On August 28 2012 08:08 Saryph wrote: Well what is the solution of illegal immigration then? You obviously can't just deport them all, look at the economic impact.
what economic impact? Illegal immigrant don't work in a field where they cannot be easily replaced. Engineering firms, Health Care firms, law offices, etc. double check work eligibility and require a high degree of specialization. Your losing workers in fields that can be easily replaced.
"What economic impact?", you ask? Here's an example.
Overall, as Professor Samuel Addy of the Center for Business and Economic Research at the University of Alabama’s Culverhouse College of Commerce andBusiness Administration has illustrated, because of H.B. 56, Alabama could lose up to $10.8 billion (or 6.2 percent of its gross domestic product), up to 140,000 jobs in the state, $264.5 million in state tax revenue, and $93 million in local tax revenue.
This. Illegal immigration is an example of a public policy failure, or put more bluntly, bad laws. Immigration law in the United States makes absolutely zero sense in that it tries to over-regulate a fundamentally economic problem. Capital flows in and out of the United States are free. Labor flows are not. This is why shit like outsourcing happens, where American capital flows out of the country to find cheap labor abroad. This is fundamentally because there is a long-term labor shortage in North America, which illegal immigration hardliners refuse to solve. I have yet to see one person who advocates strict immigration enforcement come up with a solution to this problem. Not one. Quite sad given that they claim to come from the pro-business wing of US politics.
The variable you're missing is social policy. So long as the United States has social entitlements, it can't afford for unauthorized people to take advantage of it. Illegal immigrants, like it or not, do that in many cases. Even if they don't intend to, they drive social costs up in ways that the government and society cannot easily predict. So the solution is to either create more enforcement or reduce the benefits. Either way, society loses.
This isn't just a illegal immigration problem. Lots of people try to cheat the system, whether it's not reporting something on your taxes or spending some student loan money on non-school goods. But illegal immigrants are problematic because by definition nobody knows who they are or how many there are, so our social policy costs may be very different from what we expect.
Well isn't the solution just to bring them into the fold and so you can track them, and then determine how many benefits to give them then? It's not about better enforcement of our current laws. It's about expanding our current laws to allow more in every year (or allow more guest workers in with radically reduced privileges) and then enforcing those laws much harder.
On August 28 2012 08:08 Saryph wrote: Well what is the solution of illegal immigration then? You obviously can't just deport them all, look at the economic impact.
what economic impact? Illegal immigrant don't work in a field where they cannot be easily replaced. Engineering firms, Health Care firms, law offices, etc. double check work eligibility and require a high degree of specialization. Your losing workers in fields that can be easily replaced.
"What economic impact?", you ask? Here's an example.
Overall, as Professor Samuel Addy of the Center for Business and Economic Research at the University of Alabama’s Culverhouse College of Commerce andBusiness Administration has illustrated, because of H.B. 56, Alabama could lose up to $10.8 billion (or 6.2 percent of its gross domestic product), up to 140,000 jobs in the state, $264.5 million in state tax revenue, and $93 million in local tax revenue.
This. Illegal immigration is an example of a public policy failure, or put more bluntly, bad laws. Immigration law in the United States makes absolutely zero sense in that it tries to over-regulate a fundamentally economic problem. Capital flows in and out of the United States are free. Labor flows are not. This is why shit like outsourcing happens, where American capital flows out of the country to find cheap labor abroad. This is fundamentally because there is a long-term labor shortage in North America, which illegal immigration hardliners refuse to solve. I have yet to see one person who advocates strict immigration enforcement come up with a solution to this problem. Not one. Quite sad given that they claim to come from the pro-business wing of US politics.
The variable you're missing is social policy. So long as the United States has social entitlements, it can't afford for unauthorized people to take advantage of it. Illegal immigrants, like it or not, do that in many cases. Even if they don't intend to, they drive social costs up in ways that the government and society cannot easily predict. So the solution is to either create more enforcement or reduce the benefits. Either way, society loses.
This isn't just a illegal immigration problem. Lots of people try to cheat the system, whether it's not reporting something on your taxes or spending some student loan money on non-school goods. But illegal immigrants are problematic because by definition nobody knows who they are or how many there are, so our social policy costs may be very different from what we expect.
Well isn't the solution just to bring them into the fold and so you can track them, and then determine how many benefits to give them then? It's not about better enforcement of our current laws. It's about expanding our current laws to allow more in every year (or allow more guest workers in with radically reduced privileges) and then enforcing those laws much harder.
Yes, that's certainly one approach to the issue. The problem is what the costs will be to process those illegal immigrants and whether people in border states want to deal with immigration. There is a discussion that I think Obama and Romney will have there. Some people are willing to pay, some aren't.
Also note that illegal immigration is mostly from Mexico but the United States bars many people from many countries from entering the country. What are you going to do if 2 million people from China and India want to move here? How about 20 million? How about 200 million? Do you say stop at some point and how do you say it?
On August 28 2012 08:08 Saryph wrote: Well what is the solution of illegal immigration then? You obviously can't just deport them all, look at the economic impact.
what economic impact? Illegal immigrant don't work in a field where they cannot be easily replaced. Engineering firms, Health Care firms, law offices, etc. double check work eligibility and require a high degree of specialization. Your losing workers in fields that can be easily replaced.
"What economic impact?", you ask? Here's an example.
Overall, as Professor Samuel Addy of the Center for Business and Economic Research at the University of Alabama’s Culverhouse College of Commerce andBusiness Administration has illustrated, because of H.B. 56, Alabama could lose up to $10.8 billion (or 6.2 percent of its gross domestic product), up to 140,000 jobs in the state, $264.5 million in state tax revenue, and $93 million in local tax revenue.
This. Illegal immigration is an example of a public policy failure, or put more bluntly, bad laws. Immigration law in the United States makes absolutely zero sense in that it tries to over-regulate a fundamentally economic problem. Capital flows in and out of the United States are free. Labor flows are not. This is why shit like outsourcing happens, where American capital flows out of the country to find cheap labor abroad. This is fundamentally because there is a long-term labor shortage in North America, which illegal immigration hardliners refuse to solve. I have yet to see one person who advocates strict immigration enforcement come up with a solution to this problem. Not one. Quite sad given that they claim to come from the pro-business wing of US politics.
The variable you're missing is social policy. So long as the United States has social entitlements, it can't afford for unauthorized people to take advantage of it. Illegal immigrants, like it or not, do that in many cases. Even if they don't intend to, they drive social costs up in ways that the government and society cannot easily predict. So the solution is to either create more enforcement or reduce the benefits. Either way, society loses.
This isn't just a illegal immigration problem. Lots of people try to cheat the system, whether it's not reporting something on your taxes or spending some student loan money on non-school goods. But illegal immigrants are problematic because by definition nobody knows who they are or how many there are, so our social policy costs may be very different from what we expect.
What are your numbers? I clearly showed in my two examples the positive impact they had on the economy. Do you have any source that would indicate they always take out more in social security than they bring in the economy and government budget through their work, consumption and tax payments? Because quite frankly I'm skeptical that the "$264.5 million in state tax revenue, and $93 million in local tax revenue" that Alabama lost through the departure of illegal immigrants was inferior to the amount saved by them not receiving social security and other public services, and to their general contribution to the economy.
On August 27 2012 11:19 Fredbearr wrote: I don't understand my own country. Am I the only one who feels bragging about getting revenge is worthless? I don't care if Osama is dead or not. It doesn't change the fact that once Clinton repealed the Glass–Steagall Act the whole U.S. economy has turned to shit after 60 years of prosperity. If the people would focus on who has better ideas rather than who is a republican or who is a christian, we might get a decent politician once and a while who is actually capable of changing for the better.
I agree I am so fucking sick and tired of campaign ads that focus on the negatives of their opponents instead of the positives of their own candidates.
America is fucked.
Haven't ads been doing this for decades upon decades, possibly centuries???
LBJ was a fucking scoundrel but at least he got things done. He's a terrible president because of Vietnam, but on domestic issues he was one of the best between the Great Society and the Civil Rights Act. "There goes the South for a decade" he is alleged to have said for the Democratic Party. Almost 50 years later and it's still Republican...
Except for the fact that when he was speaker of the house he blocked the civil rights act that tried to make its way through under eisenhower. And that he passed laws that forced black families to choose between getting a welfare check or staying married (surprise, the black community decided that the government would be better husbands). And the fact that medicare is an almost 90 trillion dollar unfunded liability. He is responsible for the black community spending even more time under racism, is the reason why single parenthood is the norm for blacks, and why the government is so much in debt.
And just to be clear, pretty much ever single president during the 20th century and the 21st was either a completely trash bag, or countered all their good done with equally bad.
On August 28 2012 08:08 Saryph wrote: Well what is the solution of illegal immigration then? You obviously can't just deport them all, look at the economic impact.
what economic impact? Illegal immigrant don't work in a field where they cannot be easily replaced. Engineering firms, Health Care firms, law offices, etc. double check work eligibility and require a high degree of specialization. Your losing workers in fields that can be easily replaced.
"What economic impact?", you ask? Here's an example.
Overall, as Professor Samuel Addy of the Center for Business and Economic Research at the University of Alabama’s Culverhouse College of Commerce andBusiness Administration has illustrated, because of H.B. 56, Alabama could lose up to $10.8 billion (or 6.2 percent of its gross domestic product), up to 140,000 jobs in the state, $264.5 million in state tax revenue, and $93 million in local tax revenue.
This. Illegal immigration is an example of a public policy failure, or put more bluntly, bad laws. Immigration law in the United States makes absolutely zero sense in that it tries to over-regulate a fundamentally economic problem. Capital flows in and out of the United States are free. Labor flows are not. This is why shit like outsourcing happens, where American capital flows out of the country to find cheap labor abroad. This is fundamentally because there is a long-term labor shortage in North America, which illegal immigration hardliners refuse to solve. I have yet to see one person who advocates strict immigration enforcement come up with a solution to this problem. Not one. Quite sad given that they claim to come from the pro-business wing of US politics.
The variable you're missing is social policy. So long as the United States has social entitlements, it can't afford for unauthorized people to take advantage of it. Illegal immigrants, like it or not, do that in many cases. Even if they don't intend to, they drive social costs up in ways that the government and society cannot easily predict. So the solution is to either create more enforcement or reduce the benefits. Either way, society loses.
This isn't just a illegal immigration problem. Lots of people try to cheat the system, whether it's not reporting something on your taxes or spending some student loan money on non-school goods. But illegal immigrants are problematic because by definition nobody knows who they are or how many there are, so our social policy costs may be very different from what we expect.
What are your numbers? I clearly showed in my two examples the positive impact they had on the economy. Do you have any source that would indicate they always take out more in social security than they bring in the economy through their work and consumption? Because quite frankly I'm skeptical that the "$264.5 million in state tax revenue, and $93 million in local tax revenue" that Alabama lost through the departure of illegal immigrants was inferior to the amount saved by them not receiving social security. In fact, I'm quite sure it wasn't.
The report that you provided showed the costs of the law but not the benefits. They all say it's too difficult to estimate. I don't care enough about this issue to really look it up but these articles are just demagoguery if we're not comparing numbers, as you're noting.
Although if you look at Alabama's budget, they spent roughly $3 billion on health care and $8 billion on education of just state money. Their total budget spending is $26 billion. So what you should be asking is whether illegal immigrants consume more than the 1.3% of the state's resources that they're putting in.
On August 28 2012 08:08 Saryph wrote: Well what is the solution of illegal immigration then? You obviously can't just deport them all, look at the economic impact.
what economic impact? Illegal immigrant don't work in a field where they cannot be easily replaced. Engineering firms, Health Care firms, law offices, etc. double check work eligibility and require a high degree of specialization. Your losing workers in fields that can be easily replaced.
"What economic impact?", you ask? Here's an example.
Overall, as Professor Samuel Addy of the Center for Business and Economic Research at the University of Alabama’s Culverhouse College of Commerce andBusiness Administration has illustrated, because of H.B. 56, Alabama could lose up to $10.8 billion (or 6.2 percent of its gross domestic product), up to 140,000 jobs in the state, $264.5 million in state tax revenue, and $93 million in local tax revenue.
This. Illegal immigration is an example of a public policy failure, or put more bluntly, bad laws. Immigration law in the United States makes absolutely zero sense in that it tries to over-regulate a fundamentally economic problem. Capital flows in and out of the United States are free. Labor flows are not. This is why shit like outsourcing happens, where American capital flows out of the country to find cheap labor abroad. This is fundamentally because there is a long-term labor shortage in North America, which illegal immigration hardliners refuse to solve. I have yet to see one person who advocates strict immigration enforcement come up with a solution to this problem. Not one. Quite sad given that they claim to come from the pro-business wing of US politics.
The variable you're missing is social policy. So long as the United States has social entitlements, it can't afford for unauthorized people to take advantage of it. Illegal immigrants, like it or not, do that in many cases. Even if they don't intend to, they drive social costs up in ways that the government and society cannot easily predict. So the solution is to either create more enforcement or reduce the benefits. Either way, society loses.
This isn't just a illegal immigration problem. Lots of people try to cheat the system, whether it's not reporting something on your taxes or spending some student loan money on non-school goods. But illegal immigrants are problematic because by definition nobody knows who they are or how many there are, so our social policy costs may be very different from what we expect.
What are your numbers? I clearly showed in my two examples the positive impact they had on the economy. Do you have any source that would indicate they always take out more in social security than they bring in the economy through their work and consumption? Because quite frankly I'm skeptical that the "$264.5 million in state tax revenue, and $93 million in local tax revenue" that Alabama lost through the departure of illegal immigrants was inferior to the amount saved by them not receiving social security. In fact, I'm quite sure it wasn't.
The report that you provided showed the costs of the law but not the benefits. They all say it's too difficult to estimate. I don't care enough about this issue to really look it up but these articles are just demagoguery if we're not comparing numbers, as you're noting.
Although if you look at Alabama's budget, they spent roughly $3 billion on health care and $8 billion on education of just state money. Their total budget spending is $26 billion. So what you should be asking is whether illegal immigrants consume more than the 1.3% of the state's resources that they're putting in.
From what I've seen for a few states (not for the entire US), illegal immigrants have a tendency to bring more costs than benefits to local and state governments (there are examples of the opposite, however), and more benefits than costs to the federal government. The differences, are, however, usually relatively modest, and I haven't found estimations of their net costs/benefits impact regarding local, state and federal budgets. Also, net costs to local and state governments, when they exist, apparently often pale in comparison to the contribution of illegal immigrants to the economy they work and spend in.
I love how people defend Obama on G. Bay. The man lies to us and we all run to his defense. "It wasn't him it was CONGRESS." We put him in office cause he was suppose to transcend the partisan politics and have a popular run that would force his blockersin congress to submit. He also HELD THE MAJOIRTY OF CONGRESS. It was his OWN PARTY IN POWER.
This did not happen. He made a promise and did not carry it out- that's called Lying.
Had he said, "I will attempt to close G Bay" He wouldn't be a liar.
But his overconfidence and pandering to his liberal crowd makes him a liar.
3 Lies for Obama, 1 Lie for Romney
This is why I continue to advocate we do not vote for either. I refuse to vote for a liar, and I believe in holding my politicans accountable. We can raise the standards and break the mold, if we simply refuse to back liars.
I'm still not voting (or as more of a joke intending to hand write in Ron Paul).
On August 28 2012 10:10 SayGen wrote: I love how people defend Obama on G. Bay. The man lies to us and we all run to his defense. "It wasn't him it was CONGRESS." We put him in office cause he was suppose to transcend the partisan politics and have a popular run that would force his blockersin congress to submit. He also HELD THE MAJOIRTY OF CONGRESS. It was his OWN PARTY IN POWER.
Lay off the caps key, bro, we (they) already went over this.
On August 15 2012 07:29 aksfjh wrote: ...
As for the first 2 years of Congress, he had the majority in both houses, but Republican opposition was in such unison that it was impossible to get any of their support on legislation. I knew I saved this for a reason.
There were at least seven Democratic senators in 2009-2010—Baucus, Landrieu, Lincoln, Bayh, Nelson, Pryor, Spector, Webb—who were “professionally bipartisan” in that they would not vote for cloture in any but the most extraordinary circumstances without Republicans voting by their side. Unless the Democrats could peel off a Collins, a Snowe, or a Voinovich, they had not a filibuster-proof working majority of 60 but rather a filibuster-vulnerable working majority of 53.
On August 28 2012 08:53 Shady Sands wrote: Well isn't the solution just to bring them into the fold and so you can track them, and then determine how many benefits to give them then? It's not about better enforcement of our current laws. It's about expanding our current laws to allow more in every year (or allow more guest workers in with radically reduced privileges) and then enforcing those laws much harder.
Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million with a promise of reform and stricter enforcement and then a decade or so later there were 10 million new illegals.
And personally the whole benefits discussion is a side-track. The two real issues are respecting the law and the effect illegals have on employment and wages for citizens.
On August 28 2012 10:10 SayGen wrote: I love how people defend Obama on G. Bay. The man lies to us and we all run to his defense. "It wasn't him it was CONGRESS." We put him in office cause he was suppose to transcend the partisan politics and have a popular run that would force his blockersin congress to submit. He also HELD THE MAJOIRTY OF CONGRESS. It was his OWN PARTY IN POWER.
This did not happen. He made a promise and did not carry it out- that's called Lying.
Had he said, "I will attempt to close G Bay" He wouldn't be a liar.
But his overconfidence and pandering to his liberal crowd makes him a liar.
3 Lies for Obama, 1 Lie for Romney
This is why I continue to advocate we do not vote for either. I refuse to vote for a liar, and I believe in holding my politicans accountable. We can raise the standards and break the mold, if we simply refuse to back liars.
I'm still not voting (or as more of a joke intending to hand write in Ron Paul).
Never thought of that but it makes complete sense all we have to do is not vote, and the liars will be gone wow
The Economist desperately, desperately wants to like Romney -- they've been critical of both candidates and the Obama administration in the past -- but they just can't.
So, Mitt, what do you really believe? Too much about the Republican candidate for the presidency is far too mysterious Aug 25th 2012 | from the print edition
WHEN Mitt Romney was governor of liberal Massachusetts, he supported abortion, gun control, tackling climate change and a requirement that everyone should buy health insurance, backed up with generous subsidies for those who could not afford it. Now, as he prepares to fly to Tampa to accept the Republican Party’s nomination for president on August 30th, he opposes all those things. A year ago he favoured keeping income taxes at their current levels; now he wants to slash them for everybody, with the rate falling from 35% to 28% for the richest Americans.
All politicians flip-flop from time to time; but Mr Romney could win an Olympic medal in it (see article). And that is a pity, because this newspaper finds much to like in the history of this uncharismatic but dogged man, from his obvious business acumen to the way he worked across the political aisle as governor to get health reform passed and the state budget deficit down. We share many of his views about the excessive growth of regulation and of the state in general in America, and the effect that this has on investment, productivity and growth. After four years of soaring oratory and intermittent reforms, why not bring in a more businesslike figure who might start fixing the problems with America’s finances?
But competence is worthless without direction and, frankly, character. Would that Candidate Romney had indeed presented himself as a solid chief executive who got things done. Instead he has appeared as a fawning PR man, apparently willing to do or say just about anything to get elected. In some areas, notably social policy and foreign affairs, the result is that he is now committed to needlessly extreme or dangerous courses that he may not actually believe in but will find hard to drop; in others, especially to do with the economy, the lack of details means that some attractive-sounding headline policies prove meaningless (and possibly dangerous) on closer inspection. Behind all this sits the worrying idea of a man who does not really know his own mind. America won’t vote for that man; nor would this newspaper. The convention offers Mr Romney his best chance to say what he really believes.
There are some areas where Mr Romney has shuffled to the right unnecessarily. In America’s culture wars he has followed the Republican trend of adopting ever more socially conservative positions. He says he will appoint anti-abortion justices to the Supreme Court and back the existing federal Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA). This goes down well with southern evangelicals, less so with independent voters: witness the furore over one (rapidly disowned) Republican’s ludicrous remarks about abortion and “legitimate rape” (see article). But the powers of the federal government are limited in this area; DOMA has not stopped a few states introducing gay marriage and many more recognising gay civil partnerships.
The damage done to a Romney presidency by his courting of the isolationist right in the primaries could prove more substantial. He has threatened to label China as a currency manipulator on the first day of his presidency. Even if it is unclear what would follow from that, risking a trade war with one of America’s largest trading partners when the recovery is so sickly seems especially mindless. Some of his anti-immigration policies won’t help, either. And his attempts to lure American Jews with near-racist talk about Arabs and belligerence against Iran could ill serve the interests of his country (and, for that matter, Israel’s).
Once again, it may be argued that this will not matter: previous presidents pandered to interest groups and embraced realpolitik in office. Besides, this election will be fought on the economy. This is where Manager Romney should be at his strongest. But he has yet to convince: sometimes, again, being needlessly extremist, more often evasive and vague.
In theory, Mr Romney has a detailed 59-point economic plan. In practice, it ignores virtually all the difficult or interesting questions (indeed, “The Romney Programme for Economic Recovery, Growth and Jobs” is like “Fifty Shades of Grey” without the sex). Mr Romney began by saying that he wanted to bring down the deficit; now he stresses lower tax rates. Both are admirable aims, but they could well be contradictory: so which is his primary objective? His running-mate, Paul Ryan, thinks the Republicans can lower tax rates without losing tax revenues, by closing loopholes. Again, a simpler tax system is a good idea, but no politician has yet dared to tackle the main exemptions. Unless Mr Romney specifies which boondoggles to axe, this looks meaningless and risky.
On the spending side, Mr Romney is promising both to slim Leviathan and to boost defence spending dramatically. So what is he going to cut? How is he going to trim the huge entitlement programmes? Which bits of Mr Ryan’s scheme does he agree with? It is a little odd that the number two has a plan and his boss doesn’t. And it is all very well promising to repeal Barack Obama’s health-care plan and the equally gargantuan Dodd-Frank act on financial regulation, but what exactly will Mr Romney replace them with—unless, of course, he thinks Wall Street was well-regulated before Lehman went bust?
Mr Romney may calculate that it is best to keep quiet: the faltering economy will drive voters towards him. It is more likely, however, that his evasiveness will erode his main competitive advantage. A businessman without a credible plan to fix a problem stops being a credible businessman. So does a businessman who tells you one thing at breakfast and the opposite at supper. Indeed, all this underlines the main doubt: nobody knows who this strange man really is. It is half a decade since he ran something. Why won’t he talk about his business career openly? Why has he been so reluctant to disclose his tax returns? How can a leader change tack so often? Where does he really want to take the world’s most powerful country?
It is not too late for Mr Romney to show America’s voters that he is a man who can lead his party rather than be led by it. But he has a lot of questions to answer in Tampa.
On August 28 2012 13:53 Defacer wrote: The Economist desperately, desperately wants to like Romney -- they've been critical of both candidates and the Obama administration in the past -- but they just can't.
Concern trolling at its finest. Romney doesn't have a plan. Well he does but it doesn't count. And neither does his running-mate's plan which, that article won't tell you passed the House and has gotten hundreds of more votes than Obama's which this year and last year has a combined vote total of ZERO. Oh but there is time for a dozen paragraphs first on a bunch of other issues. So yeah, let's stick with the group that has given us 8+% unemployment for year after year after year, over 15% underemployment year after year after year, and trillion dollar deficits year after year after year after year.
On August 28 2012 13:53 Defacer wrote: The Economist desperately, desperately wants to like Romney -- they've been critical of both candidates and the Obama administration in the past -- but they just can't.
Concern trolling at its finest. Romney doesn't have a plan. Well he does but it doesn't count. And neither does his running-mate's plan which, that article won't tell you passed the House and has gotten hundreds of more votes than Obama's which this year and last year has a combined vote total of ZERO. Oh but there is time for a dozen paragraphs first on a bunch of other issues. So yeah, let's stick with the group that has given us 8+% unemployment for year after year after year, over 15% underemployment year after year after year, and trillion dollar deficits year after year after year after year.
On August 28 2012 18:44 MinusPlus wrote: Ugh, again. Okay, start here. Read to the bottom of the next page if you don't understand from the one post. Sorry, there's a lot of xDaunt to wade through. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=15845687
Single-issue voting aside ("a bunch of other issues" is so dismissive), I still have no idea why people support Romney and mention the deficit.
zzzzzzzzz
Tapper is among the best of the WH corps (which isn't saying much but still) however you and him and the others trying that spin aren't putting together all the pieces of the story. The GOP "stunt" only happens because Obama and the Democrats haven't put forward a serious budget in years.
And while I'm here, the economy isn't a single-issue. The deficit, the debt, unemployment, underemployment, energy policy, tax policy, inflation, regulations especially further misguided meddling in health care, the aftermath of the housing bubble government created, the failed stimulus and the Democrats' crony capitalism and union pandering, entitlement reform, and more I am leaving out to avoid the appearance of piling on are all things that Obama and his pals have made worse and Romney and the other Rs will make better.
On August 28 2012 18:44 MinusPlus wrote: Ugh, again. Okay, start here. Read to the bottom of the next page if you don't understand from the one post. Sorry, there's a lot of xDaunt to wade through. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=15845687
Single-issue voting aside ("a bunch of other issues" is so dismissive), I still have no idea why people support Romney and mention the deficit.
zzzzzzzzz
Tapper is among the best of the WH corps (which isn't saying much but still) however you and him and the others trying that spin aren't putting together all the pieces of the story. The GOP "stunt" only happens because Obama and the Democrats haven't put forward a serious budget in years.
And while I'm here, the economy isn't a single-issue. The deficit, the debt, unemployment, underemployment, energy policy, tax policy, inflation, regulations especially further misguided meddling in health care, the aftermath of the housing bubble government created, the failed stimulus and the Democrats' crony capitalism and union pandering, entitlement reform, and more I am leaving out to avoid the appearance of piling on are all things that Obama and his pals have made worse and Romney and the other Rs will make better.
Do you get all your talking points from FOX? i have never heard the term crony capitalism besides watching fox news and its just funny to see someone say it because im not really sure its a good term to use
On August 28 2012 18:44 MinusPlus wrote: Ugh, again. Okay, start here. Read to the bottom of the next page if you don't understand from the one post. Sorry, there's a lot of xDaunt to wade through. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=15845687
Single-issue voting aside ("a bunch of other issues" is so dismissive), I still have no idea why people support Romney and mention the deficit.
zzzzzzzzz
Tapper is among the best of the WH corps (which isn't saying much but still) however you and him and the others trying that spin aren't putting together all the pieces of the story. The GOP "stunt" only happens because Obama and the Democrats haven't put forward a serious budget in years.
And while I'm here, the economy isn't a single-issue. The deficit, the debt, unemployment, underemployment, energy policy, tax policy, inflation, regulations especially further misguided meddling in health care, the aftermath of the housing bubble government created, the failed stimulus and the Democrats' crony capitalism and union pandering, entitlement reform, and more I am leaving out to avoid the appearance of piling on are all things that Obama and his pals have made worse and Romney and the other Rs will make better.
Do you get all your talking points from FOX? i have never heard the term crony capitalism besides watching fox news and its just funny to see someone say it because im not really sure its a good term to use
Crony capitalism is a real phenomenon usually more characteristic of developing economies that has been a growing problem in the U.S. since the advent of the "starve the beast" tactics of the Reagan revolution.
On August 28 2012 18:44 MinusPlus wrote: Ugh, again. Okay, start here. Read to the bottom of the next page if you don't understand from the one post. Sorry, there's a lot of xDaunt to wade through. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=15845687
Single-issue voting aside ("a bunch of other issues" is so dismissive), I still have no idea why people support Romney and mention the deficit.
zzzzzzzzz
Tapper is among the best of the WH corps (which isn't saying much but still) however you and him and the others trying that spin aren't putting together all the pieces of the story. The GOP "stunt" only happens because Obama and the Democrats haven't put forward a serious budget in years.
And while I'm here, the economy isn't a single-issue. The deficit, the debt, unemployment, underemployment, energy policy, tax policy, inflation, regulations especially further misguided meddling in health care, the aftermath of the housing bubble government created, the failed stimulus and the Democrats' crony capitalism and union pandering, entitlement reform, and more I am leaving out to avoid the appearance of piling on are all things that Obama and his pals have made worse and Romney and the other Rs will make better.
Do you get all your talking points from FOX? i have never heard the term crony capitalism besides watching fox news and its just funny to see someone say it because im not really sure its a good term to use
Nah, not a partisan term. Young Turks use it a lot and they are ultra-progressive.
Interesting Washington Post article for those who still keep denying a shift further to the right of the Republican party.
GOP platform through the years shows party’s shift from moderate to conservative
The Republican Party, viewed through its quadrennial platform documents, is consistently business-oriented and committed to a strong defense, but has morphed over the past half-century from a socially moderate, environmentally progressive and fiscally cautious perspective to a conservative party that is suspicious of government, allied against abortion and driven by faith.
Influenced by the rise of tea party activists, this year’s platform, scheduled to be released and adopted Tuesday at the party’s convention in Tampa, has shifted to the right, particularly on fiscal issues. It calls for an audit of the Federal Reserve and a commission to study returning to the gold standard. There are odes of fidelity to the Constitution, but also a call to amend the Constitution to require a 2/3 majority in Congress to raise taxes.
On August 28 2012 18:44 MinusPlus wrote: Ugh, again. Okay, start here. Read to the bottom of the next page if you don't understand from the one post. Sorry, there's a lot of xDaunt to wade through. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=15845687
Single-issue voting aside ("a bunch of other issues" is so dismissive), I still have no idea why people support Romney and mention the deficit.
zzzzzzzzz
Tapper is among the best of the WH corps (which isn't saying much but still) however you and him and the others trying that spin aren't putting together all the pieces of the story. The GOP "stunt" only happens because Obama and the Democrats haven't put forward a serious budget in years.
And while I'm here, the economy isn't a single-issue. The deficit, the debt, unemployment, underemployment, energy policy, tax policy, inflation, regulations especially further misguided meddling in health care, the aftermath of the housing bubble government created, the failed stimulus and the Democrats' crony capitalism and union pandering, entitlement reform, and more I am leaving out to avoid the appearance of piling on are all things that Obama and his pals have made worse and Romney and the other Rs will make better.
The Romney plan is not a serious budget. Neither is the Ryan plan. They promise to make up the revenue loss of tax cuts by closing loopholes in the tax system, but refuse to identify which ones. And the size of the tax cuts are so significant that's it's intellectually dishonest to pretend to have a 'plan' or 'promise' when you don't actually have an actual 'budget' that proves it.
They might as well be promising every American a pony.
And don't get me started on Romney's promise to set a 'Regulatory Cap at Zero'. It's voodoo math at it's finest.
EPT
