|
|
On August 11 2012 15:41 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 15:34 BluePanther wrote:On August 11 2012 15:27 sam!zdat wrote:On August 11 2012 15:22 BluePanther wrote:On August 11 2012 15:14 sam!zdat wrote:
I think we're using different definitions of "anarchy"
edit: no, I'm anti-imperialism, period. if we're not, someone else will be. I'd rather be the one pulling those strings. I reject your premise. I would like to see the united states use its power to work towards a unified humanity. Frankly, I think it's embarrassing that we can't work together. then i'll just have to acknowledge your naivete. I like to plan for the long term. I find it intellectually impoverished, as well as unethical, to abandon the future to the present.
lol, ok.
ever hear the saying "those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it"? it applies to you. you are being intellectually dishonest to yourself if you premise such a grandiose plan on a disregard for human nature and present human capabilities.
|
On August 11 2012 15:38 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 15:03 BluePanther wrote:On August 11 2012 14:24 DannyJ wrote:
Well, he's well spoken and doesn't seem like someone pulled out of a trailer park. It's certainly a step up from past republican picks. I don't think it's a bad choice considering the options. There's some sticking points that could bother people on both sides, but at least this guy can hold his own overall. He's very well respected amongst fiscal matters (he's educated and has a degree in economics). He's the leader of the only serious austerity plan in the United States. Romney has just made this an election about substance instead of semantics, finally. He picks Ryan, I might swap my vote back to him. Most people (economists) wouldn't call it a "serious austerity plan." IIRC, the revenue portion is essentially what Romney put forward in his tax plan (tax rate decrease, reduction in tax credits), but promises much larger revenue generation, seemingly out of nowhere.
when i say serious, I mean as it's the only one that has a realistic chance of being passed. It's also detailed and fleshed out more than any other plan. I'm not saying it's perfect, but I think it's the only option currently on the table aimed at balancing the deficit long term. Obama and the democrats do not have a plan.
The Ryan plan makes changes to the medical funding, if I'm not mistaken. Also, tax rate decreases DO increase total revenue (at least to a point).
|
On August 11 2012 15:49 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 15:38 aksfjh wrote:On August 11 2012 15:03 BluePanther wrote:On August 11 2012 14:24 DannyJ wrote:
Well, he's well spoken and doesn't seem like someone pulled out of a trailer park. It's certainly a step up from past republican picks. I don't think it's a bad choice considering the options. There's some sticking points that could bother people on both sides, but at least this guy can hold his own overall. He's very well respected amongst fiscal matters (he's educated and has a degree in economics). He's the leader of the only serious austerity plan in the United States. Romney has just made this an election about substance instead of semantics, finally. He picks Ryan, I might swap my vote back to him. Most people (economists) wouldn't call it a "serious austerity plan." IIRC, the revenue portion is essentially what Romney put forward in his tax plan (tax rate decrease, reduction in tax credits), but promises much larger revenue generation, seemingly out of nowhere. when i say serious, I mean as it's the only one that has a realistic chance of being passed. It's also detailed and fleshed out more than any other plan. I'm not saying it's perfect, but I think it's the only option currently on the table aimed at balancing the deficit long term. Obama and the democrats do not have a plan.
If your definition of only option on the table is that realistic chance criteria, then yes, Obama and the Democrats can't wait to sell out. There is another plan though.
|
On August 11 2012 15:49 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 15:38 aksfjh wrote:On August 11 2012 15:03 BluePanther wrote:On August 11 2012 14:24 DannyJ wrote:
Well, he's well spoken and doesn't seem like someone pulled out of a trailer park. It's certainly a step up from past republican picks. I don't think it's a bad choice considering the options. There's some sticking points that could bother people on both sides, but at least this guy can hold his own overall. He's very well respected amongst fiscal matters (he's educated and has a degree in economics). He's the leader of the only serious austerity plan in the United States. Romney has just made this an election about substance instead of semantics, finally. He picks Ryan, I might swap my vote back to him. Most people (economists) wouldn't call it a "serious austerity plan." IIRC, the revenue portion is essentially what Romney put forward in his tax plan (tax rate decrease, reduction in tax credits), but promises much larger revenue generation, seemingly out of nowhere. when i say serious, I mean as it's the only one that has a realistic chance of being passed. It's also detailed and fleshed out more than any other plan. I'm not saying it's perfect, but I think it's the only option currently on the table aimed at balancing the deficit long term. Obama and the democrats do not have a plan. The Ryan plan makes changes to the medical funding, if I'm not mistaken. Also, tax rate decreases DO increase total revenue (at least to a point).
No, they don't. As a share of GDP, they shrink. His proposal states a share of 19% of GDP, which is probably impossible even keeping the Bush era tax cuts. He plans to cut even more. The only revenue increase you MIGHT see is if there is a substantial stimulative effect from lowering taxes, which, if the recent data from the stimulus tax cuts is any measure, is a bunch of bologna.
|
On August 11 2012 15:46 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 15:41 sam!zdat wrote:On August 11 2012 15:34 BluePanther wrote:On August 11 2012 15:27 sam!zdat wrote:On August 11 2012 15:22 BluePanther wrote:On August 11 2012 15:14 sam!zdat wrote:
I think we're using different definitions of "anarchy"
edit: no, I'm anti-imperialism, period. if we're not, someone else will be. I'd rather be the one pulling those strings. I reject your premise. I would like to see the united states use its power to work towards a unified humanity. Frankly, I think it's embarrassing that we can't work together. then i'll just have to acknowledge your naivete. I like to plan for the long term. I find it intellectually impoverished, as well as unethical, to abandon the future to the present. lol, ok. ever hear the saying "those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it"? it applies to you. you are being intellectually dishonest to yourself if you premise such a grandiose plan on a disregard for human nature and present human capabilities.
Base all your arguments on cliches?
Please cite me the literature on human nature to which you are referring.
And who said anything about "present" human capabilities. Aren't you guys the "innovation" fetishists?
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On August 11 2012 15:46 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 15:41 sam!zdat wrote:On August 11 2012 15:34 BluePanther wrote:On August 11 2012 15:27 sam!zdat wrote:On August 11 2012 15:22 BluePanther wrote:On August 11 2012 15:14 sam!zdat wrote:
I think we're using different definitions of "anarchy"
edit: no, I'm anti-imperialism, period. if we're not, someone else will be. I'd rather be the one pulling those strings. I reject your premise. I would like to see the united states use its power to work towards a unified humanity. Frankly, I think it's embarrassing that we can't work together. then i'll just have to acknowledge your naivete. I like to plan for the long term. I find it intellectually impoverished, as well as unethical, to abandon the future to the present. lol, ok. ever hear the saying "those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it"? it applies to you. you are being intellectually dishonest to yourself if you premise such a grandiose plan on a disregard for human nature and present human capabilities.
If anyone needs to take a page out of history, it's you. If history's taught us anything, it's that no empire, no matter how dominant, lasts forever. So yes, planning for the future is important. I'm not sure you know anything about actual human nature if you're talking about strong countries trampling over weak countries. Such theories of aggression being "human nature" proposed by Freud and Lorenz have been debunked long ago. There's a reason why we don't just go over to Iceland and take it over.
Trust me - every country would rather have a friend than an enemy. Regardless of what you may think, working together instead of fighting actually yields better results.
And dude, what? Tax decrease = tax revenue increase? Where have you been? Ever since the Bush Tax Cuts were introduced we've experienced lower tax revenue than the 30-year average before that. It's one of the reasons why our deficit is a giant joke.
|
I must say, I like Paul Ryan for being a fiscal hawk; I just don't think his budgets are honest. They lack real numbers and make huge assumptions about discretionary spending going almost to zero. They rely on high levels of economic growth.
I am happy insofar as I love how hawkish he is. He is willing to propose real, deep cuts in the federal government's responsibility in health care provision. I am hesitant because I think the specific idea is partly voodoo that relies on the Democratic Party not existing.
Edit: Also I am much more libertarian than he is and much of his voting record scares me
|
On August 11 2012 15:49 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 15:38 aksfjh wrote:On August 11 2012 15:03 BluePanther wrote:On August 11 2012 14:24 DannyJ wrote:
Well, he's well spoken and doesn't seem like someone pulled out of a trailer park. It's certainly a step up from past republican picks. I don't think it's a bad choice considering the options. There's some sticking points that could bother people on both sides, but at least this guy can hold his own overall. He's very well respected amongst fiscal matters (he's educated and has a degree in economics). He's the leader of the only serious austerity plan in the United States. Romney has just made this an election about substance instead of semantics, finally. He picks Ryan, I might swap my vote back to him. Most people (economists) wouldn't call it a "serious austerity plan." IIRC, the revenue portion is essentially what Romney put forward in his tax plan (tax rate decrease, reduction in tax credits), but promises much larger revenue generation, seemingly out of nowhere. when i say serious, I mean as it's the only one that has a realistic chance of being passed. It's also detailed and fleshed out more than any other plan. I'm not saying it's perfect, but I think it's the only option currently on the table aimed at balancing the deficit long term. Obama and the democrats do not have a plan. The Ryan plan makes changes to the medical funding, if I'm not mistaken. Also, tax rate decreases DO increase total revenue (at least to a point).
Detailed and fleshed out? This is the plan that Romney defended and accepted, the plan which will give tax cuts to the rich, producing $5 to $10 trillion dollars in less tax revenue, while at the same time claiming to be revenue neutral but fails to specify how it will do that. Just as the Tax Policy center recently called Romney's tax plan mathematically impossible, the Ryan tax plan is for the same reason completely fraudulent.
|
I'm going off the recent topic of Ryan as VP candidate and the proposals he and Romney have made - tax decrease = overall revenue increase is a ridiculous notion in all or almost all circumstances and certainly it's ridiculous with the current US taxes.
However, what I really wanted to know is, if someone could explain to me why the US system, to date, is set up in a way where 'the winner takes it all' in each State. I mean it's not very representative of Florida or Ohio, or any other State for that matter, that all of such State's delegates (or what they are called) go to a candidate whom fx obtain 51% of the votes...even the primary elections only function like this in a few certain States - no?
So why is it that way at the Presidential election - it seems to neglect all of the votes of huge voter groups in States where a party looses in a close race to the other party.
|
On August 11 2012 14:58 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 14:31 sam!zdat wrote:On August 11 2012 14:26 xDaunt wrote:On August 11 2012 14:21 sam!zdat wrote:
Can you explain the thinking behind that position? I don't really understand. Is it because of demographic that is skewed in terms of military-related employment? The military is the most respected government institution in the country. Among conservatives, there is a very strong sense of patriotism, if not outright nationalism. We want a strong military, we like knowing that our troops are the best in the world, and we want to keep it that way. Do you have a recommended way to dissuade people from this absurd ideology? edit: I mean, I feel like we already had ww1, it was fun and all, but more of that? name one powerful empire in the history of the world that got it's status without a renown military. one. go.
To be fair if you want to talk in cliches, name one empire that didn't fall?
|
Here's the Ryan plan minus the unspecified magical tax base broadening: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?DocID=3381
Over 10 years, about $4.5 trillion dollars in less revenue, compared to a case where the Bush tax cuts don't expire, and $10 trillion dollars in less revenue compared to a case where the Bush tax cuts do expire.
And somehow this $4.5 to $10 trillion gaping hole of nonspecificity is meant to be closed... somehow this is meant to be revenue neutral.
|
On August 11 2012 18:38 Edlina wrote:
I'm going off the recent topic of Ryan as VP candidate and the proposals he and Romney have made - tax decrease = overall revenue increase is a ridiculous notion in all or almost all circumstances and certainly it's ridiculous with the current US taxes.
However, what I really wanted to know is, if someone could explain to me why the US system, to date, is set up in a way where 'the winner takes it all' in each State. I mean it's not very representative of Florida or Ohio, or any other State for that matter, that all of such State's delegates (or what they are called) go to a candidate whom fx obtain 51% of the votes...even the primary elections only function like this in a few certain States - no?
So why is it that way at the Presidential election - it seems to neglect all of the votes of huge voter groups in States where a party looses in a close race to the other party.
Its even worse then that. Duo to this system and the way delegates are structured its possible for a President to be chosen with less votes then the runner up.
The problem is that this system is designed to keep those with power in power. It ensures that Democrats and Republicans are the only parties able to gain power and they will never give that up.
|
On August 11 2012 20:36 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 18:38 Edlina wrote:
I'm going off the recent topic of Ryan as VP candidate and the proposals he and Romney have made - tax decrease = overall revenue increase is a ridiculous notion in all or almost all circumstances and certainly it's ridiculous with the current US taxes.
However, what I really wanted to know is, if someone could explain to me why the US system, to date, is set up in a way where 'the winner takes it all' in each State. I mean it's not very representative of Florida or Ohio, or any other State for that matter, that all of such State's delegates (or what they are called) go to a candidate whom fx obtain 51% of the votes...even the primary elections only function like this in a few certain States - no?
So why is it that way at the Presidential election - it seems to neglect all of the votes of huge voter groups in States where a party looses in a close race to the other party. Its even worse then that. Duo to this system and the way delegates are structured its possible for a President to be chosen with less votes then the runner up. The problem is that this system is designed to keep those with power in power. It ensures that Democrats and Republicans are the only parties able to gain power and they will never give that up.
Yes...
The delegate system totally can't be an aftermath of a democracy set up in a world where travel and information moved at a not-instant speed.
No, it isn't to accomodate democracy by mitigating the month-long travel times, it is an evil conspiracy by Dem's and Rep's to control the nation.
I can't find my remote, I wonder if the Illuminati has anything to do with it.
|
It was actually designed so the smaller states would not be completely forgotten or powerless and thus be bullied by the larger states. Minority protected from the majority and all that jazz. The funny drawback with it is you DO get some states vastly more important than other states (swing states) but at least those states aren't simply highly populated or similar to each other. Candidates need a more broader appeal to the people in the country thanks to the electoral college, theoretically.
|
On August 11 2012 19:07 paralleluniverse wrote:Here's the Ryan plan minus the unspecified magical tax base broadening: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?DocID=3381Over 10 years, about $4.5 trillion dollars in less revenue, compared to a case where the Bush tax cuts don't expire, and $10 trillion dollars in less revenue compared to a case where the Bush tax cuts do expire. And somehow this $4.5 to $10 trillion gaping hole of nonspecificity is meant to be closed... somehow this is meant to be revenue neutral.
If this rings true, how can Reps get away with their "class warfare" talking point, when they themselve take a huge dump on lower income/middle class people and favoring their "job creator" constituency to no end when it comes to taxes.
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
I think Ryan is an unfortunate pick for Romney. If he were in a stronger position, someone like Pawlenty or Portman would've been a good selection because they could operate like Biden does. Just travel around and make red meat speeches to the white working class voters who Obama is making such an effective play for. That would really be an effective way for Romney to match Obama blow for blow in the midwest.
But because Romney has had such a terrible month, with polls showing him more behind than at any point in the race so far, I think he had to go for a bigger play, even if the impact of the VP is almost always overhyped. The problem is that Ryan's main appeal is to cover Romney's right flank, instead of the center, which is where Romney really needed to go. And Ryan doesn't bring much to the ticket (besides youth) that Romney doesn't already have. Both are white men. Both are more 'manager' and 'wonk' types than showmen. Neither can get a crowd particularly excited. Ryan doesn't even really have much to say about jobs and the economy; his primary horse is the deficit. Of course, people often conflate with the economy, and they are related, but unfortunately for Romney, no economist believes that cutting the deficit will magically create jobs. Ultimately Ryan's best subject isn't as sexy as the meat and potatoes economic populism that Obama and Priorities are laying on thick in battleground states.
I'm still confused why Rubio didn't make the shortlist. The guy was one of the most inspiring options that Romney had, he could make a decent play for the hispanic vote, and he'd bolster Romney's flagging chances in Florida. While Ohio is probably the state Romney needs help in even more, Rubio seems like a good combination of "swing state bump + tea party-ness + inspiration for middle of the road folks" that makes him superior to Portman. Portman also kinda looks like the guy who got beat up in elementary school.
Ultimately, I think Romney will be hoping that this pick galvanizes the conservative base, and that the energy spreads to the center. I'm skeptical it'll happen though. Ryan in the end isn't the motivational type. Romney is still at the top of the ticket, and that will still annoy conservatives. He has shown no ability to avoid making gaffs that alternately alienate the right and the center. I don't see any indication that Ryan can transcend the usual role of a VP candidate, which is that they don't swing the vote at all. Even more importantly, Obama's campaign and oppo research has been 10X more effective than Romney's so far. Everyone is reporting that Romney is sitting on the bulk of his cash, and will make a heavy play late, but the truth is that Romney and his allies have already spent hundreds of millions to dent Obama, and they've largely failed to do anything. If Ryan even gains a high enough profile among random voters to become a target, I think Obama has the tools to nuke him.
|
Rubio probably didn't want to be VP. He can set his sights higher than that in the future most likely.
|
•+ Show Spoiler +On August 11 2012 21:17 tree.hugger wrote:
I think Ryan is an unfortunate pick for Romney. If he were in a stronger position, someone like Pawlenty or Portman would've been a good selection because they could operate like Biden does. Just travel around and make red meat speeches to the white working class voters who Obama is making such an effective play for. That would really be an effective way for Romney to match Obama blow for blow in the midwest.
But because Romney has had such a terrible month, with polls showing him more behind than at any point in the race so far, I think he had to go for a bigger play, even if the impact of the VP is almost always overhyped. The problem is that Ryan's main appeal is to cover Romney's right flank, instead of the center, which is where Romney really needed to go. And Ryan doesn't bring much to the ticket (besides youth) that Romney doesn't already have. Both are white men. Both are more 'manager' and 'wonk' types than showmen. Neither can get a crowd particularly excited. Ryan doesn't even really have much to say about jobs and the economy; his primary horse is the deficit. Of course, people often conflate with the economy, and they are related, but unfortunately for Romney, no economist believes that cutting the deficit will magically create jobs. Ultimately Ryan's best subject isn't as sexy as the meat and potatoes economic populism that Obama and Priorities are laying on thick in battleground states.
I'm still confused why Rubio didn't make the shortlist. The guy was one of the most inspiring options that Romney had, he could make a decent play for the hispanic vote, and he'd bolster Romney's flagging chances in Florida. While Ohio is probably the state Romney needs help in even more, Rubio seems like a good combination of "swing state bump + tea party-ness + inspiration for middle of the road folks" that makes him superior to Portman. Portman also kinda looks like the guy who got beat up in elementary school.
Ultimately, I think Romney will be hoping that this pick galvanizes the conservative base, and that the energy spreads to the center. I'm skeptical it'll happen though. Ryan in the end isn't the motivational type. Romney is still at the top of the ticket, and that will still annoy conservatives. He has shown no ability to avoid making gaffs that alternately alienate the right and the center. I don't see any indication that Ryan can transcend the usual role of a VP candidate, which is that they don't swing the vote at all. Even more importantly, Obama's campaign and opposition research has been 10X more effective than Romney's so far. Everyone is reporting that Romney is sitting on the bulk of his cash, and will make a heavy play late, but the truth is that Romney and his allies have already spent hundreds of millions to dent Obama, and they've largely failed to do anything. If Ryan even gains a high enough profile among random voters to become a target, I think Obama has the tools to nuke him.
See, that's rational political thought, which was thrown out the window years ago. We have resorted to a complete rhetorical rumble with no holds barred. So Ryan will be painted as the grim reaper of SS and Medicare whether he is or not. Meaning, Romney will lose by double digits undoubtedly.
|
Ryan would have been a much better choice had his eponymous plan actually gained any traction outside of the severely conservative circles.
I can understand Romney's desire to add someone with conservative credentials to the ticket, and I don't think he's in as much trouble with the blue collar folk as we think he is - a surprising number of them with whom I've spoken seem to think that if we elect a rich person, we'll all be rich, since clearly he knows how to run a business.
I don't think Romney's business credentials have ever been in question, (the "Romney saved the Olympics" commercials are absurd to me) and while I'm personally delighted that the attacks against his outsourcing and (legal) tax-evasion records are gaining traction (it's disingenuous to run on a platform of job creation due to past work experience when your past work experience involved more streamlining and outsourcing than expanding) I think the larger conversation that the country needs to have - by which I mean, that the democrats need to force - is whether or not we consider the government to be more than just a business concerned with maintaining a balanced budget, or whether it can honestly be a force for good, not just for low taxes.
|
On August 11 2012 21:08 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 19:07 paralleluniverse wrote:Here's the Ryan plan minus the unspecified magical tax base broadening: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?DocID=3381Over 10 years, about $4.5 trillion dollars in less revenue, compared to a case where the Bush tax cuts don't expire, and $10 trillion dollars in less revenue compared to a case where the Bush tax cuts do expire. And somehow this $4.5 to $10 trillion gaping hole of nonspecificity is meant to be closed... somehow this is meant to be revenue neutral. If this rings true, how can Reps get away with their "class warfare" talking point, when they themselve take a huge dump on lower income/middle class people and favoring their "job creator" constituency to no end when it comes to taxes.
The class warfare point is ridiculous.
There's always been class warfare. Romney wants to redistribute money from the poor to the rich, Obama wants to redistribute money from the rich to the poor.
Yes, there's class warfare -- pick your side.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/14/the-class-warfare-election/
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
