reform nigh impossible, which makes taxation reform extremely difficult (due to pass-through taxation status). Combined with flat corporate tax rates, it makes entry difficult. I'm not sure I know the answer to this; you can't simply make a progressive tax rate for corporations. But without attacking this problem, any corporate structural or tax reform is pointless in the long run. It'll score you points with Democrats, I'm sure, but it won't actually solve the problem. Many companies only start to realize the advantages of the western system as opposed to SEA and even eastern europe, after they have been there and moved back to the country with the "highest taxation in the world", because it is "more profitable".
I would like to see your sources for this, particularly considering that the average investor / entrepreneur does not distribute 100% profits from their corporation.
|
I still can't believe America thinks it will thrive better WITHOUT it being together... Y u no think think Amurrika?? Obviously this isn't everyone but if states in the US start to separate it will have massive global ramifications. Of course it'll never happen though :D
On November 14 2012 03:00 Maxyim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 02:55 radiatoren wrote:On November 14 2012 02:12 BluePanther wrote:On November 13 2012 15:20 oneofthem wrote:
this question of when it is proper to consider a market solution is deeply important and interesting. besides the empirical uncertainties, there is the question of when is the neoclassical standard methodology of equilibrium analysis appropriate.
i'll just briefly say that there are results now (new stuff) that suggest a simple equilibrium analysis overestimate the number of optimal strategy firms even in a perfect market, and thus tend to underestimate the profit level (rent level) and monopolistic power. the reason for this is that in an equilibrium model, you assume the number of firms to be exogenous, but in the real dynamic world, where firms enter the market one by one, each one in fact makes it less profitable for the next guy to enter.
[Steve Keen & Russel Standish (2006):"Profit Maximization, Industry Structure, and Competition: A critique of neoclassical theory"]
this should be added to the known conditions (entry barrier etc etc etc) and also the idea that new things are always risky
there are some other stuff that im too sleepy to type out This is extremely noteworthy and is actually a huge problem with American taxation. Corporate classification happens on the state level, and despite being 50 states, most have come to accept the same ones (the race to the bottom has logical consequences here). It makes corporate structural reform nigh impossible, which makes taxation reform extremely difficult (due to pass-through taxation status). Combined with flat corporate tax rates, it makes entry difficult. I'm not sure I know the answer to this; you can't simply make a progressive tax rate for corporations. But without attacking this problem, any corporate structural or tax reform is pointless in the long run. It'll score you points with Democrats, I'm sure, but it won't actually solve the problem. Many companies only start to realize the advantages of the western system as opposed to SEA and even eastern europe, after they have been there and moved back to the country with the "highest taxation in the world", because it is "more profitable". I would like to see your sources for this, particularly considering that the average investor / entrepreneur does not distribute 100% profits from their corporation.
This is one of those things where either he has a ridiculous source that has a single example OR he has no sources and it's his ridiculous opinion 
|
I got warned earlier for making fun of some guy who talked about investors in a communist regime (what the hell?). Apparently I was "taking the easy way out of an argument". I thought it was self explanatory. Oh well, so disappointed.
|
On November 14 2012 03:21 Djzapz wrote:
I got warned earlier for making fun of some guy who talked about investors in a communist regime (what the hell?). Apparently I was "taking the easy way out of an argument". I thought it was self explanatory. Come on mods =l
 That was the warning? "taking the easy way out of an argument" lol. Anywho let's just move along, no need to dwell.
|
Canada11369 Posts
Take issues with moderation to website feedback.
|
This thread is full of divergences of opinions which are fine, I just wish people who spew outright falsehoods and demonstrate an obvious lack of understanding of the positions they're arguing for would also get their fingers slapped. I know mods can't fact check everything but when someone displays such a gross lack of understanding of something as obvious as that, it's fine to get a few giggles. Being condescending is mean but ffs, I have teachers who are condescending when students say dumb things, myself included. Nothing like 10 masters students and a PhD making fun of my dumb comments to get me to pick up a book and learn wtf I'm talking about. Investors in communism... come on.
I guess others have picked apart his comments properly whereas I just sighed. I'll use more words next time.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Baltimore, USA22258 Posts
Djzapz. You know you're my bro, but you're in the wrong, and being a bit disingenuous at that. Why don't you post the full warning, eh?
On November 13 2012 13:16 Djzapz wrote:
That's just adorable. Maybe you should rush back to the drawing board because you clearly don't know what you're talking about.
Is what your entire post consisted of - a very condescending statement with no content or backup.
Don't take the easy way out of making an actual argument by being a condescending dick. I have my own reservations about the thought process of a lot of people in this thread in particular but to post like this is unacceptable.
Hold yourself to a higher standard and people will think more of your for it, especially if you are arguing against someone is is determined to ignore your positions.
And here is the warning (IN FULL) that you were given because of it. I don't see anything wrong with it other than you trying to take one part of a single sentence out of context.
If you have any more questions about it, feel free to PM me.
|
This thread suddenly became very ominous 
Anyways, here's a funny article on why Paul Ryan thinks they lost.
Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin on Monday blamed Democratic turnout in “urban areas” for the loss by the Republican presidential ticket last week, saying he was surprised that he and Mitt Romney did not do better in the nation’s big cities.
“The surprise was some of the turnout, some of the turnout especially in urban areas, which gave President Obama the big margin to win this race,” Mr. Ryan said in an interview with WISC-TV. “When we watched Virginia and Ohio coming in, and those ones coming in as tight as they were, and looking like we were going to lose them, that’s when it became clear we weren’t going to win.”
The remarks prompted scorn from some liberals who viewed Mr. Ryan as blaming inner-city minorities for the Republican defeat.
Source
|
On November 13 2012 10:12 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 10:07 Falling wrote:On November 13 2012 10:03 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 10:01 Souma wrote:
What do I care if they pay their 'legal' share or not? That was never the argument and is irrelevant. you said you were punishing them for not paying their due taxes. that can only be true if they have no paid what they are legally required to have paid. otherwise it is not due, at this point in time. ex post facto is not fair play. you cannot turn around after that fact and say they haven't paid enough their due when they paid all the government asked from them. We're making great use of what they are legally required. But if they've rigged the system to create a series of legal loopholes that allows them to squirrel away money here and there, then that would be considered legal. But should it be legal? Is it a system that lends itself in favour the wealthy and powerful keeping themselves amongst the wealthy and powerful. Pushing into oligarchal territory. If the loop-holes were closed, it would make their actions illegal. The current legal situation may not be desired legal situation. the question, in my opinion, would then be what possibly could have persuaded these people to do something like that? I refuse to accept the premise that they are all just evil, greedy, bastards who want to screw over the poor. it seems much more realistic to me that they are worried about losing an unjust portion of their wealth, for unjust causes.
For me, I guess I just don't see a difference between these two positions.
You worked hard to earn that $100 million this year. Then the government takes a third or so (whatever the tax rates are). How is that any different from working hard for that $50,000 this year and the government taking a third or so? More to the point, if the government decides to take half rather than a third from the rich person... why is that "unjust"? The rich person still have 50 million dollars.
The wealthy are asked to foot more of the bill because the wealthy are more able to do so. The logic needed to see this reasoning as "unjust", to me, leads directly into "evil, greedy, bastards" who don't even consider the poor or the "not-me" demographic.
On November 13 2012 10:12 sc2superfan101 wrote:
therefore, I would think the answer would be to assure them, through tax reform, that we are not going to take an unjust portion of their income, and in fact will allow them to keep as much as humanly possible, taking only what is vitally necessary to ensure the security of the states and people. if we simply eliminate the loopholes and even then raise taxes, then this will only encourage them to actually leave the economy completely. then we would be faced with a kind of "Atlas Shrugged" situation where we either outlaw them leaving the country with their wealth, or we let them go and lose all of the benefit of that wealth. the first is tyranny and the second is anarchy.
You want to know what would happen in an Atlas Shrugged situation? They'd leave, there would be chaos for a few years as the corporations restructure themselves when they lose a lot of their CEOs. And then... they'd be replaced.
The wealthy are not special. They are not the most intelligent, resourceful people in society. In most cases, those particular people who happen to become wealthy are not magical fairies who wave their magical "make money" wands to create wealth. Hell, even Steve Jobs can be replaced. That's not to say that luck is the only reason they made their money (fortune favors the prepared mind). But there are plenty of prepared minds out there, just waiting for their opportunity.
On November 13 2012 10:27 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 10:21 Falling wrote:On November 13 2012 10:12 sc2superfan101 wrote:
the question, in my opinion, would then be what possibly could have persuaded these people to do something like that? I refuse to accept the premise that they are all just evil, greedy, bastards who want to screw over the poor. it seems much more realistic to me that they are worried about losing an unjust portion of their wealth, for unjust causes.
therefore, I would think the answer would be to assure them, through tax reform, that we are not going to take an unjust portion of their income, and in fact will allow them to keep as much as humanly possible, taking only what is vitally necessary to ensure the security of the states and people. if we simply eliminate the loopholes and even then raise taxes, then this will only encourage them to actually leave the economy completely. then we would be faced with a kind of "Atlas Shrugged" situation where we either outlaw them leaving the country with their wealth, or we let them go and lose all of the benefit of that wealth. the first is tyranny and the second is anarchy.
What is just taxes? Do you start from the premise that taxes are by defintion, theft? Because then we have a long way to go before we can find common ground. How do you re-assure anyone that there taxes are being well spent? The fact is only the rich and powerful have the option to opt out of the tax system because they don't agree with what is going on. That's rather why we have elections to hold governments accountable to spend it on the things they said they were going to spend it on- unless special interests cut in and create a bunch of loop-holes. No one else has the option just sit on their money if they don't agree with where the government is going on. Government isn't a charitable organization for the middle class. Are the rich greedy bastards? No, probably not. But they like everyone else look to their own interests. The difference is many can have the ear of government to actually accomplish their own interests and create said loopholes. I was more talking about perception than anything else. they perceive that whatever portion is being asked, or will be asked, is unjust (more than their fair share), and that for many of them, they perceive it as being asked of them not because of necessity, but as punishment.
I don't care if they see it as punishment or not. The rich in this country have had far higher tax rates in the past than what is being proposed, and they weren't quitting in droves or anything. If they see returning to higher rates of the past is "punishment", then they're out of touch with reality.
And I have no sympathy for a position that refuses to be congruent with reality.
On November 13 2012 10:27 sc2superfan101 wrote:
taxation is just, in my opinion, only under a set of very specific circumstances. is the money vitally needed for the security of the people? is the purpose of the money to provide that security, rather than punish, or redistribute, or spend more efficiently? has everyone been asked to pay, and are the benefits that are handed out equal in nature? if those are all answered yes, than I would say the taxation is probably just.
I agree that they shouldn't be able to hide their money just because they don't like where the government is going or spending it on, but I think it is perfectly acceptable to hide their money because they are afraid of it being taken from them unjustly. and I think the answer would be to not take the unjust amount, not criminalize the hiding.
So it's wrong to hide their money because they don't like where it's going to be spent, but it's right if they think that it's being taken unjustly. And you define unjustly based on where it's going to be spent.
Do you see the contradiction here?
On November 13 2012 12:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 10:35 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 10:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:
in a perfect world, would taxes be required? no, because everyone would spend their money on exactly what was needed (taking care of roads, hospitals, sewage, etc.) and there would be no need to protect their money or persons (taking care of policing, military) and they would be willing to help each other out (taking care of firemen, FEMA, etc.)
in fact, in such a world, it is evident that taxing would lead to a net loss, because the disinterested government cannot possibly spend the money more efficiently than the interested person. since we do not live in such a world, taxation is necessary. however, it is a necessary evil. the loss in efficiency is balanced by the gain in security. however, we should not forget that such a loss in efficiency does exist, and doesn't disappear just because it is a necessary loss. Your response is so irrelevant and full of bullshit that I am just going to do my homework now. Homework, my friend, is the true necessary evil. Have fun. so you think that a government 3,000 miles away can spend a person's money better than they can? that was pretty much the whole point of the hypothetical, that the private market more efficiently allocates resources than a government can.
Better for who? For society as a whole? Somehow, I rather doubt that, as most rich people care far more about themselves and their neighborhoods than, say, paying for road maintenance in poor neighborhoods.
In a "perfect society", we would not have money at all. In a perfect society, you would go to the store, food would be given to you, you'd take it home and eat. You'd go to do something that is productive towards society in a useful way without any explicit compensation like money.
A perfect society would not be a private market. There would be no market at all, the truly invisible hand.
|
On November 14 2012 03:04 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
I still can't believe America thinks it will thrive better WITHOUT it being together... Y u no think think Amurrika?? Obviously this isn't everyone but if states in the US start to separate it will have massive global ramifications. Of course it'll never happen though :D
This is not "states in the US" wanting anything. These are some butthurt conservatives pissed off because they failed to reclaim the presidency. They're rage quitters, and you should treat them as such.
Don't blow this stuff out of proportion.
|
On November 14 2012 03:00 Maxyim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 02:55 radiatoren wrote:On November 14 2012 02:12 BluePanther wrote:On November 13 2012 15:20 oneofthem wrote:
this question of when it is proper to consider a market solution is deeply important and interesting. besides the empirical uncertainties, there is the question of when is the neoclassical standard methodology of equilibrium analysis appropriate.
i'll just briefly say that there are results now (new stuff) that suggest a simple equilibrium analysis overestimate the number of optimal strategy firms even in a perfect market, and thus tend to underestimate the profit level (rent level) and monopolistic power. the reason for this is that in an equilibrium model, you assume the number of firms to be exogenous, but in the real dynamic world, where firms enter the market one by one, each one in fact makes it less profitable for the next guy to enter.
[Steve Keen & Russel Standish (2006):"Profit Maximization, Industry Structure, and Competition: A critique of neoclassical theory"]
this should be added to the known conditions (entry barrier etc etc etc) and also the idea that new things are always risky
there are some other stuff that im too sleepy to type out This is extremely noteworthy and is actually a huge problem with American taxation. Corporate classification happens on the state level, and despite being 50 states, most have come to accept the same ones (the race to the bottom has logical consequences here). It makes corporate structural reform nigh impossible, which makes taxation reform extremely difficult (due to pass-through taxation status). Combined with flat corporate tax rates, it makes entry difficult. I'm not sure I know the answer to this; you can't simply make a progressive tax rate for corporations. But without attacking this problem, any corporate structural or tax reform is pointless in the long run. It'll score you points with Democrats, I'm sure, but it won't actually solve the problem. Many companies only start to realize the advantages of the western system as opposed to SEA and even eastern europe, after they have been there and moved back to the country with the "highest taxation in the world", because it is "more profitable". I would like to see your sources for this, particularly considering that the average investor / entrepreneur does not distribute 100% profits from their corporation.
It is admittedly anecdotal. The reasoning is based in parts of QC. "We got far too many fines for the product having a worse quality.", qualification: "We were not able to find the needed qualifications in the local workforce." and corruption "The cost of protection-money being demanded by the local mob made it impossible for us to run a profitable business."
All of the above might be a question of too bad preparations and incompetence on the part of the businessowners, but it is enough to make politicians consider what is needed beyond low taxes to have a good environment for start-ups!
As for investors and entrepreneurs, I thought that the primary persuading factor was "business cases", which is a profitability analysis. Taxes can change "business cases", but it is in no way the only parameter of importance.
I´could push a bunch of danish language sources where industry representatives repeats their conclusion that "taxes are not the only way to improve competitiveness" and several specific cases where CEOs moving a company either way is arguing that "taxes was not the primary reason for why we made our decission to move production.".
|
On November 14 2012 04:09 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 03:00 Maxyim wrote:On November 14 2012 02:55 radiatoren wrote:On November 14 2012 02:12 BluePanther wrote:On November 13 2012 15:20 oneofthem wrote:
this question of when it is proper to consider a market solution is deeply important and interesting. besides the empirical uncertainties, there is the question of when is the neoclassical standard methodology of equilibrium analysis appropriate.
i'll just briefly say that there are results now (new stuff) that suggest a simple equilibrium analysis overestimate the number of optimal strategy firms even in a perfect market, and thus tend to underestimate the profit level (rent level) and monopolistic power. the reason for this is that in an equilibrium model, you assume the number of firms to be exogenous, but in the real dynamic world, where firms enter the market one by one, each one in fact makes it less profitable for the next guy to enter.
[Steve Keen & Russel Standish (2006):"Profit Maximization, Industry Structure, and Competition: A critique of neoclassical theory"]
this should be added to the known conditions (entry barrier etc etc etc) and also the idea that new things are always risky
there are some other stuff that im too sleepy to type out This is extremely noteworthy and is actually a huge problem with American taxation. Corporate classification happens on the state level, and despite being 50 states, most have come to accept the same ones (the race to the bottom has logical consequences here). It makes corporate structural reform nigh impossible, which makes taxation reform extremely difficult (due to pass-through taxation status). Combined with flat corporate tax rates, it makes entry difficult. I'm not sure I know the answer to this; you can't simply make a progressive tax rate for corporations. But without attacking this problem, any corporate structural or tax reform is pointless in the long run. It'll score you points with Democrats, I'm sure, but it won't actually solve the problem. Many companies only start to realize the advantages of the western system as opposed to SEA and even eastern europe, after they have been there and moved back to the country with the "highest taxation in the world", because it is "more profitable". I would like to see your sources for this, particularly considering that the average investor / entrepreneur does not distribute 100% profits from their corporation. It is admittedly anecdotal. The reasoning is based in parts of QC. "We got far too many fines for the product having a worse quality.", qualification: "We were not able to find the needed qualifications in the local workforce." and corruption "The cost of protection-money being demanded by the local mob made it impossible for us to run a profitable business." All of the above might be a question of too bad preparations and incompetence on the part of the businessowners, but it is enough to make politicians consider what is needed beyond low taxes to have a good environment for start-ups! As for investors and entrepreneurs, I thought that the primary persuading factor was "business cases", which is a profitability analysis. Taxes can change "business cases", but it is in no way the only parameter of importance. I´could push a bunch of danish language sources where industry representatives repeats their conclusion that "taxes are not the only way to improve competitiveness" and several specific cases where CEOs moving a company either way is arguing that "taxes was not the primary reason for why we made our decission to move production.".
There is no such thing as a "primary reason" with respect to the decision of where to incorporate. There are multiple options, each with their strengths and weaknesses. The concept of a "primary reason" implies that there is one factor that diminishes all other factors as it comes into play; however the calculations of net present value of future cash flows and risk already take into account all factors. Incidentally, taxes are a very powerful driver of both calculations.
|
On November 14 2012 03:50 EvilTeletubby wrote:Djzapz. You know you're my bro, but you're in the wrong, and being a bit disingenuous at that. Why don't you post the full warning, eh? Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 13:16 Djzapz wrote:
That's just adorable. Maybe you should rush back to the drawing board because you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Is what your entire post consisted of - a very condescending statement with no content or backup. Show nested quote +Don't take the easy way out of making an actual argument by being a condescending dick. I have my own reservations about the thought process of a lot of people in this thread in particular but to post like this is unacceptable.
Hold yourself to a higher standard and people will think more of your for it, especially if you are arguing against someone is is determined to ignore your positions. And here is the warning (IN FULL) that you were given because of it. I don't see anything wrong with it other than you trying to take one part of a single sentence out of context. If you have any more questions about it, feel free to PM me.
EvilTeletubby needs to be real-time fact checker at the next round of presidential debates...
damn
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 14 2012 03:56 farvacola wrote:This thread suddenly became very ominous Anyways, here's a funny article on why Paul Ryan thinks they lost. Show nested quote +Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin on Monday blamed Democratic turnout in “urban areas” for the loss by the Republican presidential ticket last week, saying he was surprised that he and Mitt Romney did not do better in the nation’s big cities.
“The surprise was some of the turnout, some of the turnout especially in urban areas, which gave President Obama the big margin to win this race,” Mr. Ryan said in an interview with WISC-TV. “When we watched Virginia and Ohio coming in, and those ones coming in as tight as they were, and looking like we were going to lose them, that’s when it became clear we weren’t going to win.”
The remarks prompted scorn from some liberals who viewed Mr. Ryan as blaming inner-city minorities for the Republican defeat. Source
the code words, what they mean?
on planet kolob paul ryan said:
“I don’t think we lost it on those budget issues, especially on Medicare — we clearly didn’t lose it on those issues,” he said.
the implication that urban voters are not voting on the issues, or are not legitimate representation on the issues, or not legitimate voters at all, are made with varying degrees of implicitness.
anyway in actual news we'll probably see increased calls for debt forgiveness, foreclosure stoppage/refinancing efforts etc. especially after that demarco guy is replaced.
|
On November 14 2012 06:04 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 03:56 farvacola wrote:This thread suddenly became very ominous Anyways, here's a funny article on why Paul Ryan thinks they lost. Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin on Monday blamed Democratic turnout in “urban areas” for the loss by the Republican presidential ticket last week, saying he was surprised that he and Mitt Romney did not do better in the nation’s big cities.
“The surprise was some of the turnout, some of the turnout especially in urban areas, which gave President Obama the big margin to win this race,” Mr. Ryan said in an interview with WISC-TV. “When we watched Virginia and Ohio coming in, and those ones coming in as tight as they were, and looking like we were going to lose them, that’s when it became clear we weren’t going to win.”
The remarks prompted scorn from some liberals who viewed Mr. Ryan as blaming inner-city minorities for the Republican defeat. Source the code words, what they mean? Show nested quote +on planet kolob paul ryan said:
“I don’t think we lost it on those budget issues, especially on Medicare — we clearly didn’t lose it on those issues,” he said. the implication that urban voters are not voting on the issues, or are not legitimate representation on the issues, or not legitimate voters at all, are made with varying degrees of implicitness. anyway in actual news we'll probably see increased calls for debt forgiveness, foreclosure stoppage/refinancing efforts etc. especially after that demarco guy is replaced.
The insinuation that he was being at all racist is a huge stretch.
That being said, if they really don't think they lost ground on budget issues, I don't have much hope for the future GOP.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
personally i'm not saying that particular thing is racist. that charge should be used with care lest it loses further value.
but, he does imply that urban voters who turned out in large numbers were not voting on the issues that he thought were not voted down. he either implied that the urban voters did not vote on issues (and thus voted on other, illegitimate reasons) or he didn't consider their votes on the issues all that important.
|
He doesn't elaborate, at least from what I read in that article, but it sounds more like he thinks they voted on other issues to me.
“I don’t think we lost it on those budget issues, especially on Medicare — we clearly didn’t lose it on those issues,” he said."
Sounds more like he's implying they lost it based on other issues.
|
Yeah everyone is glad he win over that Mitt Romney guy 
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 14 2012 06:31 mordek wrote:He doesn't elaborate, at least from what I read in that article, but it sounds more like he thinks they voted on other issues to me. Show nested quote +“I don’t think we lost it on those budget issues, especially on Medicare — we clearly didn’t lose it on those issues,” he said." Sounds more like he's implying they lost it based on other issues.
that's maybe too charitable a spin on it, but even then, with those quotes one can conclude he thinks there is a presumption that urban voters are not interested in budget issues, medicare issues. this would be a curious position to presume without some prejudice on what urban voters are like.
|
On November 14 2012 06:23 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 06:04 oneofthem wrote:On November 14 2012 03:56 farvacola wrote:This thread suddenly became very ominous Anyways, here's a funny article on why Paul Ryan thinks they lost. Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin on Monday blamed Democratic turnout in “urban areas” for the loss by the Republican presidential ticket last week, saying he was surprised that he and Mitt Romney did not do better in the nation’s big cities.
“The surprise was some of the turnout, some of the turnout especially in urban areas, which gave President Obama the big margin to win this race,” Mr. Ryan said in an interview with WISC-TV. “When we watched Virginia and Ohio coming in, and those ones coming in as tight as they were, and looking like we were going to lose them, that’s when it became clear we weren’t going to win.”
The remarks prompted scorn from some liberals who viewed Mr. Ryan as blaming inner-city minorities for the Republican defeat. Source the code words, what they mean? on planet kolob paul ryan said:
“I don’t think we lost it on those budget issues, especially on Medicare — we clearly didn’t lose it on those issues,” he said. the implication that urban voters are not voting on the issues, or are not legitimate representation on the issues, or not legitimate voters at all, are made with varying degrees of implicitness. anyway in actual news we'll probably see increased calls for debt forgiveness, foreclosure stoppage/refinancing efforts etc. especially after that demarco guy is replaced. The insinuation that he was being at all racist is a huge stretch. That being said, if they really don't think they lost ground on budget issues, I don't have much hope for the future GOP.
Both parties seem super on edge to me. Democrats are irrationally hopeful that the election will snap republicans out of their madness and reel at the slightest hint of them doubling down on conservative ideology. Even the staunch conservatives in this thread seem to be all over the political map these days.
As fun as speculation is, a wait and see attitude is probably healthy. At least until there is action put behind words.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
