Today, there's 2 NYTimes columns essentially lavishing praise on Romney for winning the debate, while basically admitting that he did it by lying.
Presentation is everything.
Especially when most Americans are to stupid to actually delve through the numbers and add everything up (I apologize in advance for the insult). He literally said "We can cut 5 trillion, here's how!" and none of his numbers made ANY sense, no study or anything has said anything but how impossible what he is saying is without raising taxes on the middle class to cut for the rich... He literally just stood up there and lied his way past Obama and Obama was like "well that's just not true" and Romney yelled louder.... If that's what a President is, and that is what winning a debate is then The Onion Movie really hit the nail on the head when they depicted where debates would go in the future.
The silly thing is that it's not just cutting $4.8 trillion, it's also adding another $2 trillion in defense spending. How the hell are we supposed to account for $6.8 trillion? We're having a hard enough time trying to get it to work with $4.8 trillion. Blows my mind.
Glad to see the polls still have Obama winning, even if its within the margin.
I watched the debate, Obama was terrible but Romney was only good by outright lying. If the Romney we saw at the debate was the Romney you would get as President I wouldn't be too worried because most of his policies seemed fair to me but his campaign spent the next two days walking back half of what he said, about covering existing conditions etc.
I must say, the poll in the OP is very telling from a non US pov, we lucky folks who live in the horrible socialist freedomless places of the world, like the UK would rather see "Other" as president than Romney.....
On October 07 2012 17:40 paralleluniverse wrote: [quote] The article basically argues that Romney is opposed to government spending to create jobs. But he is OK with government spending on military, because it will create jobs Romney thinks reducing the deficit will help the economy. But he is against hitting the fiscal cliff, which will reduce the deficit. How is that not hypocrisy?
Romney does not have a coherent economic theory. He is cherry-picking a bunch of contradictory facts when it suits him.
Romney is advocating a level of military spending for defense purposes - not because it will boost the economy. Him telling a bunch of people largely employed by the defense industry that they could lose their jobs really doesn't change that.
The fiscal cliff is a bad thing for reasons beyond what it will do to the deficit. I'm not sure why you are unable to understand this.
Obama does not have a coherent economic theory. He is cherry-picking a bunch of contradictory facts when it suits him.
But Romney is running ads on the fact that cuts in defense spending will cut jobs. So this implies that increases in spending will increase jobs. Why doesn't Romney run ads saying that government should increase spending to create jobs?
I understand, from Keynesian economics, why the fiscal cliff is a terrible thing. But what I don't understand is how someone who rejects Keynesian economics (sometimes, when it suits him to do so), comes to the same conclusion. Most Republicans believe cutting the deficit will lead to economic growth and a path out of the great recession. I don't understand how someone with these beliefs can conclude that the fiscal cliff is bad.
Romney is telling people that work in the defense industry that they will lose their jobs if defense spending goes down. There is no Keynesian argument there.
If you don't understand why the fiscal cliff is considered a bad thing, beyond Keynesian rationale, then I'm not sure you understand what the fiscal cliff is.
I think you need to take a step back. You are viewing everything through a Keynesian lens and I think its turning you myopic.
There is a Keynesian argument there.
If you didn't believe in Keynesian economics, say you're an Austrian economist or a classical economist, then the argument would be: government spending in general (including in defense) distorts the markets, without this spending, these workers can find jobs in more productive parts of the economy where their skills and the products they make are demanded without government distortion.
Or if you're an austerity advocate or a tea bagger, the argument should be: Government deficits are choking the economy, so reducing spending will bring "confidence," which improves the economy and will create jobs on net.
Regardless of what line of economic though you subscribe to - you can still tell workers that they will be out of a job if the government stops giving their industry money!
Not every argument regarding the government spending is an economic argument.
He's not merely pointing it out. If Romney had a consistent economic ideology, that deficits are bad and that we should balance the budget, then attacking Obama for those jobs cuts is hypocritical. Under his ideology, those spending cuts, and resulting job cuts are good for the economic recovery.
Of course, one should not expect much consistency from the man who flip-flop from being center-right to "severe conservative." And then within the span of a 90 minute television appearance, pivoted to the left.
not every plan to cut the deficit is good. not every plan to balance the budget is good. i think you would agree that we could balance the budget by putting all spending down to zero. of course, that's practically impossible and ridiculously undesirable, but it is a plan for balancing the budget.
consequently, it is not hypocrisy to criticize defense cuts as the "wrong way" to balance the budget, whether they would have a net benefit on the economy or not. which actually can be argued from a capitalistic/supply-side point of view: less defense spending could (theoretically) lead to increased chaos/war around the world, driving markets down and resulting in a net decrease of economic prosperity.
can you name one position that Romney flip-flopped on during the debate?
This position makes no sense. Under your theory, why isn't it a good idea to decrease deficits by cutting everything, when your economic theory says that decreasing the deficit is good for making the economy grow and recover?
Why not cut spending on everything except defense? If your ideology is deficit = bad, then this is surely a good idea. The US spends more on defense than the next 11 countries combined. No one is going to invade the US, if the US decides to cut defense spending.
As for flip-flops, Romney flip-flopped on his $5T tax plan by denying that it exists. He said his healthcare plan covers preexisting conditions, but he was fact checked by his aide after the debate who said it didn't. He also flip-flopped on not wanting to cut teachers, when in a previous video he said we doesn't want more teachers. These things have already been covered in previous pages of this thread.
you're not arguing my position, though. you're arguing a caricature of my position.
very few conservative economic thinkers will ever say anything so broad as: "cutting deficits by any means is good". nor would they say: "cutting taxes is always good." while i may believe that cutting deficits and spending will be good for the economy in general, that doesn't mean that every specific cut in spending or cut in deficit is good.
why not cut everything except defense? well, because the idea is that we as a society are willing to pay for certain benefits. we recognize that these benefits have a cost (taxes), but we are willing to pay those taxes to achieve the specific benefit. now, we (left wing and right wing) will disagree on specifically which benefits and costs that we are willing to bear or receive, but we don't disagree that there should be, at least, SOME benefits and thus, at least, SOME costs.
the $5T number was never said by Romney. he didn't change his plan at all, just disagreed with you on how much it would cost. i'll look up the healthcare and teachers one and get back to you.
Then what sort of cuts are good? Are you going with the Romney plan of government cuts? That's the plan where he cuts funding for PBS... and that's it! At least as far as we know.
You say that cuts to spending are good for growth (just look at the UK), and also say that large cuts are bad, because there are things that shouldn't be cut because... what? Society expects government to provide some entitlements? If lower deficits lead to economic growth, then throwing people off welfare by cutting spending on welfare will lead to a stronger recovery that would make them better off. So why are you (or Romney) not going for drastic cuts to government services and welfare that would balance the budget? Since you've articulated no economic rationale on why this is a bad idea, is sympathy for the poor in the short run all that's holding you back?
Today, there's 2 NYTimes columns essentially lavishing praise on Romney for winning the debate, while basically admitting that he did it by lying.
Presentation is everything.
Especially when most Americans are to stupid to actually delve through the numbers and add everything up (I apologize in advance for the insult). He literally said "We can cut 5 trillion, here's how!" and none of his numbers made ANY sense, no study or anything has said anything but how impossible what he is saying is without raising taxes on the middle class to cut for the rich... He literally just stood up there and lied his way past Obama and Obama was like "well that's just not true" and Romney yelled louder.... If that's what a President is, and that is what winning a debate is then The Onion Movie really hit the nail on the head when they depicted where debates would go in the future.
It should also be noted that the TPC study is nonpartisan, whereas all these other studies that claim to debunk it are by conservatives. Those who doubt that the TPC is nonpartisan should note that the head of the TPC worked in the Bush Sr administration.
Unfortunately, that Obama campaign article is far too complex and wonkish to be part of the mainstream political debate.
This election your choice is coke or pepsi but they both colas so it not make a big difference either way. Im not voting my state is already democrat controlled so its pointless. Once they get in much like congress they just do whatever they want anyways whether we like it or not.
On October 08 2012 02:27 SayGen wrote: I also liked this one. Call out each and every single lie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4puS-yjwsiE 13 mins long. Uses Obamas own words, his own speeches.
The healthcare discussions are on C-Span. Here they are:
The things that Obama said on healthcare are not wrong. Quoting random pundits who says it's wrong, doesn't make it wrong. Go quote a study.
On October 07 2012 16:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] It can.
Regardless, I think you don't understand my question. Both the article you linked here and the Krugman article make an extremely weak case that Romney is advocating "military Keynesianism".
The article is not saying that Romney wants to stimulate the economy by more military spending. The article is saying that Romney is a hypocrite.
If government spending can boost employment, and we have an unemployment problem, then the part of the solution is more government spending.
The article makes an extremely weak case that Romney is being a hypocrite.
Government spending can both help and hurt the economy. You need to make a better case than "it can (a possible outcome) so it will (a guaranteed outcome)."
The article basically argues that Romney is opposed to government spending to create jobs. But he is OK with government spending on military, because it will create jobs Romney thinks reducing the deficit will help the economy. But he is against hitting the fiscal cliff, which will reduce the deficit. How is that not hypocrisy?
Romney does not have a coherent economic theory. He is cherry-picking a bunch of contradictory facts when it suits him.
Romney is advocating a level of military spending for defense purposes - not because it will boost the economy. Him telling a bunch of people largely employed by the defense industry that they could lose their jobs really doesn't change that.
The fiscal cliff is a bad thing for reasons beyond what it will do to the deficit. I'm not sure why you are unable to understand this.
Obama does not have a coherent economic theory. He is cherry-picking a bunch of contradictory facts when it suits him.
But Romney is running ads on the fact that cuts in defense spending will cut jobs. So this implies that increases in spending will increase jobs. Why doesn't Romney run ads saying that government should increase spending to create jobs?
I understand, from Keynesian economics, why the fiscal cliff is a terrible thing. But what I don't understand is how someone who rejects Keynesian economics (sometimes, when it suits him to do so), comes to the same conclusion. Most Republicans believe cutting the deficit will lead to economic growth and a path out of the great recession. I don't understand how someone with these beliefs can conclude that the fiscal cliff is bad.
Romney is telling people that work in the defense industry that they will lose their jobs if defense spending goes down. There is no Keynesian argument there.
If you don't understand why the fiscal cliff is considered a bad thing, beyond Keynesian rationale, then I'm not sure you understand what the fiscal cliff is.
I think you need to take a step back. You are viewing everything through a Keynesian lens and I think its turning you myopic.
There is a Keynesian argument there.
If you didn't believe in Keynesian economics, say you're an Austrian economist or a classical economist, then the argument would be: government spending in general (including in defense) distorts the markets, without this spending, these workers can find jobs in more productive parts of the economy where their skills and the products they make are demanded without government distortion.
Or if you're an austerity advocate or a tea bagger, the argument should be: Government deficits are choking the economy, so reducing spending will bring "confidence," which improves the economy and will create jobs on net.
Regardless of what line of economic though you subscribe to - you can still tell workers that they will be out of a job if the government stops giving their industry money!
Not every argument regarding the government spending is an economic argument.
He's not merely pointing it out. If Romney had a consistent economic ideology, that deficits are bad and that we should balance the budget, then attacking Obama for those jobs cuts is hypocritical. Under his ideology, those spending cuts, and resulting job cuts are good for the economic recovery.
Of course, one should not expect much consistency from the man who flip-flop from being center-right to "severe conservative." And then within the span of a 90 minute television appearance, pivoted to the left.
I had no idea economics had become such a dogmatic 'religion'...
On October 07 2012 16:53 paralleluniverse wrote: [quote] The article is not saying that Romney wants to stimulate the economy by more military spending. The article is saying that Romney is a hypocrite.
If government spending can boost employment, and we have an unemployment problem, then the part of the solution is more government spending.
The article makes an extremely weak case that Romney is being a hypocrite.
Government spending can both help and hurt the economy. You need to make a better case than "it can (a possible outcome) so it will (a guaranteed outcome)."
The article basically argues that Romney is opposed to government spending to create jobs. But he is OK with government spending on military, because it will create jobs Romney thinks reducing the deficit will help the economy. But he is against hitting the fiscal cliff, which will reduce the deficit. How is that not hypocrisy?
Romney does not have a coherent economic theory. He is cherry-picking a bunch of contradictory facts when it suits him.
Romney is advocating a level of military spending for defense purposes - not because it will boost the economy. Him telling a bunch of people largely employed by the defense industry that they could lose their jobs really doesn't change that.
The fiscal cliff is a bad thing for reasons beyond what it will do to the deficit. I'm not sure why you are unable to understand this.
Obama does not have a coherent economic theory. He is cherry-picking a bunch of contradictory facts when it suits him.
But Romney is running ads on the fact that cuts in defense spending will cut jobs. So this implies that increases in spending will increase jobs. Why doesn't Romney run ads saying that government should increase spending to create jobs?
I understand, from Keynesian economics, why the fiscal cliff is a terrible thing. But what I don't understand is how someone who rejects Keynesian economics (sometimes, when it suits him to do so), comes to the same conclusion. Most Republicans believe cutting the deficit will lead to economic growth and a path out of the great recession. I don't understand how someone with these beliefs can conclude that the fiscal cliff is bad.
Romney is telling people that work in the defense industry that they will lose their jobs if defense spending goes down. There is no Keynesian argument there.
If you don't understand why the fiscal cliff is considered a bad thing, beyond Keynesian rationale, then I'm not sure you understand what the fiscal cliff is.
I think you need to take a step back. You are viewing everything through a Keynesian lens and I think its turning you myopic.
There is a Keynesian argument there.
If you didn't believe in Keynesian economics, say you're an Austrian economist or a classical economist, then the argument would be: government spending in general (including in defense) distorts the markets, without this spending, these workers can find jobs in more productive parts of the economy where their skills and the products they make are demanded without government distortion.
Or if you're an austerity advocate or a tea bagger, the argument should be: Government deficits are choking the economy, so reducing spending will bring "confidence," which improves the economy and will create jobs on net.
Regardless of what line of economic though you subscribe to - you can still tell workers that they will be out of a job if the government stops giving their industry money!
Not every argument regarding the government spending is an economic argument.
He's not merely pointing it out. If Romney had a consistent economic ideology, that deficits are bad and that we should balance the budget, then attacking Obama for those jobs cuts is hypocritical. Under his ideology, those spending cuts, and resulting job cuts are good for the economic recovery.
Of course, one should not expect much consistency from the man who flip-flop from being center-right to "severe conservative." And then within the span of a 90 minute television appearance, pivoted to the left.
I had no idea economics had become such a dogmatic 'religion'...
A lot of things are on par with religion nowadays. God is not the only thing people blindly throw their faith behind.
On October 07 2012 16:53 paralleluniverse wrote: [quote] The article is not saying that Romney wants to stimulate the economy by more military spending. The article is saying that Romney is a hypocrite.
If government spending can boost employment, and we have an unemployment problem, then the part of the solution is more government spending.
The article makes an extremely weak case that Romney is being a hypocrite.
Government spending can both help and hurt the economy. You need to make a better case than "it can (a possible outcome) so it will (a guaranteed outcome)."
The article basically argues that Romney is opposed to government spending to create jobs. But he is OK with government spending on military, because it will create jobs Romney thinks reducing the deficit will help the economy. But he is against hitting the fiscal cliff, which will reduce the deficit. How is that not hypocrisy?
Romney does not have a coherent economic theory. He is cherry-picking a bunch of contradictory facts when it suits him.
Romney is advocating a level of military spending for defense purposes - not because it will boost the economy. Him telling a bunch of people largely employed by the defense industry that they could lose their jobs really doesn't change that.
The fiscal cliff is a bad thing for reasons beyond what it will do to the deficit. I'm not sure why you are unable to understand this.
Obama does not have a coherent economic theory. He is cherry-picking a bunch of contradictory facts when it suits him.
But Romney is running ads on the fact that cuts in defense spending will cut jobs. So this implies that increases in spending will increase jobs. Why doesn't Romney run ads saying that government should increase spending to create jobs?
I understand, from Keynesian economics, why the fiscal cliff is a terrible thing. But what I don't understand is how someone who rejects Keynesian economics (sometimes, when it suits him to do so), comes to the same conclusion. Most Republicans believe cutting the deficit will lead to economic growth and a path out of the great recession. I don't understand how someone with these beliefs can conclude that the fiscal cliff is bad.
Romney is telling people that work in the defense industry that they will lose their jobs if defense spending goes down. There is no Keynesian argument there.
If you don't understand why the fiscal cliff is considered a bad thing, beyond Keynesian rationale, then I'm not sure you understand what the fiscal cliff is.
I think you need to take a step back. You are viewing everything through a Keynesian lens and I think its turning you myopic.
There is a Keynesian argument there.
If you didn't believe in Keynesian economics, say you're an Austrian economist or a classical economist, then the argument would be: government spending in general (including in defense) distorts the markets, without this spending, these workers can find jobs in more productive parts of the economy where their skills and the products they make are demanded without government distortion.
Or if you're an austerity advocate or a tea bagger, the argument should be: Government deficits are choking the economy, so reducing spending will bring "confidence," which improves the economy and will create jobs on net.
Regardless of what line of economic though you subscribe to - you can still tell workers that they will be out of a job if the government stops giving their industry money!
Not every argument regarding the government spending is an economic argument.
He's not merely pointing it out. If Romney had a consistent economic ideology, that deficits are bad and that we should balance the budget, then attacking Obama for those jobs cuts is hypocritical. Under his ideology, those spending cuts, and resulting job cuts are good for the economic recovery.
Of course, one should not expect much consistency from the man who flip-flop from being center-right to "severe conservative." And then within the span of a 90 minute television appearance, pivoted to the left.
I had no idea economics had become such a dogmatic 'religion'...
One cannot see the eiffel tower from the eiffel tower.
this has nothing to do with economics being a religion. your distinction between 'political spending' and economic spending misses the mark. a political spending can have economic impact, and when you argue for a particular political spending by their economic impact (in this case military spending ---> jobs) you are actually making an economic claim.
similar moves can be made to defend obama's various moves. healthcare? well it is a poltiical move meant to help people in need. that seems like a pretty good political goal for a civilization than anything having to do with the military anyway.
More good news for Romney! Polls, ballot requests suggest Romney overtaking Obama in Ohio
A new Rasmussen poll and early absentee ballot requests both suggest that President Barack Obama is losing his lead in Ohio after Mitt Romney’s performance in Wednesday night’s presidential debate.
A post-debate poll revealed Obama and Romney are essentially tied in Ohio, with just one percentage point separating the candidates. Earlier polls had shown Obama leading by up to eight points.
According to county data retrieved by the conservative nonprofit American Majority Action and reviewed by The Daily Caller, early absentee ballot requests also indicate Obama faces a tough battle in Ohio.
Compared to 2008, a higher percentage of Republicans have requested absentee ballots in the five largest counties in Ohio this year. Summit County saw a particularly large 27-point increase.
“Polls can be manipulated—real votes can’t,” AMA president Ned Ryun said in a statement.
So far, Ohioans have requested just over half the amount of ballots they did in 2008.
“So far, although it is early, the overall across-the-board direction of every single county in Ohio seems to be not just challenging the pollsters’ template that Obama is widening his lead, but is obliterating it,” Dr. Larry Schweikart, professor at the University of Dayton and New York Times bestselling author, told AMA.
“Given Ohio’s voting history, if the numbers are even close after early voting, Obama will lose, and possibly lose big,” Schweikart said.
Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted has removed 450,000 deceased voters and duplicate registrations from the voter rolls in advance of the November election — the majority of them registered Democrats.
On October 08 2012 04:17 oneofthem wrote: this has nothing to do with economics being a religion. your distinction between 'political spending' and economic spending misses the mark. a political spending can have economic impact, and when you argue for a particular political spending by their economic impact (in this case military spending ---> jobs) you are actually making an economic claim.
similar moves can be made to defend obama's various moves. healthcare? well it is a poltiical move meant to help people in need. that seems like a pretty good political goal for a civilization than anything having to do with the military anyway.
My original complaint was that simply mentioning jobs is not enough to constitute an economic argument. At least not in the spirit of Parallel's criticism. Appealing to a constituency that will be more or less directly affected by a spending cut is different from making the claim that the same spending cut will be bad for the entire nation's economy.
“Polls can be manipulated—real votes can’t,” AMA president Ned Ryun said in a statement
So that means he's against voter ID, right?
Where do you get that wild implication? He was simply stating that polls are inaccurate, which is true.
He said that real votes can't be manipulated. If real votes can't be manipulated, why would you want voter ID?
To qualify to register you must:
be a U.S. citizen; be at least 17 years old, but must be 18 years old prior to next election to vote; not be under an order of imprisonment for conviction of a felony; not be under a judgement of full interdiction for mental incompetence or partial interdiction with suspension of voting rights; and reside in the state and parish in which you seek to register.
I have to ask, because I have never voted before, but what do you use to prove that you are a U.S. citizen when you register?
He could be saying real votes can't be manipulated because of the voter I.D. requirement, or regardless of that requirement, I don't know for sure.
EPT
