|
|
On July 07 2012 03:42 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2012 03:37 paralleluniverse wrote:On July 07 2012 03:34 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 07 2012 03:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 07 2012 03:03 Lightwip wrote:On July 07 2012 02:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 07 2012 02:24 Lightwip wrote:
For that reason, I think the Bain Capital argument is one of the strongest Obama has. Tie Romney to the selfish businessmen who made the recession happen and he'll lose support from those who care about the economy. I'm not sure scapegoating businessmen as the singular cause of the recession will get him very far beyond his base. Considering Romney is running on the idea of "I know why jobs come and why they go," it's a stronger argument than you give it credit for. Maybe it'll work. I really don't get it though. Private equity (Bain Capital) really had nothing to do with the recession. If we were talking about Romney as a mortgage lender that operated with questionable credit checks the argument would have some merit. But picking in Bain Capital as being "greedy" is just irrelevant mud slinging to me. The virtue of hard linking Romney with Bain Capital is that the general public (well, outside the GOP base) associates "big corporations" with a combination of layoffs and outsourcing, regardless of what they actually have done. More than that, it's an attempt to galvanize the OWS people to actually vote for Obama in 2012, similarly to how Romney will continue to talk about revoking Obamacare while keeping most of its provisions. Whether or not it's true is not that relevant. /facepalm There is nothing more relevant than the truth. Not in any country's politics.
fixed that for you.
|
I actually don't give a shit that Romney is rich. My problem is that he isn't a true politician. He's approaching the election and the presidency the way a CEO approaches a promotion. He'll say whatever people want to hear to win the election, without making any specific commitment to what he would do if he were actually president.
My problem with Romney is the same problem that more and more Republican are feeling right now -- Romney has no political skin in the game. Republicans want to be able to hold Romney to his promises just as much as the Democrats.
What first appeared as a wiley, Rovian campaign strategy -- running against the incumbent versus running on your own policies -- is now appearing to be a fundamental flaw in Romney. There is really no guarantee he will be any more loyal to the GOP's or Tea Party's agenda than his own agenda.
The presidency is not a responsibility or honor to Romney. It is a career opportunity, and Romney is indisputably a career opportunist.
|
On July 07 2012 04:06 Defacer wrote:
I actually don't give a shit that Romney is rich. My problem is that he isn't a true politician. He's approaching the election and the presidency the way a CEO approaches a promotion. He'll say whatever people want to hear to win the election, without making any specific commitment to what he would do if he were actually president.
My problem with Romney is the same problem that more and more Republican are feeling right now -- Romney has no political skin in the game. Republicans want to be able to hold Romney to his promises just as much as the Democrats.
What first appeared as a wiley, Rovian campaign strategy -- running against the incumbent versus running on your own policies -- is now appearing to be a fundamental flaw in Romney. There is really no guarantee he will be any more loyal to the GOP's or Tea Party's agenda than his own agenda.
The presidency is not a responsibility or honor to Romney. It is a career opportunity, and Romney is indisputably a career opportunist.
The first paragraph is like the ultimate description of a politician... Slimy, sleazy and only in very rare cases somewhat trustworthy and honest - if ever.
But I kinda agree that it seems that this race is a very special case of not "Pro Romney" but rather "Contra Obama" for the Reps and their motivation to get him elected.
|
On July 07 2012 04:16 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2012 04:06 Defacer wrote:
I actually don't give a shit that Romney is rich. My problem is that he isn't a true politician. He's approaching the election and the presidency the way a CEO approaches a promotion. He'll say whatever people want to hear to win the election, without making any specific commitment to what he would do if he were actually president.
My problem with Romney is the same problem that more and more Republican are feeling right now -- Romney has no political skin in the game. Republicans want to be able to hold Romney to his promises just as much as the Democrats.
What first appeared as a wiley, Rovian campaign strategy -- running against the incumbent versus running on your own policies -- is now appearing to be a fundamental flaw in Romney. There is really no guarantee he will be any more loyal to the GOP's or Tea Party's agenda than his own agenda.
The presidency is not a responsibility or honor to Romney. It is a career opportunity, and Romney is indisputably a career opportunist.
The first paragraph is like the ultimate description of a politician... Slimy, sleazy and only in very rare cases somewhat trustworthy and honest - if ever. But I kinda agree that it seems that this race is a very special case of not "Pro Romney" but rather "Contra Obama" for the Reps and their motivation to get him elected.
Are all politicians evasive? Yup. Do they get into situations where they make promises they don't keep? Yup.
But the comparison of Romney to an Etch-a-Sketch is apt. You can argue that guys like Obama, Santorum -- hell, even Sarah Palin -- have a vision for the country. They have beliefs and policies that they are campaigning on. And if they don't fulfill those promises, or their policies fail, or they simply change their minds, they are subject to the political consequences, not just from their opponents, but from within their own party.
Romney apparently thinks he can dodge his obligations even to his own party, as long as he doesn't get specific. He's wrong.
|
This video seems more and more accurate as the election goes on.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On July 07 2012 04:02 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2012 03:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 07 2012 03:30 paralleluniverse wrote:On July 07 2012 03:19 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 07 2012 02:47 Adila wrote:
I think Obama should highlight why the idea of running the country like a business, such as Bain, is a terrible idea. That would take away some of the "strengths" of Romney's business credentials. As opposed to running the country as if cost-benefit doesn't exist? I wonder how many people the government could have truly helped if it hadn't spent 1 trillion plus on the "stimulus" and other loans that benefitted the politically connected, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars per job "created or saved" and here we are still at 8%+ "official" unemployment and it's not getting better, it's stagnating at best. The stimulus created over 3 million jobs according to the CBO: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68965.htmlAnd where's your source for the stimulus being a handout only to the politically connected? Cite it please. How else did you expect the government to help reduce unemployment, if not by stimulus? And you think the stimulus wasn't subject to analysis? Here's a 57 page leaked memo prepared for Obama when he was taking office: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/01/the-summers-memo.html Here's a CBO analysis: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/11-22-ARRA.pdf The stimulus did work but the criticism is that it could have been structured to work better. Moreover, other policies have had the opposite effect - such as increased regulation and the threat of more regulation and higher taxes. Is there proof that things could have been done better? Not really, yet this particular recovery has sucked. Hard. ![[image loading]](http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/20110730_WOC311.gif) Could someone else have done better? I have no idea - nor does anyone else. However, when you are the guy in charge you are responsible, whether it is your fault or not. If they truly believed that stimulus works, but that it could be structured better (highly dubious that they believe this, as I've never seen a Republican say it), then surely they should be asking for MORE stimulus, but this time done right, not a European pivot to massive austerity. So either they are disingenuous or playing politics. The comparison to past recessions is unfair. Those previous recessions were not caused by a financial crisis where the Fed has hit the zero lower bound. For example the 80s recession was self-induced by the Fed's (successful) attempt to end stagflation, and the economy recovered when the Fed decided to loosen monetary policy. In this case, the recession was caused by the GFC, where households built up a lot of debt, mostly through housing, and when the economy crashed households were forced to pay down that debt, and so aggregate demand collapses. Thus the paradox of thrift applies: spending = income, so when everyone stops spending everyone's income falls. These factors of massive household debt build up, forced deleveraging, and Fed at the ZLB make this recession principally unique.
CBO's estimates table 1:
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10008/03-02-macro_effects_of_arra.pdf
Things that had a higher estimated multiplier didn't always get prioritized. Infrastructure spending got the shaft (big time) despite the fact that it has a very high multiplier and was and still is sorely needed. Infrastructure spending would have also been targeted where the economy need it most. Construction was at the core of the recession and infrastructure spending could have put those people to work.
Comparing to past recessions may not be fair but the stimulus from the Federal government has been the largest since WW2 so it is reasonable to expect a lot out of it.
|
As far as I can see Romney does have a vision and strong believes - they just happened to make a 180 degree turn during the primaries :p
From there on I think you must either be hugely disappointed with Obama/the direction of the country/a die hard Republican to vote for him and make him President.
Funny thing as a spectator is that it might just happen 
|
On July 04 2012 06:50 farvacola wrote:
The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifices of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash -- that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices or accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value.l
Excellent quote. Basically the trader principle where you trade to mutual gain, win/win. But Romney/Obama (or any president in the last 100 years) do not endorsed this nor do they act in accordance with it. Taxing always results in lose/win or lose/lose when the goal should be win/win. All taxes are stolen from somebody with the intent to a) put in politicians pockets, b) put in friends pockets c) and last consideration is to actually do what said intent was... some kind of perk to someone other than the person who was looted.
LINK: If you read this and think that it is an ideal way of trading but then think it's impossible in practice then you are short changing yourself, everyone who you value, and everyone with whom you trade.
|
Messing around at 270towin...
There is an actually decent/defendable 269-269 electoral tie scenario.
There might be some things with Maine/Nebraska splitting EV's that change this. But this is within the realm of possibility.
Wisconsin to Romney. Virginia to Obama.
http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=ovl
|
So what do you think Obama and Romney will do different from each other to address the graphs? And who do you think will have a better effect?
Romney's Website seems to have more clarity with elaboration in regards to intent of policy: Source
Obama's Website seems to just state what he claims to have done without any specifics as to how he dun it. I wonder why?
Source
|
On July 07 2012 05:36 RCMDVA wrote:Messing around at 270towin... There is an actually decent/defendable 269-269 electoral tie scenario. There might be some things with Maine/Nebraska splitting EV's that change this. But this is within the realm of possibility. Wisconsin to Romney. Virginia to Obama. http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=ovl
Ohio will not go to Romney, I'd bet money on it right now.
|
You really think Virginia would go to Obama? I can't find anything suggesting that. But it's only July, so who knows what will happen.
|
On July 07 2012 05:19 Epocalypse wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2012 06:50 farvacola wrote:
The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifices of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash -- that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices or accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value.l Excellent quote. Basically the trader principle where you trade to mutual gain, win/win. But Romney/Obama (or any president in the last 100 years) do not endorsed this nor do they act in accordance with it. Taxing always results in lose/win or lose/lose when the goal should be win/win. All taxes are stolen from somebody with the intent to a) put in politicians pockets, b) put in friends pockets c) and last consideration is to actually do what said intent was... some kind of perk to someone other than the person who was looted. LINK: If you read this and think that it is an ideal way of trading but then think it's impossible in practice then you are short changing yourself, everyone who you value, and everyone with whom you trade.
"There is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value."
This is one of the more overlooked Ayn Rand quotes, as I think most of the problems with Objectivist politics don't even really stem from any analysis of altruism vs. egoism or collectivism vs. individualism, but rather come from Objectivism's view of humans as perfectly rational agents without any competiting interests. But competition between interests, whether it be on a grand or small scale is precisely what politics is about, and is what Rand's beloved Aristotle was referring to when he dubbed human beings "the political animal" even independent of any formal polis. Objectivism basically handwaves away the real problems in politics by claiming that politics as everyone knows it does not exist and is a massive deception. In this way it is unnecessary to address any factual, real-world political issues, so the Objectivist ideal of Capitalism is wholly a priori, or a "floating abstraction" as Rand would say.
|
On July 07 2012 06:48 DoubleReed wrote:
You really think Virginia would go to Obama? I can't find anything suggesting that. But it's only July, so who knows what will happen.
He might be onto something there, Virginia has seen one of the most dramatic demographic shifts in recent American history in terms of racial makeup. This article is dated 2011, so I would assume the numbers have increased even more.
As recently as 1990, non-Hispanic whites made up 76 percent of the state's residents. A decade later, their numbers had fallen to 70 percent, and last year, they accounted for less than two-thirds of the state's residents.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/03/AR2011020304604.html?sid=ST2011020805933
I can personally attest to the ridiculously fast rate of change in Northern Virginia, there are parts of Loudoun and Fairfax counties where it feels like Spanish is the only language being spoken.
|
Stimulus won't work because all that matters is the Federal Reserve's actions. If there is a fiscal stimulus, to any extent that it changes Fed behavior it was a useless adventure in wasting the taypayer's money and sucking it out of private markets.
|
On July 07 2012 04:54 Doublemint wrote:As far as I can see Romney does have a vision and strong believes - they just happened to make a 180 degree turn during the primaries :p From there on I think you must either be hugely disappointed with Obama/the direction of the country/a die hard Republican to vote for him and make him President. Funny thing as a spectator is that it might just happen
Oh well, it's not like we didn't all see a similar thing happen with McCain when he became the Republican nominee. Pretty disappointing but at least McCain tried, even if it was in vain, to promote some kind of dignity to his voters.
|
On July 07 2012 06:55 Romantic wrote:
Stimulus won't work because all that matters is the Federal Reserve's actions. If there is a fiscal stimulus, to any extent that it changes Fed behavior it was a useless adventure in wasting the taypayer's money and sucking it out of private markets.
...oh come on. That's the very definition of an oversimplification.
|
On July 07 2012 06:48 DoubleReed wrote:
You really think Virginia would go to Obama? I can't find anything suggesting that. But it's only July, so who knows what will happen.
Nope, I was just saying that when you take all the current Toss Up states...that the 269-269 scenario is actually there without too many crazy switches. (actually no switches, except for picking Toss Up states). Like giving NY to Romney or TX to Obama.
You can reasonably argue WI & OH going to Romney, and Obama keeping VA.
Wisconsin - look at the recent union vote.
Ohio - Obama only won with 51.7% of the vote last time.
VA - well obama won it last time. And VA has been heavily insulated from the recession.
|
On July 07 2012 07:15 RCMDVA wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2012 06:48 DoubleReed wrote:
You really think Virginia would go to Obama? I can't find anything suggesting that. But it's only July, so who knows what will happen. Nope, I was just saying that when you take all the current Toss Up states...that the 269-269 scenario is actually there without too many crazy switches. Like giving NY to Romney or TX to Obama. You can reasonably argue WI & OH going to Romney, and Obama keeping VA. Wisconsin - look at the recent union vote. Ohio - Obama only won with 51.7% of the vote last time. VA - well obama won it last time. And VA has been heavily insulated from the recession.
Why do you look at the recent anti-collective bargaining vote in regards to Wisconsin, and then in the next thought ignore the fact that practically the same thing came before Ohio voters and was summarily shot down. The fairly substantial defeat of Issue 2 coupled with collective distrust of Republican governor Kasich seem to suggest at least a repeat of the last presidential vote, if not more votes to Obama.
|
Because I'm just pointing out that the scenario is there? Which is all I'm saying. I'm not arguing for the map as a prediction. Just saying it's possible.
It's not like Obama won Ohio last time 59% to 41%. He only won with 51.7%.
The only 270towin toss up states I really believe are NC to Romney, and PA/NH to Obama. The others I don't know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
