|
|
On September 21 2012 06:29 madsweepslol wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 04:11 ziggurat wrote:On September 21 2012 03:56 madsweepslol wrote:On September 21 2012 03:41 ziggurat wrote:On September 21 2012 03:29 madsweepslol wrote:On September 21 2012 03:17 ziggurat wrote:
I have seen a few clips of Obama's appearance on Letterman and I was a bit surprised by some of the inaccurate statements he made.
1. He claimed that he had never called his political opponents "unpatriotic" which of course anyone who was alive in 2008 knows isn't true
2. He claimed that he "inherited" a trillion dollar deficit, but the trillion dollar deficit only came in FY 2009
3. He claimed that he couldn't remember how much the national debt was (?!?)
When politicians say things that aren't true I usually want to give them the benefit of the doubt. Maybe Obama was trying to say that he had never called Romney unpatriotic? Maybe by "inherited a trillion dollar deficit" he meant that he inherited a bad economy such that he had no choice but to pass incredibly costly programs?
But how is it even possible that he doesn't know how much the debt is? Did he get nervous and freeze up? Maybe he was just stunned that Letterman was asking him moderately challenging questions? Or did he just not want to say "sixteen trillion" on the air? But seriously, how can the president not know the national debt when the size of the debt has been one of the biggest issues in the campaign?
So assuming that Obama wasn't "lying" when he made these comments -- can anyone offer any defence for these statements? 1. Did he call anyone other than Bush unpatriotic? If not, then I think he's just being lawyerly, since technically Bush wasn't a political opponent, even though that's basically who he ran against. 2. Obama was inaugurated during FY '09, when Bush/110th Congress policies were still in place, so yeah, that's inheriting it. 3. Either incompetence or, as you said, not wanting to say the number on air, i.e. playing politics. The elections were held in Nov of 2008. Obama won, and the democrats achieved strong majorities in the house and the senate as well. Then in January 2009 Obama was inaugurated. Shortly afterwards they passed the $800 billion stimulus bill. Then, at the end of FY 2009, there was a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit (compared to less than 5 hundred billion in FY 2008). So I don't really understand your point in #2. The U.S. government is like a big ship in that it takes minute to alter course. So what I mean in point #2 is: Obama took office a full third into FY '09, which means most financial legislation in effect that year was passed before he was sworn in. Further, way to ignore the $700 billion bailout signed by Bush on the third day of FY '09. I think this is misleading, because although Bush authorized $700 billion, it wasn't all spent. Only $475 billion was actually spent, and that happened over several years. You do make a fair point that Bush started policies that contributed to the debt. But here's what I think is important. Obama had no obligation to follow through on those policies. His party controlled all 3 houses of government. He could have repealed Bush's excessively expensive policies. He did not. In fact, he accellerated those policies with even more unaffordable spending. Obama has continued to run trillion+ dollar deficits since he's been in power. So for him to say that he was stuck with Bush's policies is false -- he actually endorsed and expanded Bush's already-profligate spending plans. So here we are four years later, and debt and the economy are still George Bush's fault. Yes, the initial $700 billion was limited to $475 billion almost two years later, which I think supports my point. Emergency financial legislation passted in Oct. '08 still wasn't fully effected July '10. How was Obama to change the financial policies of the previous presidency and congress in only 8 months, and not only change those policies but effect those changes in only 8 months? They FY '09 mess is something he inherited, not created.
We should also note how interest works... It's something like 73 million dollars a day in interest the USA pays to china alone, its somewhere at a rate of 2 million dollars a minute overall (china + everyone else) so the idea that the debt shot past 9 trillion to 16 trillion shouldn't be that hard to image (similar to how exponential functions work, more debt = more interest, if you can't pay that interest you get in debt farther as it gains, this is how people go bankrupt)
So I doubt this hidden number really mattered in the long run, it was going to happen and though it made him look a bit worse the debt was still going to sky rocket.
Anywho
|
On September 21 2012 05:42 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 05:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 21 2012 05:06 kwizach wrote:On September 21 2012 04:11 ziggurat wrote:On September 21 2012 03:56 madsweepslol wrote:On September 21 2012 03:41 ziggurat wrote:On September 21 2012 03:29 madsweepslol wrote:On September 21 2012 03:17 ziggurat wrote:
I have seen a few clips of Obama's appearance on Letterman and I was a bit surprised by some of the inaccurate statements he made.
1. He claimed that he had never called his political opponents "unpatriotic" which of course anyone who was alive in 2008 knows isn't true
2. He claimed that he "inherited" a trillion dollar deficit, but the trillion dollar deficit only came in FY 2009
3. He claimed that he couldn't remember how much the national debt was (?!?)
When politicians say things that aren't true I usually want to give them the benefit of the doubt. Maybe Obama was trying to say that he had never called Romney unpatriotic? Maybe by "inherited a trillion dollar deficit" he meant that he inherited a bad economy such that he had no choice but to pass incredibly costly programs?
But how is it even possible that he doesn't know how much the debt is? Did he get nervous and freeze up? Maybe he was just stunned that Letterman was asking him moderately challenging questions? Or did he just not want to say "sixteen trillion" on the air? But seriously, how can the president not know the national debt when the size of the debt has been one of the biggest issues in the campaign?
So assuming that Obama wasn't "lying" when he made these comments -- can anyone offer any defence for these statements? 1. Did he call anyone other than Bush unpatriotic? If not, then I think he's just being lawyerly, since technically Bush wasn't a political opponent, even though that's basically who he ran against. 2. Obama was inaugurated during FY '09, when Bush/110th Congress policies were still in place, so yeah, that's inheriting it. 3. Either incompetence or, as you said, not wanting to say the number on air, i.e. playing politics. The elections were held in Nov of 2008. Obama won, and the democrats achieved strong majorities in the house and the senate as well. Then in January 2009 Obama was inaugurated. Shortly afterwards they passed the $800 billion stimulus bill. Then, at the end of FY 2009, there was a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit (compared to less than 5 hundred billion in FY 2008). So I don't really understand your point in #2. The U.S. government is like a big ship in that it takes minute to alter course. So what I mean in point #2 is: Obama took office a full third into FY '09, which means most financial legislation in effect that year was passed before he was sworn in. Further, way to ignore the $700 billion bailout signed by Bush on the third day of FY '09. I think this is misleading, because although Bush authorized $700 billion, it wasn't all spent. Only $475 billion was actually spent, and that happened over several years. You do make a fair point that Bush started policies that contributed to the debt. But here's what I think is important. Obama had no obligation to follow through on those policies. His party controlled all 3 houses of government. He could have repealed Bush's excessively expensive policies. He did not. In fact, he accellerated those policies with even more unaffordable spending. Obama has continued to run trillion+ dollar deficits since he's been in power. So for him to say that he was stuck with Bush's policies is false -- he actually endorsed and expanded Bush's already-profligate spending plans. So here we are four years later, and debt and the economy are still George Bush's fault. The three most expensive single policies were the Bush tax cuts and the two wars. Obama ended the war in Iraq, can't exactly walk out of Afghanistan that easily, and supported ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich. In fact, the Republicans forced him to extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich if he wanted to extend them for the middle-class, so they're still responsible for those tax cuts since the end of 2010. In addition, I can't really take seriously anyone who claims the deficits are simply Obama's fault rather without even taking into account the absolutely huge economic crisis he inherited. If Obama ended the Bush tax cuts for the rich the deficit would still be $1.2T+ Its one thing to excuse Obama for inheriting a bad situation, its another thing to give him a pass on making very little progress. Yes, quite obviously no-one is saying that ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich is supposed to erase the deficit. Where exactly should he have "made progress", according to you?
How Obama should have tacked the deficit is a separate issue from whether he has or not.
But since you asked I'd like to see military spending fall (it should anyways as the wars wind down but cut down out some big ticket items like the F35 and try to close some overseas bases), tax increases on the highest income bracket (normal income only, leave investment income alone), tax increase on gas (highway fund is in perpetual shortfall), big cuts to homeland security (TSA is a joke), cuts to government worker compensation (put in line with private sector), and virtually wipe out subsidies (oil, agriculture, solar/wind, electric car, etc.).
I have no idea what that would add up to...
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 21 2012 06:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 05:42 kwizach wrote:On September 21 2012 05:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 21 2012 05:06 kwizach wrote:On September 21 2012 04:11 ziggurat wrote:On September 21 2012 03:56 madsweepslol wrote:On September 21 2012 03:41 ziggurat wrote:On September 21 2012 03:29 madsweepslol wrote:On September 21 2012 03:17 ziggurat wrote:
I have seen a few clips of Obama's appearance on Letterman and I was a bit surprised by some of the inaccurate statements he made.
1. He claimed that he had never called his political opponents "unpatriotic" which of course anyone who was alive in 2008 knows isn't true
2. He claimed that he "inherited" a trillion dollar deficit, but the trillion dollar deficit only came in FY 2009
3. He claimed that he couldn't remember how much the national debt was (?!?)
When politicians say things that aren't true I usually want to give them the benefit of the doubt. Maybe Obama was trying to say that he had never called Romney unpatriotic? Maybe by "inherited a trillion dollar deficit" he meant that he inherited a bad economy such that he had no choice but to pass incredibly costly programs?
But how is it even possible that he doesn't know how much the debt is? Did he get nervous and freeze up? Maybe he was just stunned that Letterman was asking him moderately challenging questions? Or did he just not want to say "sixteen trillion" on the air? But seriously, how can the president not know the national debt when the size of the debt has been one of the biggest issues in the campaign?
So assuming that Obama wasn't "lying" when he made these comments -- can anyone offer any defence for these statements? 1. Did he call anyone other than Bush unpatriotic? If not, then I think he's just being lawyerly, since technically Bush wasn't a political opponent, even though that's basically who he ran against. 2. Obama was inaugurated during FY '09, when Bush/110th Congress policies were still in place, so yeah, that's inheriting it. 3. Either incompetence or, as you said, not wanting to say the number on air, i.e. playing politics. The elections were held in Nov of 2008. Obama won, and the democrats achieved strong majorities in the house and the senate as well. Then in January 2009 Obama was inaugurated. Shortly afterwards they passed the $800 billion stimulus bill. Then, at the end of FY 2009, there was a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit (compared to less than 5 hundred billion in FY 2008). So I don't really understand your point in #2. The U.S. government is like a big ship in that it takes minute to alter course. So what I mean in point #2 is: Obama took office a full third into FY '09, which means most financial legislation in effect that year was passed before he was sworn in. Further, way to ignore the $700 billion bailout signed by Bush on the third day of FY '09. I think this is misleading, because although Bush authorized $700 billion, it wasn't all spent. Only $475 billion was actually spent, and that happened over several years. You do make a fair point that Bush started policies that contributed to the debt. But here's what I think is important. Obama had no obligation to follow through on those policies. His party controlled all 3 houses of government. He could have repealed Bush's excessively expensive policies. He did not. In fact, he accellerated those policies with even more unaffordable spending. Obama has continued to run trillion+ dollar deficits since he's been in power. So for him to say that he was stuck with Bush's policies is false -- he actually endorsed and expanded Bush's already-profligate spending plans. So here we are four years later, and debt and the economy are still George Bush's fault. The three most expensive single policies were the Bush tax cuts and the two wars. Obama ended the war in Iraq, can't exactly walk out of Afghanistan that easily, and supported ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich. In fact, the Republicans forced him to extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich if he wanted to extend them for the middle-class, so they're still responsible for those tax cuts since the end of 2010. In addition, I can't really take seriously anyone who claims the deficits are simply Obama's fault rather without even taking into account the absolutely huge economic crisis he inherited. If Obama ended the Bush tax cuts for the rich the deficit would still be $1.2T+ Its one thing to excuse Obama for inheriting a bad situation, its another thing to give him a pass on making very little progress. Yes, quite obviously no-one is saying that ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich is supposed to erase the deficit. Where exactly should he have "made progress", according to you? How Obama should have tacked the deficit is a separate issue from whether he has or not. But since you asked I'd like to see military spending fall (it should anyways as the wars wind down but cut down out some big ticket items like the F35 and try to close some overseas bases), tax increases on the highest income bracket (normal income only, leave investment income alone), tax increase on gas (highway fund is in perpetual shortfall), big cuts to homeland security (TSA is a joke), cuts to government worker compensation (put in line with private sector), and virtually wipe out subsidies (oil, agriculture, solar/wind, electric car, etc.). I have no idea what that would add up to...
The Republican House would never agree to most of that.
|
On September 21 2012 06:52 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 06:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 21 2012 05:42 kwizach wrote:On September 21 2012 05:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 21 2012 05:06 kwizach wrote:On September 21 2012 04:11 ziggurat wrote:On September 21 2012 03:56 madsweepslol wrote:On September 21 2012 03:41 ziggurat wrote:On September 21 2012 03:29 madsweepslol wrote:On September 21 2012 03:17 ziggurat wrote:
I have seen a few clips of Obama's appearance on Letterman and I was a bit surprised by some of the inaccurate statements he made.
1. He claimed that he had never called his political opponents "unpatriotic" which of course anyone who was alive in 2008 knows isn't true
2. He claimed that he "inherited" a trillion dollar deficit, but the trillion dollar deficit only came in FY 2009
3. He claimed that he couldn't remember how much the national debt was (?!?)
When politicians say things that aren't true I usually want to give them the benefit of the doubt. Maybe Obama was trying to say that he had never called Romney unpatriotic? Maybe by "inherited a trillion dollar deficit" he meant that he inherited a bad economy such that he had no choice but to pass incredibly costly programs?
But how is it even possible that he doesn't know how much the debt is? Did he get nervous and freeze up? Maybe he was just stunned that Letterman was asking him moderately challenging questions? Or did he just not want to say "sixteen trillion" on the air? But seriously, how can the president not know the national debt when the size of the debt has been one of the biggest issues in the campaign?
So assuming that Obama wasn't "lying" when he made these comments -- can anyone offer any defence for these statements? 1. Did he call anyone other than Bush unpatriotic? If not, then I think he's just being lawyerly, since technically Bush wasn't a political opponent, even though that's basically who he ran against. 2. Obama was inaugurated during FY '09, when Bush/110th Congress policies were still in place, so yeah, that's inheriting it. 3. Either incompetence or, as you said, not wanting to say the number on air, i.e. playing politics. The elections were held in Nov of 2008. Obama won, and the democrats achieved strong majorities in the house and the senate as well. Then in January 2009 Obama was inaugurated. Shortly afterwards they passed the $800 billion stimulus bill. Then, at the end of FY 2009, there was a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit (compared to less than 5 hundred billion in FY 2008). So I don't really understand your point in #2. The U.S. government is like a big ship in that it takes minute to alter course. So what I mean in point #2 is: Obama took office a full third into FY '09, which means most financial legislation in effect that year was passed before he was sworn in. Further, way to ignore the $700 billion bailout signed by Bush on the third day of FY '09. I think this is misleading, because although Bush authorized $700 billion, it wasn't all spent. Only $475 billion was actually spent, and that happened over several years. You do make a fair point that Bush started policies that contributed to the debt. But here's what I think is important. Obama had no obligation to follow through on those policies. His party controlled all 3 houses of government. He could have repealed Bush's excessively expensive policies. He did not. In fact, he accellerated those policies with even more unaffordable spending. Obama has continued to run trillion+ dollar deficits since he's been in power. So for him to say that he was stuck with Bush's policies is false -- he actually endorsed and expanded Bush's already-profligate spending plans. So here we are four years later, and debt and the economy are still George Bush's fault. The three most expensive single policies were the Bush tax cuts and the two wars. Obama ended the war in Iraq, can't exactly walk out of Afghanistan that easily, and supported ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich. In fact, the Republicans forced him to extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich if he wanted to extend them for the middle-class, so they're still responsible for those tax cuts since the end of 2010. In addition, I can't really take seriously anyone who claims the deficits are simply Obama's fault rather without even taking into account the absolutely huge economic crisis he inherited. If Obama ended the Bush tax cuts for the rich the deficit would still be $1.2T+ Its one thing to excuse Obama for inheriting a bad situation, its another thing to give him a pass on making very little progress. Yes, quite obviously no-one is saying that ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich is supposed to erase the deficit. Where exactly should he have "made progress", according to you? How Obama should have tacked the deficit is a separate issue from whether he has or not. But since you asked I'd like to see military spending fall (it should anyways as the wars wind down but cut down out some big ticket items like the F35 and try to close some overseas bases), tax increases on the highest income bracket (normal income only, leave investment income alone), tax increase on gas (highway fund is in perpetual shortfall), big cuts to homeland security (TSA is a joke), cuts to government worker compensation (put in line with private sector), and virtually wipe out subsidies (oil, agriculture, solar/wind, electric car, etc.). I have no idea what that would add up to... The Republican House would never agree to most of that.
Probably not. I don't think Dems would like a lot of it either.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 21 2012 06:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 06:52 Souma wrote:On September 21 2012 06:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 21 2012 05:42 kwizach wrote:On September 21 2012 05:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 21 2012 05:06 kwizach wrote:On September 21 2012 04:11 ziggurat wrote:On September 21 2012 03:56 madsweepslol wrote:On September 21 2012 03:41 ziggurat wrote:On September 21 2012 03:29 madsweepslol wrote:
[quote]
1. Did he call anyone other than Bush unpatriotic? If not, then I think he's just being lawyerly, since technically Bush wasn't a political opponent, even though that's basically who he ran against.
2. Obama was inaugurated during FY '09, when Bush/110th Congress policies were still in place, so yeah, that's inheriting it.
3. Either incompetence or, as you said, not wanting to say the number on air, i.e. playing politics. The elections were held in Nov of 2008. Obama won, and the democrats achieved strong majorities in the house and the senate as well. Then in January 2009 Obama was inaugurated. Shortly afterwards they passed the $800 billion stimulus bill. Then, at the end of FY 2009, there was a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit (compared to less than 5 hundred billion in FY 2008). So I don't really understand your point in #2. The U.S. government is like a big ship in that it takes minute to alter course. So what I mean in point #2 is: Obama took office a full third into FY '09, which means most financial legislation in effect that year was passed before he was sworn in. Further, way to ignore the $700 billion bailout signed by Bush on the third day of FY '09. I think this is misleading, because although Bush authorized $700 billion, it wasn't all spent. Only $475 billion was actually spent, and that happened over several years. You do make a fair point that Bush started policies that contributed to the debt. But here's what I think is important. Obama had no obligation to follow through on those policies. His party controlled all 3 houses of government. He could have repealed Bush's excessively expensive policies. He did not. In fact, he accellerated those policies with even more unaffordable spending. Obama has continued to run trillion+ dollar deficits since he's been in power. So for him to say that he was stuck with Bush's policies is false -- he actually endorsed and expanded Bush's already-profligate spending plans. So here we are four years later, and debt and the economy are still George Bush's fault. The three most expensive single policies were the Bush tax cuts and the two wars. Obama ended the war in Iraq, can't exactly walk out of Afghanistan that easily, and supported ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich. In fact, the Republicans forced him to extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich if he wanted to extend them for the middle-class, so they're still responsible for those tax cuts since the end of 2010. In addition, I can't really take seriously anyone who claims the deficits are simply Obama's fault rather without even taking into account the absolutely huge economic crisis he inherited. If Obama ended the Bush tax cuts for the rich the deficit would still be $1.2T+ Its one thing to excuse Obama for inheriting a bad situation, its another thing to give him a pass on making very little progress. Yes, quite obviously no-one is saying that ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich is supposed to erase the deficit. Where exactly should he have "made progress", according to you? How Obama should have tacked the deficit is a separate issue from whether he has or not. But since you asked I'd like to see military spending fall (it should anyways as the wars wind down but cut down out some big ticket items like the F35 and try to close some overseas bases), tax increases on the highest income bracket (normal income only, leave investment income alone), tax increase on gas (highway fund is in perpetual shortfall), big cuts to homeland security (TSA is a joke), cuts to government worker compensation (put in line with private sector), and virtually wipe out subsidies (oil, agriculture, solar/wind, electric car, etc.). I have no idea what that would add up to... The Republican House would never agree to most of that. Probably not. I don't think Dems would like a lot of it either.
Yeah, Dems wouldn't like tax increases on gas nor would they cut government worker compensation nor subsidies to agriculture/renewables/etc. and they sure as hell wouldn't leave capital gains taxes alone.
What's with the mentality nowadays that capital gains taxes should be so much lower than income taxes?
|
|
|
On September 21 2012 06:56 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 06:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 21 2012 06:52 Souma wrote:On September 21 2012 06:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 21 2012 05:42 kwizach wrote:On September 21 2012 05:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 21 2012 05:06 kwizach wrote:On September 21 2012 04:11 ziggurat wrote:On September 21 2012 03:56 madsweepslol wrote:On September 21 2012 03:41 ziggurat wrote:
[quote]
The elections were held in Nov of 2008. Obama won, and the democrats achieved strong majorities in the house and the senate as well. Then in January 2009 Obama was inaugurated. Shortly afterwards they passed the $800 billion stimulus bill. Then, at the end of FY 2009, there was a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit (compared to less than 5 hundred billion in FY 2008). So I don't really understand your point in #2. The U.S. government is like a big ship in that it takes minute to alter course. So what I mean in point #2 is: Obama took office a full third into FY '09, which means most financial legislation in effect that year was passed before he was sworn in. Further, way to ignore the $700 billion bailout signed by Bush on the third day of FY '09. I think this is misleading, because although Bush authorized $700 billion, it wasn't all spent. Only $475 billion was actually spent, and that happened over several years. You do make a fair point that Bush started policies that contributed to the debt. But here's what I think is important. Obama had no obligation to follow through on those policies. His party controlled all 3 houses of government. He could have repealed Bush's excessively expensive policies. He did not. In fact, he accellerated those policies with even more unaffordable spending. Obama has continued to run trillion+ dollar deficits since he's been in power. So for him to say that he was stuck with Bush's policies is false -- he actually endorsed and expanded Bush's already-profligate spending plans. So here we are four years later, and debt and the economy are still George Bush's fault. The three most expensive single policies were the Bush tax cuts and the two wars. Obama ended the war in Iraq, can't exactly walk out of Afghanistan that easily, and supported ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich. In fact, the Republicans forced him to extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich if he wanted to extend them for the middle-class, so they're still responsible for those tax cuts since the end of 2010. In addition, I can't really take seriously anyone who claims the deficits are simply Obama's fault rather without even taking into account the absolutely huge economic crisis he inherited. If Obama ended the Bush tax cuts for the rich the deficit would still be $1.2T+ Its one thing to excuse Obama for inheriting a bad situation, its another thing to give him a pass on making very little progress. Yes, quite obviously no-one is saying that ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich is supposed to erase the deficit. Where exactly should he have "made progress", according to you? How Obama should have tacked the deficit is a separate issue from whether he has or not. But since you asked I'd like to see military spending fall (it should anyways as the wars wind down but cut down out some big ticket items like the F35 and try to close some overseas bases), tax increases on the highest income bracket (normal income only, leave investment income alone), tax increase on gas (highway fund is in perpetual shortfall), big cuts to homeland security (TSA is a joke), cuts to government worker compensation (put in line with private sector), and virtually wipe out subsidies (oil, agriculture, solar/wind, electric car, etc.). I have no idea what that would add up to... The Republican House would never agree to most of that. Probably not. I don't think Dems would like a lot of it either. Yeah, Dems wouldn't like tax increases on gas nor would they cut government worker compensation nor subsidies to agriculture/renewables/etc. and they sure as hell wouldn't leave capital gains taxes alone. What's with the mentality nowadays that capital gains taxes should be so much lower than income taxes?
It's a reaction to years of worries that Americans have a negative savings rate. Reducing the capital gains tax encourages people to save money and invest it rather than consume more goods.
At least, that's the idea. If you're cynical, you'll note that cutting the capital gains tax is basically THE tax cut to the rich, as only rich people tend to have significant amounts of money in the stock market or in private investments.
It is quite strange that nobody talks about bringing back the benefit of allowing people to deduct debt payments (i.e. credit cards, student loans) from their taxes. Currently you can only deduct some kinds of interest payments. IMO if you were serious about tackling deleveraging, that's one of the things you could do. Although they got rid of it because too many people were playing the debt game of charging everything and then paying it off, so it again benefited the rich and sometimes hurt the poor.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
They only left it alone because the Republicans wouldn't go for it and held the middle class hostage. Or did we forget about that? I just meant Democrats would fight for it (and lose to Congressional Republicans).
I guess when I said 'nowadays' I meant why is that the case, ever?
The notion that low capital gains tax rates are a good thing because they promote investment, lead to job creation, encourage people to sell assets without fear of tax consequences and actually raise total tax revenue is so entrenched in both parties that the idea of equalizing capital gains and ordinary income rates is barely mentioned or, when it is, is quickly denounced. It’s become a third rail of tax policy and electoral politics. “It’s now so woven into standard thinking that it’s become a cultural norm,” a prominent hedge fund official told me this week. Proponents of lower — even zero — capital gains rates have some academic research and statistics to support their claims. Still, there’s no doubt that the root of the problem highlighted by Mr. Buffett is the disparity between tax rates on capital gains and ordinary income. Were these rates the same, the debate over how to treat carried interest would vanish, along with much of the disparity between tax rates for the rich and people like Mr. Buffett’s secretary. Is that so unthinkable? It does seem intuitive that lower taxes and thus potentially greater rewards would encourage risk-taking and investment, and surely at some rate high taxes can discourage any endeavor. But even some hedge fund and private equity officials concede that the argument for lower capital gains rates rests more on faith than science. “I’ve seen study after study that says lower capital gains rates have no impact on behavior,” the hedge fund official told me. That view is also backed by a growing amount of academic research questioning the premise that lower capital gains rates promote growth. The evidence “is murky, at best,” said Leonard E. Burman, the Daniel Patrick Moynihan professor at the Maxwell School of Syracuse University. Mr. Burman is also a former deputy assistant Treasury secretary for tax policy in the Clinton administration and author of “The Labyrinth of Capital Gains Tax Policy.” “It’s not the panacea for economic growth that advocates make it out to be,” he said. Mr. Buffett himself lent empirical support to this view in his column. “I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off,” he said. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/20/business/questioning-the-dogma-of-lower-taxes-on-capital-gains.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.www#h[]
|
On September 21 2012 06:56 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 06:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 21 2012 06:52 Souma wrote:On September 21 2012 06:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 21 2012 05:42 kwizach wrote:On September 21 2012 05:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 21 2012 05:06 kwizach wrote:On September 21 2012 04:11 ziggurat wrote:On September 21 2012 03:56 madsweepslol wrote:On September 21 2012 03:41 ziggurat wrote:
[quote]
The elections were held in Nov of 2008. Obama won, and the democrats achieved strong majorities in the house and the senate as well. Then in January 2009 Obama was inaugurated. Shortly afterwards they passed the $800 billion stimulus bill. Then, at the end of FY 2009, there was a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit (compared to less than 5 hundred billion in FY 2008). So I don't really understand your point in #2. The U.S. government is like a big ship in that it takes minute to alter course. So what I mean in point #2 is: Obama took office a full third into FY '09, which means most financial legislation in effect that year was passed before he was sworn in. Further, way to ignore the $700 billion bailout signed by Bush on the third day of FY '09. I think this is misleading, because although Bush authorized $700 billion, it wasn't all spent. Only $475 billion was actually spent, and that happened over several years. You do make a fair point that Bush started policies that contributed to the debt. But here's what I think is important. Obama had no obligation to follow through on those policies. His party controlled all 3 houses of government. He could have repealed Bush's excessively expensive policies. He did not. In fact, he accellerated those policies with even more unaffordable spending. Obama has continued to run trillion+ dollar deficits since he's been in power. So for him to say that he was stuck with Bush's policies is false -- he actually endorsed and expanded Bush's already-profligate spending plans. So here we are four years later, and debt and the economy are still George Bush's fault. The three most expensive single policies were the Bush tax cuts and the two wars. Obama ended the war in Iraq, can't exactly walk out of Afghanistan that easily, and supported ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich. In fact, the Republicans forced him to extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich if he wanted to extend them for the middle-class, so they're still responsible for those tax cuts since the end of 2010. In addition, I can't really take seriously anyone who claims the deficits are simply Obama's fault rather without even taking into account the absolutely huge economic crisis he inherited. If Obama ended the Bush tax cuts for the rich the deficit would still be $1.2T+ Its one thing to excuse Obama for inheriting a bad situation, its another thing to give him a pass on making very little progress. Yes, quite obviously no-one is saying that ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich is supposed to erase the deficit. Where exactly should he have "made progress", according to you? How Obama should have tacked the deficit is a separate issue from whether he has or not. But since you asked I'd like to see military spending fall (it should anyways as the wars wind down but cut down out some big ticket items like the F35 and try to close some overseas bases), tax increases on the highest income bracket (normal income only, leave investment income alone), tax increase on gas (highway fund is in perpetual shortfall), big cuts to homeland security (TSA is a joke), cuts to government worker compensation (put in line with private sector), and virtually wipe out subsidies (oil, agriculture, solar/wind, electric car, etc.). I have no idea what that would add up to... The Republican House would never agree to most of that. Probably not. I don't think Dems would like a lot of it either. Yeah, Dems wouldn't like tax increases on gas nor would they cut government worker compensation nor subsidies to agriculture/renewables/etc. and they sure as hell wouldn't leave capital gains taxes alone. What's with the mentality nowadays that capital gains taxes should be so much lower than income taxes?
For me its double taxation. Right now companies have an incentive to replace equity in their capital structure with debt, simply because there is a tax advantage to do so. I don't like that since debt has a greater chance of causing harm to to society because of bankruptcy and other forms of financial stress. So I'd like the tax code to keep that effect at a minimum.
Edit: I do think the taxes on dividends and cap gains can be structured better. Giving the preferred tax treatment to the corporation (tax credit for dividends paid) rather than the investor (now taxed at the normal rate) might be more effective at keeping capital invested at home. Not sure if it would work, but it should be looked into.
|
|
|
On September 21 2012 07:24 DamnCats wrote:Biased as fuck source but http://www.politicususa.com/gop-falling-astommy-thompson-blames-romney-plummet-polls.htmlOther republicans getting real annoyed with Romney. Peggy Noonan, Kristol, now this WI senator. Mad as fuck.* *note: he didn't actually seem that mad in the interview, but he did at least partially blame Romney. Only 19 second clip from that website so that was probably just one excuse in a whoooole big list of excuses.
LOL! Look, you couldn't be further from the truth. Tommy is stating a fact. When Romney dips in the polls, so will he. It's inevitable. Romney isn't going to win WI. There was a short hope Ryan might bump him, but it didn't. Tommy is running his own race and Romney isn't helping him (never was).
Although the real reason he saw the slip is the fact he's being outspent three to one. The Democrats just have a lot more money here. Thompson is still a huge favorite with the people.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/wi/wisconsin_senate_thompson_vs_baldwin-2711.html#polls
I spoke with his aide today and they have no issues with the latest poll. They still fully expect to win. And not that "we're optimistic and we're going to win!" bullshit, but the "I'm making arrangements for the move to D.C." expectation.
|
On September 21 2012 07:35 BluePanther wrote:LOL! Look, you couldn't be further from the truth. Tommy is stating a fact. When Romney dips in the polls, so will he. It's inevitable. Romney isn't going to win WI. There was a short hope Ryan might bump him, but it didn't. Tommy is running his own race and Romney isn't helping him (never was). Although the real reason he saw the slip is the fact he's being outspent three to one. The Democrats just have a lot more money here. Thompson is still a huge favorite with the people. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/wi/wisconsin_senate_thompson_vs_baldwin-2711.html#pollsI spoke with his aide today and they have no issues with the latest poll. They still fully expect to win. And not that "we're optimistic and we're going to win!" bullshit, but the "I'm making arrangements for the move to D.C." expectation.
Your points have all been duly noted sir. Fucking love the internet.
edit: Read the article again, they really fucking ran with that didn't they. Lol.
|
On September 21 2012 07:49 DamnCats wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 07:35 BluePanther wrote:On September 21 2012 07:24 DamnCats wrote:Biased as fuck source but http://www.politicususa.com/gop-falling-astommy-thompson-blames-romney-plummet-polls.htmlOther republicans getting real annoyed with Romney. Peggy Noonan, Kristol, now this WI senator. Mad as fuck.* *note: he didn't actually seem that mad in the interview, but he did at least partially blame Romney. Only 19 second clip from that website so that was probably just one excuse in a whoooole big list of excuses. LOL! Look, you couldn't be further from the truth. Tommy is stating a fact. When Romney dips in the polls, so will he. It's inevitable. Romney isn't going to win WI. There was a short hope Ryan might bump him, but it didn't. Tommy is running his own race and Romney isn't helping him (never was). Although the real reason he saw the slip is the fact he's being outspent three to one. The Democrats just have a lot more money here. Thompson is still a huge favorite with the people. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/wi/wisconsin_senate_thompson_vs_baldwin-2711.html#pollsI spoke with his aide today and they have no issues with the latest poll. They still fully expect to win. And not that "we're optimistic and we're going to win!" bullshit, but the "I'm making arrangements for the move to D.C." expectation. Your points have all been duly noted sir. Fucking love the internet.
Look at you two lovebirds, try to relax a bit when you post. "Fucking love the internet"!!!!
So now that this election is over, Rand Paul for 2016? :D :D :D
|
On September 21 2012 08:25 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 07:49 DamnCats wrote:On September 21 2012 07:35 BluePanther wrote:On September 21 2012 07:24 DamnCats wrote:Biased as fuck source but http://www.politicususa.com/gop-falling-astommy-thompson-blames-romney-plummet-polls.htmlOther republicans getting real annoyed with Romney. Peggy Noonan, Kristol, now this WI senator. Mad as fuck.* *note: he didn't actually seem that mad in the interview, but he did at least partially blame Romney. Only 19 second clip from that website so that was probably just one excuse in a whoooole big list of excuses. LOL! Look, you couldn't be further from the truth. Tommy is stating a fact. When Romney dips in the polls, so will he. It's inevitable. Romney isn't going to win WI. There was a short hope Ryan might bump him, but it didn't. Tommy is running his own race and Romney isn't helping him (never was). Although the real reason he saw the slip is the fact he's being outspent three to one. The Democrats just have a lot more money here. Thompson is still a huge favorite with the people. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/wi/wisconsin_senate_thompson_vs_baldwin-2711.html#pollsI spoke with his aide today and they have no issues with the latest poll. They still fully expect to win. And not that "we're optimistic and we're going to win!" bullshit, but the "I'm making arrangements for the move to D.C." expectation. Your points have all been duly noted sir. Fucking love the internet. Look at you two lovebirds, try to relax a bit when you post. "Fucking love the internet"!!!! So now that this election is over, Rand Paul for 2016? :D :D :D
Hey you added the exclamations not me this is out of context. Slander.
|
On September 21 2012 08:28 DamnCats wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 08:25 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 21 2012 07:49 DamnCats wrote:On September 21 2012 07:35 BluePanther wrote:On September 21 2012 07:24 DamnCats wrote:Biased as fuck source but http://www.politicususa.com/gop-falling-astommy-thompson-blames-romney-plummet-polls.htmlOther republicans getting real annoyed with Romney. Peggy Noonan, Kristol, now this WI senator. Mad as fuck.* *note: he didn't actually seem that mad in the interview, but he did at least partially blame Romney. Only 19 second clip from that website so that was probably just one excuse in a whoooole big list of excuses. LOL! Look, you couldn't be further from the truth. Tommy is stating a fact. When Romney dips in the polls, so will he. It's inevitable. Romney isn't going to win WI. There was a short hope Ryan might bump him, but it didn't. Tommy is running his own race and Romney isn't helping him (never was). Although the real reason he saw the slip is the fact he's being outspent three to one. The Democrats just have a lot more money here. Thompson is still a huge favorite with the people. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/wi/wisconsin_senate_thompson_vs_baldwin-2711.html#pollsI spoke with his aide today and they have no issues with the latest poll. They still fully expect to win. And not that "we're optimistic and we're going to win!" bullshit, but the "I'm making arrangements for the move to D.C." expectation. Your points have all been duly noted sir. Fucking love the internet. Look at you two lovebirds, try to relax a bit when you post. "Fucking love the internet"!!!! So now that this election is over, Rand Paul for 2016? :D :D :D Hey you added the exclamations not me this is out of context. Slander.
Did I quote your exclamation points? I think you don't know how quotations work nor do you know what slander is : )
|
On September 21 2012 08:25 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 07:49 DamnCats wrote:On September 21 2012 07:35 BluePanther wrote:On September 21 2012 07:24 DamnCats wrote:Biased as fuck source but http://www.politicususa.com/gop-falling-astommy-thompson-blames-romney-plummet-polls.htmlOther republicans getting real annoyed with Romney. Peggy Noonan, Kristol, now this WI senator. Mad as fuck.* *note: he didn't actually seem that mad in the interview, but he did at least partially blame Romney. Only 19 second clip from that website so that was probably just one excuse in a whoooole big list of excuses. LOL! Look, you couldn't be further from the truth. Tommy is stating a fact. When Romney dips in the polls, so will he. It's inevitable. Romney isn't going to win WI. There was a short hope Ryan might bump him, but it didn't. Tommy is running his own race and Romney isn't helping him (never was). Although the real reason he saw the slip is the fact he's being outspent three to one. The Democrats just have a lot more money here. Thompson is still a huge favorite with the people. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/wi/wisconsin_senate_thompson_vs_baldwin-2711.html#pollsI spoke with his aide today and they have no issues with the latest poll. They still fully expect to win. And not that "we're optimistic and we're going to win!" bullshit, but the "I'm making arrangements for the move to D.C." expectation. Your points have all been duly noted sir. Fucking love the internet. Look at you two lovebirds, try to relax a bit when you post. "Fucking love the internet"!!!! So now that this election is over, Rand Paul for 2016? :D :D :D
I have a feeling what happened to Ryan will happen to Paul if he runs.
|
This article supports my theory that Obama is the political equivalent of Ferris Bueller.
The writer discounts this as luck, but I think there's more to it than that. There's something about Obama's unflappably cool demeanor, worldliness, and effortless likability that lures his political opponents into making unforced mistakes. Think about it -- Clinton, McCain and Romney have all been put in the unenviable position of having to beat him in a popularity content. They're like Ferris' older sister -- they end up having to over-react, try to hard or 'act-out' just to get anyone's attention.
Obama is also brilliant at subtly goading his opponents with out looking unfair or unreasonable. If Obama didn't poke fun at Romney for being 'new' to foreign policy at the DNC, do you think Romney would have pulled the trigger on a petty and callous press release admonishing Obama for apologizing to terrorists, even before the nature and gravity of the crisis was fully understood?
I hope four years from now people write essays about the impact of the Obama-Bueller effect on elections 
Barack Obama: The Luckiest Politician Alive
by Matt Latimer
Why on earth isn’t Obama in trouble? Chalk it up to Romney’s incessant bumbling—and the greatest streak of good fortune in recent political history.
I don’t know about you, but if President Obama ever heads to Las Vegas I’m placing my chips wherever he does. Our commander in chief presides over a dismal economy, high unemployment, a turbulent international situation, a massive debt, and comes across as aloof and arrogant even to his friends. And he is leading in most public-opinion polls.
Napoleon Bonaparte reportedly said that he’d rather have a lucky general than a good one.That’s how Democrats are feeling these days about their president. Somewhere Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush are cursing the fates. What’s a guy got to do these days to lose an election?
It’s amazing when you consider it. For the last three years millions have been spent on campaign commercials, countless thousands have been devoted to campaign consultants and pollsters, many hundreds of people have been gathered in focus groups across the country to tell candidates what to say, and think, and even how to dress. And yet this election may simply come down to pure dumb luck. Historians one day may be asked to contemplate whether, in fact, Barack Obama is the luckiest person in American political history.
To be fair, Mitt Romney’s campaign is doing its part. Take this week, for example. It started with Clint Eastwood still trying to explain his weird convention speech that despite making absolutely no sense proved far more compelling than that of the Republican nominee. “If somebody’s dumb enough to ask me to go to a political convention and say something,” the movie star told one outlet, “they’re gonna have to take what they get.” Can’t argue with that.
This was followed by leaks to Politico from top advisers to the Romney campaign who wanted to make sure everyone knew they had nothing to do with this disaster. Note to Governor Romney: if you want to know who is behind this story, they are the only people who are praised in it. (Some of them also contributed to George W. Bush’s record-low approval ratings, but I digress.) Showing the leadership qualities America has come to expect, Romney responded to this clear attempt to intimidate him by caving in. He quickly announced that he’d have one of these advisers conduct a briefing for the press and then also took their advice to start talking about issues other than the economy. Did I mention what these people did for George W. Bush?
Then of course there was the leaked tape recording of the multimillionaire Romney writing off half the nation as a bunch of dimwitted deadbeats not worth his time.
Then there was Romney’s weird interview with Kelly Ripa, in which he reveals that his guilty pleasures are “peanut-butter sandwiches” and “chocolate milk.” It’s official: the Republicans have nominated Howard Cunningham for President of the United States. Is it just me or did Ripa cringe after Romney was asked what he wore to bed and he replied, “I think the best answer is as little as possible?”
And just to add a little more joy to Romney’s week—yes, this all happened in just one week—a spate of new polls shows him falling behind Obama in Ohio, Virginia, and Florida.
Last weekend Saturday Night Live opened its 1,000,000th season with “Barack Obama” marveling at his recent good fortune. But in truth the evidence of Obama’s almost superhuman luck has been mounting for years. It started in 2006, when Obama first decided to run for a U.S. Senate seat in Illinois. Republicans in the state sensed Obama’s potential, so who from among a long list of qualified candidates did they choose to challenge him? A failed presidential candidate from Maryland, Alan Keyes. Yes, the same Alan Keyes who staged a hunger strike when he was excluded from a debate, who once threw himself into a mosh pit, and who can predict how Jesus will vote in various elections. The same Alan Keyes who had a television show on MSNBC that his producers viciously titled “Alan Keyes Is Making Sense”—a program during which Keyes inexplicably changed from a suit to a sweater in the middle of each show.
Maybe the “birthers” have a point after all. Obama obviously wasn’t born in America; he was born on Fantasy Island, under a rainbow, in a pot of gold, serenaded by unicorns.
Then, in 2008, presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton ignored the polls and the advice of some of her aides, and decided to compete to win in Iowa, where she was running third. Her decision made Obama’s eventual victory all the more devastating, leaving her literally in tears. Obama never really looked back, even as the Reverend Jeremiah Wright hit the airwaves and a tape leaked out where he belittled those who “cling to their guns and religion.” Colin Powell jumped on board the bandwagon, then Oprah.
This year, of all the people the Republican electorate could have picked to challenge Obama, they choose the guy who lost to McCain four years earlier or, as someone once put it, “the guy who lost to the guy who lost.” Maybe the “birthers” have a point after all. Obama obviously wasn’t born in America; he was born on Fantasy Island, under a rainbow, in a pot of gold, serenaded by unicorns.
Despite all of this, Romney isn’t out of it yet, of course. He never will be, as long as the economy remains sluggish. But this is not where the Republican nominee expected to be at this point in the race, clinging to the one poll in five that offers him any good news at all. And of course, even the longest lucky streaks eventually run out. But if I were hanging around this president, I’d start asking him to pick my lottery numbers.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 21 2012 09:13 Defacer wrote:This article supports my theory that Obama is the political equivalent of Ferris Bueller. The writer discounts this as luck, but I think there's more to it than that. There's something about Obama's unflappably cool demeanor, worldliness, and effortless likability that lures his political opponents into making unforced mistakes. Think about it -- Clinton, McCain and Romney have all been put in the unenviable position of having to beat him in a popularity context. They're like Ferris' older sister -- they end up having to over-react, try to hard or 'act-out' just to get anyone's attention. Obama is also brilliant at subtly goading his opponents with out looking unfair or unreasonable. If Obama didn't poke fun at Romney for being 'new' to foreign policy at the DNC, do you think Romney would have pulled the trigger on a petty and callous press release admonishing Obama for apologizing to terrorists, even before the nature and gravity of the crisis is fully understood? I hope four years from now people write essays about the impact of the Obama Bueller effect on elections Show nested quote +Barack Obama: The Luckiest Politician Alive
by Matt Latimer
Why on earth isn’t Obama in trouble? Chalk it up to Romney’s incessant bumbling—and the greatest streak of good fortune in recent political history.
I don’t know about you, but if President Obama ever heads to Las Vegas I’m placing my chips wherever he does. Our commander in chief presides over a dismal economy, high unemployment, a turbulent international situation, a massive debt, and comes across as aloof and arrogant even to his friends. And he is leading in most public-opinion polls.
Napoleon Bonaparte reportedly said that he’d rather have a lucky general than a good one.That’s how Democrats are feeling these days about their president. Somewhere Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush are cursing the fates. What’s a guy got to do these days to lose an election?
It’s amazing when you consider it. For the last three years millions have been spent on campaign commercials, countless thousands have been devoted to campaign consultants and pollsters, many hundreds of people have been gathered in focus groups across the country to tell candidates what to say, and think, and even how to dress. And yet this election may simply come down to pure dumb luck. Historians one day may be asked to contemplate whether, in fact, Barack Obama is the luckiest person in American political history.
To be fair, Mitt Romney’s campaign is doing its part. Take this week, for example. It started with Clint Eastwood still trying to explain his weird convention speech that despite making absolutely no sense proved far more compelling than that of the Republican nominee. “If somebody’s dumb enough to ask me to go to a political convention and say something,” the movie star told one outlet, “they’re gonna have to take what they get.” Can’t argue with that.
This was followed by leaks to Politico from top advisers to the Romney campaign who wanted to make sure everyone knew they had nothing to do with this disaster. Note to Governor Romney: if you want to know who is behind this story, they are the only people who are praised in it. (Some of them also contributed to George W. Bush’s record-low approval ratings, but I digress.) Showing the leadership qualities America has come to expect, Romney responded to this clear attempt to intimidate him by caving in. He quickly announced that he’d have one of these advisers conduct a briefing for the press and then also took their advice to start talking about issues other than the economy. Did I mention what these people did for George W. Bush?
Then of course there was the leaked tape recording of the multimillionaire Romney writing off half the nation as a bunch of dimwitted deadbeats not worth his time.
Then there was Romney’s weird interview with Kelly Ripa, in which he reveals that his guilty pleasures are “peanut-butter sandwiches” and “chocolate milk.” It’s official: the Republicans have nominated Howard Cunningham for President of the United States. Is it just me or did Ripa cringe after Romney was asked what he wore to bed and he replied, “I think the best answer is as little as possible?”
And just to add a little more joy to Romney’s week—yes, this all happened in just one week—a spate of new polls shows him falling behind Obama in Ohio, Virginia, and Florida.
Last weekend Saturday Night Live opened its 1,000,000th season with “Barack Obama” marveling at his recent good fortune. But in truth the evidence of Obama’s almost superhuman luck has been mounting for years. It started in 2006, when Obama first decided to run for a U.S. Senate seat in Illinois. Republicans in the state sensed Obama’s potential, so who from among a long list of qualified candidates did they choose to challenge him? A failed presidential candidate from Maryland, Alan Keyes. Yes, the same Alan Keyes who staged a hunger strike when he was excluded from a debate, who once threw himself into a mosh pit, and who can predict how Jesus will vote in various elections. The same Alan Keyes who had a television show on MSNBC that his producers viciously titled “Alan Keyes Is Making Sense”—a program during which Keyes inexplicably changed from a suit to a sweater in the middle of each show.
Maybe the “birthers” have a point after all. Obama obviously wasn’t born in America; he was born on Fantasy Island, under a rainbow, in a pot of gold, serenaded by unicorns.
Then, in 2008, presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton ignored the polls and the advice of some of her aides, and decided to compete to win in Iowa, where she was running third. Her decision made Obama’s eventual victory all the more devastating, leaving her literally in tears. Obama never really looked back, even as the Reverend Jeremiah Wright hit the airwaves and a tape leaked out where he belittled those who “cling to their guns and religion.” Colin Powell jumped on board the bandwagon, then Oprah.
This year, of all the people the Republican electorate could have picked to challenge Obama, they choose the guy who lost to McCain four years earlier or, as someone once put it, “the guy who lost to the guy who lost.” Maybe the “birthers” have a point after all. Obama obviously wasn’t born in America; he was born on Fantasy Island, under a rainbow, in a pot of gold, serenaded by unicorns.
Despite all of this, Romney isn’t out of it yet, of course. He never will be, as long as the economy remains sluggish. But this is not where the Republican nominee expected to be at this point in the race, clinging to the one poll in five that offers him any good news at all. And of course, even the longest lucky streaks eventually run out. But if I were hanging around this president, I’d start asking him to pick my lottery numbers.
Well, that's definitely looking at the glass half full. I wouldn't call it lucky to enter the White House during the onset of a horrible recession.  Using the lucky general analogy, it's like the general was unfortunate enough to walk into the middle of an ambush, but lucky enough to make it out wounded but alive.
|
On September 21 2012 09:13 Defacer wrote:The writer discounts this as luck, but I think there's more to it than that. There's something about Obama's unflappably cool demeanor, worldliness, and effortless likability that lures his political opponents into making unforced mistakes. Think about it -- Clinton, McCain and Romney have all been put in the unenviable position of having to beat him in a popularity context. They're like Ferris' older sister -- they end up having to over-react, try to hard or 'act-out' just to get anyone's attention. Obama is also brilliant at subtly goading his opponents with out looking unfair or unreasonable. If Obama didn't poke fun at Romney for being 'new' to foreign policy at the DNC, do you think Romney would have pulled the trigger on a petty and callous press release admonishing Obama for apologizing to terrorists, even before the nature and gravity of the crisis is fully understood? I hope four years from now people write essays about the impact of the Obama Bueller effect on elections
Yeah, whatever your opinion of Obama's policies, it's hard to deny that he's mastered the art of politics to an uncanny degree, rivaling JFK.
|
On September 21 2012 09:43 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 09:13 Defacer wrote:The writer discounts this as luck, but I think there's more to it than that. There's something about Obama's unflappably cool demeanor, worldliness, and effortless likability that lures his political opponents into making unforced mistakes. Think about it -- Clinton, McCain and Romney have all been put in the unenviable position of having to beat him in a popularity context. They're like Ferris' older sister -- they end up having to over-react, try to hard or 'act-out' just to get anyone's attention. Obama is also brilliant at subtly goading his opponents with out looking unfair or unreasonable. If Obama didn't poke fun at Romney for being 'new' to foreign policy at the DNC, do you think Romney would have pulled the trigger on a petty and callous press release admonishing Obama for apologizing to terrorists, even before the nature and gravity of the crisis is fully understood? I hope four years from now people write essays about the impact of the Obama Bueller effect on elections Yeah, whatever your opinion of Obama's policies, it's hard to deny that he's mastered the art of politics to an uncanny degree, rivaling JFK.
Surely you must be joking. No one who knows anything about politics confuses Obama with being a master politician. He pales in comparison to people like Clinton. Even Bush was a better political actor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
