On October 13 2012 01:04 Erik.TheRed wrote: Anyone else think it's funny that Sean Hannity and other Fox News hosts seem genuinely appalled that Biden would interrupt and speak over someone else?
I think it's sad. They can't even see they are being hypocrits. Just look at O'Reilly.
So we're going to hold cable commentary pundits to the same level as presidential and vice presidential candidates? Please.
Democrats and liberals bitch all of the time about how the right has dragged down the level of public discourse. Last night, Biden showed open contempt and disrespect for Paul Ryan on national TV by interrupting him constantly and talking over him. I honestly am appalled that so few people around here understand why what Biden did was wrong. It was unprecedented, and something that politicians just don't do for good reason.
I think in previous debates-including even four years ago-Biden wouldn't have done this because he wouldn't have perceived nearly as many direct lies to the American people.
He would have been publicly crushed for slamming a woman on national TV.
Also, for all of you who think that Biden's "win" last night is going to have the same significance as Romney's in the first debate, you're in for a rude surprise. Though I agree that Biden narrowly won on substance (and there are a lot of people who would disagree with me on that), his style didn't do him and Obama any favors. In contrast, Romney clearly crushed Obama on all counts.
Romney 'crushed' by default. The bigger story last week was how Obama beat himself and gave away his lead.
Biden's performance was excellent. It won't have an impact on the polls, but it was about re-energizing the base -- he said everything that Democrats wanted to hear someone say to Ryan and/or Romney's face.
so was Biden making his case to the American people, or was he just being rude to Ryan so his base can, for whatever reason, feel excited about someone being a dick to Republican politicians?
Both.
I find it highly amusing that conservatives suddenly care about what the media thinks.
Biden was playing his gregarious, I've-seen-it-all card. Oh, he was he rude. Yup. But I think a lot of people, including blue-collar moderates, would perceive his rudeness as being forgivable. It's not different from the gruff vet at the end of the bar rolling his eyes whenever some pencil-neck scrub talks about world peace.
Ryan did an admirable job, but when he stumbled on articulating Romney's economic plan, or the stimulus, it wasn't because Biden was making farting and nyuk-nyuk noises in the background. He stumbled because Biden's ambivalence and nonchalance forced a situation where Ryan had to make a better argument, and try offer specifics when he had none. And Biden's overall informality only reinforced how inauthentic and 'canned' Ryan's points actually were.
There is no doubt in my mind Biden won the debate on 'perception' and substance as a result, by throwing Ryan off-balance. Biden left some massive openings that Ryan could have exploited, but didn't.
Those are obviously two very different positions on the Laffer Curve.
It's a bit offtopic, but those simplisitic version of the Laffer curve annoy me so much. There's no reason to think the curve is that monotonous, much less that it is a parabola. I'm pretty sure you know that but that image just annoys me...
Yes, perhaps it's actually more like this:
The only thing that can or should be taken from the Laffer curve is that revenues approach zero at the extremes and that there is, somewhere in between, a point of maximum revenue, a point which is likely ever-changing.
I don't see why the Laffer curve is ever brought up.
Does anyone truly believe that Republicans actually care about increasing total tax revenue? Does anyone think that if it turned out we could obtain more revenue by increasing tax rates, that Republicans would suddenly turn around on all of their pledges and support increasing taxes?
The Laffer curve has nothing to do with the issue of tax rates. The GOP is simply using it as a convenient excuse to support their arguments when it suits them. If the situation were reversed, the Dems would be doing the same thing.
Yep, pretty much. Don't know why it is brought up so much, especially when it's all theoretical and no one has any clue where the peak actually is. The people who always criticize economics as detached from reality are usually the one's the use it too.
The purpose of cutting taxes is not to maximize government revenue. That is not the point of cutting them. The point of cutting taxes is to increase employment and spur growth of the economy. The massive deficit we have is largely due to the recession. First step: Take care of the recession. Second step: Take care of the deficit. Libs can argue you can do this same thing by stimulus spending, but I would argue that the private sector spends resources far more efficiently than the government. I've seen these "stimulus" dollars in my own city repaving perfectly good roads. Part of the "pay people to dig holes and fill them back up to create jobs" argument. I'd rather pay people to do something productive and increase the wealth of society.
This is where people tell me that the public will just put their extra money under a mattress and not spend it. lol.
Those are obviously two very different positions on the Laffer Curve.
It's a bit offtopic, but those simplisitic version of the Laffer curve annoy me so much. There's no reason to think the curve is that monotonous, much less that it is a parabola. I'm pretty sure you know that but that image just annoys me...
Yes, perhaps it's actually more like this:
The only thing that can or should be taken from the Laffer curve is that revenues approach zero at the extremes and that there is, somewhere in between, a point of maximum revenue, a point which is likely ever-changing.
I don't see why the Laffer curve is ever brought up.
Does anyone truly believe that Republicans actually care about increasing total tax revenue? Does anyone think that if it turned out we could obtain more revenue by increasing tax rates, that Republicans would suddenly turn around on all of their pledges and support increasing taxes?
The Laffer curve has nothing to do with the issue of tax rates. The GOP is simply using it as a convenient excuse to support their arguments when it suits them. If the situation were reversed, the Dems would be doing the same thing.
True, Reps are guilty of over selling the benefits of tax cuts and Dems are guilty of over selling the benefits of gov't spending. The truth is in the middle - that's why its always so nice to see candidates run to the center (IMO).
On October 13 2012 01:04 Erik.TheRed wrote: Anyone else think it's funny that Sean Hannity and other Fox News hosts seem genuinely appalled that Biden would interrupt and speak over someone else?
I think it's sad. They can't even see they are being hypocrits. Just look at O'Reilly.
So we're going to hold cable commentary pundits to the same level as presidential and vice presidential candidates? Please.
Democrats and liberals bitch all of the time about how the right has dragged down the level of public discourse. Last night, Biden showed open contempt and disrespect for Paul Ryan on national TV by interrupting him constantly and talking over him. I honestly am appalled that so few people around here understand why what Biden did was wrong. It was unprecedented, and something that politicians just don't do for good reason.
I think in previous debates-including even four years ago-Biden wouldn't have done this because he wouldn't have perceived nearly as many direct lies to the American people.
He would have been publicly crushed for slamming a woman on national TV.
Also, for all of you who think that Biden's "win" last night is going to have the same significance as Romney's in the first debate, you're in for a rude surprise. Though I agree that Biden narrowly won on substance (and there are a lot of people who would disagree with me on that), his style didn't do him and Obama any favors. In contrast, Romney clearly crushed Obama on all counts.
Romney 'crushed' by default. The bigger story last week was how Obama beat himself and gave away his lead.
Biden's performance was excellent. It won't have an impact on the polls, but it was about re-energizing the base -- he said everything that Democrats wanted to hear someone say to Ryan and/or Romney's face.
so was Biden making his case to the American people, or was he just being rude to Ryan so his base can, for whatever reason, feel excited about someone being a dick to Republican politicians?
Another thing: it's not like Ryan made things easy for himself. Ryan's defense for Romney's position on the auto bail out was saying, in that Michael Seaver voice, "Look -- Romney is a CAR-GUY ... "
That's the kind of argument a seventh grader makes. If someone made that argument on this board, we'd chew them up and spit them out.
Those are obviously two very different positions on the Laffer Curve.
It's a bit offtopic, but those simplisitic version of the Laffer curve annoy me so much. There's no reason to think the curve is that monotonous, much less that it is a parabola. I'm pretty sure you know that but that image just annoys me...
Yes, perhaps it's actually more like this:
The only thing that can or should be taken from the Laffer curve is that revenues approach zero at the extremes and that there is, somewhere in between, a point of maximum revenue, a point which is likely ever-changing.
I don't see why the Laffer curve is ever brought up.
Does anyone truly believe that Republicans actually care about increasing total tax revenue? Does anyone think that if it turned out we could obtain more revenue by increasing tax rates, that Republicans would suddenly turn around on all of their pledges and support increasing taxes?
The Laffer curve has nothing to do with the issue of tax rates. The GOP is simply using it as a convenient excuse to support their arguments when it suits them. If the situation were reversed, the Dems would be doing the same thing.
Yep, pretty much. Don't know why it is brought up so much, especially when it's all theoretical and no one has any clue where the peak actually is. The people who always criticize economics as detached from reality are usually the one's the use it too.
The purpose of cutting taxes is not to maximize government revenue. That is not the point of cutting them. The point of cutting taxes is to increase employment and spur growth of the economy. The massive deficit we have is largely due to the recession. First step: Take care of the recession. Second step: Take care of the deficit. Libs can argue you can do this same thing by stimulus spending, but I would argue that the private sector spends resources far more efficiently than the government. I've seen these "stimulus" dollars in my own city repaving perfectly good roads. Part of the "pay people to dig holes and fill them back up to create jobs" argument. I'd rather pay people to do something productive and increase the wealth of society.
This is where people tell me that the public will just put their extra money under a mattress and not spend it. lol.
I double dog dare you to create an argument or position that does not include an anecdotal reference.
On October 13 2012 01:04 Erik.TheRed wrote: Anyone else think it's funny that Sean Hannity and other Fox News hosts seem genuinely appalled that Biden would interrupt and speak over someone else?
I think it's sad. They can't even see they are being hypocrits. Just look at O'Reilly.
So we're going to hold cable commentary pundits to the same level as presidential and vice presidential candidates? Please.
Democrats and liberals bitch all of the time about how the right has dragged down the level of public discourse. Last night, Biden showed open contempt and disrespect for Paul Ryan on national TV by interrupting him constantly and talking over him. I honestly am appalled that so few people around here understand why what Biden did was wrong. It was unprecedented, and something that politicians just don't do for good reason.
I think in previous debates-including even four years ago-Biden wouldn't have done this because he wouldn't have perceived nearly as many direct lies to the American people.
He would have been publicly crushed for slamming a woman on national TV.
Also, for all of you who think that Biden's "win" last night is going to have the same significance as Romney's in the first debate, you're in for a rude surprise. Though I agree that Biden narrowly won on substance (and there are a lot of people who would disagree with me on that), his style didn't do him and Obama any favors. In contrast, Romney clearly crushed Obama on all counts.
Romney 'crushed' by default. The bigger story last week was how Obama beat himself and gave away his lead.
Biden's performance was excellent. It won't have an impact on the polls, but it was about re-energizing the base -- he said everything that Democrats wanted to hear someone say to Ryan and/or Romney's face.
so was Biden making his case to the American people, or was he just being rude to Ryan so his base can, for whatever reason, feel excited about someone being a dick to Republican politicians?
Both.
I find it highly amusing that conservatives suddenly care about what the media thinks.
Biden was playing his gregarious, I've-seen-it-all card. Oh, he was he rude. Yup. But I think a lot of people, including blue-collar moderates, would perceive his rudeness as being forgivable. It's not different from the gruff vet at the end of the bar rolling his eyes whenever some pencil-neck scrub talks about world peace.
Ryan did an admirable job, but when he stumbled on articulating Romney's economic plan, or the stimulus, it wasn't because Biden was making farting and nyuk-nyuk noises in the background. He stumbled because Biden's ambivalence and nonchalance forced a situation where Ryan had to make a better argument, and try offer specifics when he had none. And Biden's overall informality only reinforced how inauthentic and 'canned' Ryan's points actually were.
There is no doubt in my mind Biden won the debate on 'perception' and substance as a result, by throwing Ryan off-balance. Biden left some massive openings that Ryan could have exploited, but didn't.
hmm... I'll admit that I expected too much out of Ryan and the moderator, but I don't know that I can agree with the characterization of Biden or Ryan. for one, he did start off the night by straight up lying about what is probably the most controversial and damaging issue of the campaign right now. we can argue about whether Romney's tax plan works or doesn't work if you apply the math this way or that way, but it's kind of hard to argue about the fact that the administration did spin a fairy tale and won't admit it.(1) every time they say that the intelligence didn't tell them something that we have sworn testimony saying they were told of... that's bad. that's really bad.
not only that, but the idea of a lovable, "Good O'l Joe", guy-at-the-end-of-the-bar, Biden is mostly a Democrat/Liberal perception.(2) his unfavorable ratings aren't horrible, but they aren't great either, and when even his own side is calling him rude, that's not helpful. especially because Ryan doesn't necessarily come off as a pencil-neck spouting off about world peace to a room full of vets. most people agree that Ryan is a pretty intelligent, relatively inexperienced, capable person. his likability isn't great either, but it's arguably more stable, and better overall, than Biden's.(3)
Ryan didn't do a wonderful job, but he didn't really suck either. he was interrupted over 100 times in 90 minutes, and he still managed to make some of the more important points of the Romney campaign, and held his own on most issues where he was allowed to speak. and I'm not relying on the media for my analysis either. I watch the news and troll the blogosphere so I can stay informed, but most of the time, I find myself disagreeing with the pundits about public perception. I do pay enough attention to know that when even the liberal media is calling out Obama and Biden(4), that this is a problem, but otherwise, I think the idea that Biden either won or even tied that debate is a stretch.
more than that, I think it would be pretty safe to say that Obama doesn't get any real bump from this debate, and actually might take a hit. the bleeding from the last debate, and from Libya had to be stopped or at least stemmed, and it wasn't at all. in fact, it was ramped up by Biden being forced into talking about it. it gives Romney and the Republicans another huge lie to lob back at the administration, and it's not about some numbers that half the voters don't even begin to understand anyway.
i guess we'll have to wait and see, but I'm predicting a Romney win over Obama that rivals or overtakes Obama's own win over John McCain. easily a 100 point electoral difference, a 2-4 point difference in the popular vote, and gains in both the Senate and the House. and I think Biden's debate has helped cement that eventuality into an inevitability.
From the gallup article: Public opinion of Biden is decidedly mixed, with 44% viewing him favorably and 45% unfavorably. While this favorable rating is not stellar, it has been steady at this level for much of Barack Obama's presidency. Only in late 2008 and 2009 was it significantly higher, likely reflecting the surge in popularity for Obama around the time of his election and inauguration.
Ryan's image is also mixed, although, in contrast to Biden's image, slightly more view Ryan favorably than unfavorably, 43% vs. 40%. Roughly six in 10 Americans had no opinion of Ryan when Mitt Romney first tapped him as his running mate in mid-August. Negative views of Ryan initially grew more sharply than positive views. However, since the Republican National Convention, Ryan's favorable and unfavorable scores each increased by a consistent four to five percentage points.
Those are obviously two very different positions on the Laffer Curve.
It's a bit offtopic, but those simplisitic version of the Laffer curve annoy me so much. There's no reason to think the curve is that monotonous, much less that it is a parabola. I'm pretty sure you know that but that image just annoys me...
Yes, perhaps it's actually more like this:
The only thing that can or should be taken from the Laffer curve is that revenues approach zero at the extremes and that there is, somewhere in between, a point of maximum revenue, a point which is likely ever-changing.
I don't see why the Laffer curve is ever brought up.
Does anyone truly believe that Republicans actually care about increasing total tax revenue? Does anyone think that if it turned out we could obtain more revenue by increasing tax rates, that Republicans would suddenly turn around on all of their pledges and support increasing taxes?
The Laffer curve has nothing to do with the issue of tax rates. The GOP is simply using it as a convenient excuse to support their arguments when it suits them. If the situation were reversed, the Dems would be doing the same thing.
Yep, pretty much. Don't know why it is brought up so much, especially when it's all theoretical and no one has any clue where the peak actually is. The people who always criticize economics as detached from reality are usually the one's the use it too.
The purpose of cutting taxes is not to maximize government revenue. That is not the point of cutting them. The point of cutting taxes is to increase employment and spur growth of the economy. The massive deficit we have is largely due to the recession. First step: Take care of the recession. Second step: Take care of the deficit. Libs can argue you can do this same thing by stimulus spending, but I would argue that the private sector spends resources far more efficiently than the government. I've seen these "stimulus" dollars in my own city repaving perfectly good roads. Part of the "pay people to dig holes and fill them back up to create jobs" argument. I'd rather pay people to do something productive and increase the wealth of society.
This is where people tell me that the public will just put their extra money under a mattress and not spend it. lol.
I double dog dare you to create an argument or position that does not include an anecdotal reference.
Good luck finding the information you'd need to do such an analysis.
Its kinda sad that its much easier to have an informed opinion about how effectively Walmart spends its money than the government.
Those are obviously two very different positions on the Laffer Curve.
It's a bit offtopic, but those simplisitic version of the Laffer curve annoy me so much. There's no reason to think the curve is that monotonous, much less that it is a parabola. I'm pretty sure you know that but that image just annoys me...
Yes, perhaps it's actually more like this:
The only thing that can or should be taken from the Laffer curve is that revenues approach zero at the extremes and that there is, somewhere in between, a point of maximum revenue, a point which is likely ever-changing.
I don't see why the Laffer curve is ever brought up.
Does anyone truly believe that Republicans actually care about increasing total tax revenue? Does anyone think that if it turned out we could obtain more revenue by increasing tax rates, that Republicans would suddenly turn around on all of their pledges and support increasing taxes?
The Laffer curve has nothing to do with the issue of tax rates. The GOP is simply using it as a convenient excuse to support their arguments when it suits them. If the situation were reversed, the Dems would be doing the same thing.
Yep, pretty much. Don't know why it is brought up so much, especially when it's all theoretical and no one has any clue where the peak actually is. The people who always criticize economics as detached from reality are usually the one's the use it too.
The purpose of cutting taxes is not to maximize government revenue. That is not the point of cutting them. The point of cutting taxes is to increase employment and spur growth of the economy. The massive deficit we have is largely due to the recession. First step: Take care of the recession. Second step: Take care of the deficit. Libs can argue you can do this same thing by stimulus spending, but I would argue that the private sector spends resources far more efficiently than the government. I've seen these "stimulus" dollars in my own city repaving perfectly good roads. Part of the "pay people to dig holes and fill them back up to create jobs" argument. I'd rather pay people to do something productive and increase the wealth of society.
This is where people tell me that the public will just put their extra money under a mattress and not spend it. lol.
I double dog dare you to create an argument or position that does not include an anecdotal reference.
Good luck finding the information you'd need to do such an analysis.
Its kinda sad that its much easier to have an informed opinion about how effectively Walmart spends its money than the government.
I'm not sure what you're talking about, you tend to argue very objectively. It just behooves a form of argumentation to include at least some form of humile perspectivism, some attempt at tempering ones own experience with the understanding of anothers.
Those are obviously two very different positions on the Laffer Curve.
It's a bit offtopic, but those simplisitic version of the Laffer curve annoy me so much. There's no reason to think the curve is that monotonous, much less that it is a parabola. I'm pretty sure you know that but that image just annoys me...
Yes, perhaps it's actually more like this:
The only thing that can or should be taken from the Laffer curve is that revenues approach zero at the extremes and that there is, somewhere in between, a point of maximum revenue, a point which is likely ever-changing.
I don't see why the Laffer curve is ever brought up.
Does anyone truly believe that Republicans actually care about increasing total tax revenue? Does anyone think that if it turned out we could obtain more revenue by increasing tax rates, that Republicans would suddenly turn around on all of their pledges and support increasing taxes?
The Laffer curve has nothing to do with the issue of tax rates. The GOP is simply using it as a convenient excuse to support their arguments when it suits them. If the situation were reversed, the Dems would be doing the same thing.
Yep, pretty much. Don't know why it is brought up so much, especially when it's all theoretical and no one has any clue where the peak actually is. The people who always criticize economics as detached from reality are usually the one's the use it too.
The purpose of cutting taxes is not to maximize government revenue. That is not the point of cutting them. The point of cutting taxes is to increase employment and spur growth of the economy. The massive deficit we have is largely due to the recession. First step: Take care of the recession. Second step: Take care of the deficit. Libs can argue you can do this same thing by stimulus spending, but I would argue that the private sector spends resources far more efficiently than the government. I've seen these "stimulus" dollars in my own city repaving perfectly good roads. Part of the "pay people to dig holes and fill them back up to create jobs" argument. I'd rather pay people to do something productive and increase the wealth of society.
This is where people tell me that the public will just put their extra money under a mattress and not spend it. lol.
I double dog dare you to create an argument or position that does not include an anecdotal reference.
Good luck finding the information you'd need to do such an analysis.
Its kinda sad that its much easier to have an informed opinion about how effectively Walmart spends its money than the government.
I'm not sure what you're talking about, you tend to argue very objectively. It just behooves a form of argumentation to include at least some form of humile perspectivism, some attempt at tempering ones own experience with the understanding of anothers.
There are 2 kinds of people, ones who correlate opinions with outs and form different opinions and those who had their mind set long before a conversation arose. Best to ignore the latter.
Those are obviously two very different positions on the Laffer Curve.
It's a bit offtopic, but those simplisitic version of the Laffer curve annoy me so much. There's no reason to think the curve is that monotonous, much less that it is a parabola. I'm pretty sure you know that but that image just annoys me...
Yes, perhaps it's actually more like this:
The only thing that can or should be taken from the Laffer curve is that revenues approach zero at the extremes and that there is, somewhere in between, a point of maximum revenue, a point which is likely ever-changing.
I don't see why the Laffer curve is ever brought up.
Does anyone truly believe that Republicans actually care about increasing total tax revenue? Does anyone think that if it turned out we could obtain more revenue by increasing tax rates, that Republicans would suddenly turn around on all of their pledges and support increasing taxes?
The Laffer curve has nothing to do with the issue of tax rates. The GOP is simply using it as a convenient excuse to support their arguments when it suits them. If the situation were reversed, the Dems would be doing the same thing.
Yep, pretty much. Don't know why it is brought up so much, especially when it's all theoretical and no one has any clue where the peak actually is. The people who always criticize economics as detached from reality are usually the one's the use it too.
The purpose of cutting taxes is not to maximize government revenue. That is not the point of cutting them. The point of cutting taxes is to increase employment and spur growth of the economy. The massive deficit we have is largely due to the recession. First step: Take care of the recession. Second step: Take care of the deficit. Libs can argue you can do this same thing by stimulus spending, but I would argue that the private sector spends resources far more efficiently than the government. I've seen these "stimulus" dollars in my own city repaving perfectly good roads. Part of the "pay people to dig holes and fill them back up to create jobs" argument. I'd rather pay people to do something productive and increase the wealth of society.
This is where people tell me that the public will just put their extra money under a mattress and not spend it. lol.
You don't know why it got brought up? Did you not watch the first 12 seconds of the video that you posted?
On October 13 2012 01:04 Erik.TheRed wrote: Anyone else think it's funny that Sean Hannity and other Fox News hosts seem genuinely appalled that Biden would interrupt and speak over someone else?
I think it's sad. They can't even see they are being hypocrits. Just look at O'Reilly.
So we're going to hold cable commentary pundits to the same level as presidential and vice presidential candidates? Please.
Democrats and liberals bitch all of the time about how the right has dragged down the level of public discourse. Last night, Biden showed open contempt and disrespect for Paul Ryan on national TV by interrupting him constantly and talking over him. I honestly am appalled that so few people around here understand why what Biden did was wrong. It was unprecedented, and something that politicians just don't do for good reason.
I think in previous debates-including even four years ago-Biden wouldn't have done this because he wouldn't have perceived nearly as many direct lies to the American people.
He would have been publicly crushed for slamming a woman on national TV.
Also, for all of you who think that Biden's "win" last night is going to have the same significance as Romney's in the first debate, you're in for a rude surprise. Though I agree that Biden narrowly won on substance (and there are a lot of people who would disagree with me on that), his style didn't do him and Obama any favors. In contrast, Romney clearly crushed Obama on all counts.
Romney 'crushed' by default. The bigger story last week was how Obama beat himself and gave away his lead.
Biden's performance was excellent. It won't have an impact on the polls, but it was about re-energizing the base -- he said everything that Democrats wanted to hear someone say to Ryan and/or Romney's face.
so was Biden making his case to the American people, or was he just being rude to Ryan so his base can, for whatever reason, feel excited about someone being a dick to Republican politicians?
Both.
I find it highly amusing that conservatives suddenly care about what the media thinks.
Biden was playing his gregarious, I've-seen-it-all card. Oh, he was he rude. Yup. But I think a lot of people, including blue-collar moderates, would perceive his rudeness as being forgivable. It's not different from the gruff vet at the end of the bar rolling his eyes whenever some pencil-neck scrub talks about world peace.
Ryan did an admirable job, but when he stumbled on articulating Romney's economic plan, or the stimulus, it wasn't because Biden was making farting and nyuk-nyuk noises in the background. He stumbled because Biden's ambivalence and nonchalance forced a situation where Ryan had to make a better argument, and try offer specifics when he had none. And Biden's overall informality only reinforced how inauthentic and 'canned' Ryan's points actually were.
There is no doubt in my mind Biden won the debate on 'perception' and substance as a result, by throwing Ryan off-balance. Biden left some massive openings that Ryan could have exploited, but didn't.
hmm... I'll admit that I expected too much out of Ryan and the moderator, but I don't know that I can agree with the characterization of Biden or Ryan. for one, he did start off the night by straight up lying about what is probably the most controversial and damaging issue of the campaign right now. we can argue about whether Romney's tax plan works or doesn't work if you apply the math this way or that way, but it's kind of hard to argue about the fact that the administration did spin a fairy tale and won't admit it.(1) every time they say that the intelligence didn't tell them something that we have sworn testimony saying they were told of... that's bad. that's really bad.
not only that, but the idea of a lovable, "Good O'l Joe", guy-at-the-end-of-the-bar, Biden is mostly a Democrat/Liberal perception.(2) his unfavorable ratings aren't horrible, but they aren't great either, and when even his own side is calling him rude, that's not helpful. especially because Ryan doesn't necessarily come off as a pencil-neck spouting off about world peace to a room full of vets. most people agree that Ryan is a pretty intelligent, relatively inexperienced, capable person. his likability isn't great either, but it's arguably more stable, and better overall, than Biden's.(3)
Ryan didn't do a wonderful job, but he didn't really suck either. he was interrupted over 100 times in 90 minutes, and he still managed to make some of the more important points of the Romney campaign, and held his own on most issues where he was allowed to speak. and I'm not relying on the media for my analysis either. I watch the news and troll the blogosphere so I can stay informed, but most of the time, I find myself disagreeing with the pundits about public perception. I do pay enough attention to know that when even the liberal media is calling out Obama and Biden(4), that this is a problem, but otherwise, I think the idea that Biden either won or even tied that debate is a stretch.
more than that, I think it would be pretty safe to say that Obama doesn't get any real bump from this debate, and actually might take a hit. the bleeding from the last debate, and from Libya had to be stopped or at least stemmed, and it wasn't at all. in fact, it was ramped up by Biden being forced into talking about it. it gives Romney and the Republicans another huge lie to lob back at the administration, and it's not about some numbers that half the voters don't even begin to understand anyway.
i guess we'll have to wait and see, but I'm predicting a Romney win over Obama that rivals or overtakes Obama's own win over John McCain. easily a 100 point electoral difference, a 2-4 point difference in the popular vote, and gains in both the Senate and the House. and I think Biden's debate has helped cement that eventuality into an inevitability.
From the gallup article: Public opinion of Biden is decidedly mixed, with 44% viewing him favorably and 45% unfavorably. While this favorable rating is not stellar, it has been steady at this level for much of Barack Obama's presidency. Only in late 2008 and 2009 was it significantly higher, likely reflecting the surge in popularity for Obama around the time of his election and inauguration.
Ryan's image is also mixed, although, in contrast to Biden's image, slightly more view Ryan favorably than unfavorably, 43% vs. 40%. Roughly six in 10 Americans had no opinion of Ryan when Mitt Romney first tapped him as his running mate in mid-August. Negative views of Ryan initially grew more sharply than positive views. However, since the Republican National Convention, Ryan's favorable and unfavorable scores each increased by a consistent four to five percentage points.
Hmmm. It's a tough call. I think if the election where held today, you're prediction would be right ... I actually think it will end up being tighter than that. Obama held a significant advantage for a very long time, but his first debate performance was just as bad as everyone says it is ... it has opened him up to more scrutiny from the mainstream media than he's ever had to endure.
At the same time, the first debate was ... last week. It's been incredible to see how quickly people seem to forget news as recently as two weeks ago. Romney has more than enough weakness for Obama to clobber back.
In the end, I predict a very narrow victory, and whoever wins will succeed for the wrong reasons.
Romney is no more qualified to be president than he was three months ago, when he was a flip-flopping, blundering man with no serious plans or policies. He could win because of his fear-mongering and relentless distortion of Obama's record.
Obama is still an over-rated politician, with some significant accomplishments but also some glaring, unforced errors. He could win for the same reasons Bush won in 2004. Voters like him better than his opponent, feel he inherited an unfair situation, and people in general fear change.
On October 13 2012 01:04 Erik.TheRed wrote: Anyone else think it's funny that Sean Hannity and other Fox News hosts seem genuinely appalled that Biden would interrupt and speak over someone else?
I think it's sad. They can't even see they are being hypocrits. Just look at O'Reilly.
So we're going to hold cable commentary pundits to the same level as presidential and vice presidential candidates? Please.
Democrats and liberals bitch all of the time about how the right has dragged down the level of public discourse. Last night, Biden showed open contempt and disrespect for Paul Ryan on national TV by interrupting him constantly and talking over him. I honestly am appalled that so few people around here understand why what Biden did was wrong. It was unprecedented, and something that politicians just don't do for good reason.
I think in previous debates-including even four years ago-Biden wouldn't have done this because he wouldn't have perceived nearly as many direct lies to the American people.
He would have been publicly crushed for slamming a woman on national TV.
Also, for all of you who think that Biden's "win" last night is going to have the same significance as Romney's in the first debate, you're in for a rude surprise. Though I agree that Biden narrowly won on substance (and there are a lot of people who would disagree with me on that), his style didn't do him and Obama any favors. In contrast, Romney clearly crushed Obama on all counts.
Romney 'crushed' by default. The bigger story last week was how Obama beat himself and gave away his lead.
Biden's performance was excellent. It won't have an impact on the polls, but it was about re-energizing the base -- he said everything that Democrats wanted to hear someone say to Ryan and/or Romney's face.
so was Biden making his case to the American people, or was he just being rude to Ryan so his base can, for whatever reason, feel excited about someone being a dick to Republican politicians?
Both.
I find it highly amusing that conservatives suddenly care about what the media thinks.
Biden was playing his gregarious, I've-seen-it-all card. Oh, he was he rude. Yup. But I think a lot of people, including blue-collar moderates, would perceive his rudeness as being forgivable. It's not different from the gruff vet at the end of the bar rolling his eyes whenever some pencil-neck scrub talks about world peace.
Ryan did an admirable job, but when he stumbled on articulating Romney's economic plan, or the stimulus, it wasn't because Biden was making farting and nyuk-nyuk noises in the background. He stumbled because Biden's ambivalence and nonchalance forced a situation where Ryan had to make a better argument, and try offer specifics when he had none. And Biden's overall informality only reinforced how inauthentic and 'canned' Ryan's points actually were.
There is no doubt in my mind Biden won the debate on 'perception' and substance as a result, by throwing Ryan off-balance. Biden left some massive openings that Ryan could have exploited, but didn't.
hmm... I'll admit that I expected too much out of Ryan and the moderator, but I don't know that I can agree with the characterization of Biden or Ryan. for one, he did start off the night by straight up lying about what is probably the most controversial and damaging issue of the campaign right now. we can argue about whether Romney's tax plan works or doesn't work if you apply the math this way or that way, but it's kind of hard to argue about the fact that the administration did spin a fairy tale and won't admit it.(1) every time they say that the intelligence didn't tell them something that we have sworn testimony saying they were told of... that's bad. that's really bad.
not only that, but the idea of a lovable, "Good O'l Joe", guy-at-the-end-of-the-bar, Biden is mostly a Democrat/Liberal perception.(2) his unfavorable ratings aren't horrible, but they aren't great either, and when even his own side is calling him rude, that's not helpful. especially because Ryan doesn't necessarily come off as a pencil-neck spouting off about world peace to a room full of vets. most people agree that Ryan is a pretty intelligent, relatively inexperienced, capable person. his likability isn't great either, but it's arguably more stable, and better overall, than Biden's.(3)
Ryan didn't do a wonderful job, but he didn't really suck either. he was interrupted over 100 times in 90 minutes, and he still managed to make some of the more important points of the Romney campaign, and held his own on most issues where he was allowed to speak. and I'm not relying on the media for my analysis either. I watch the news and troll the blogosphere so I can stay informed, but most of the time, I find myself disagreeing with the pundits about public perception. I do pay enough attention to know that when even the liberal media is calling out Obama and Biden(4), that this is a problem, but otherwise, I think the idea that Biden either won or even tied that debate is a stretch.
more than that, I think it would be pretty safe to say that Obama doesn't get any real bump from this debate, and actually might take a hit. the bleeding from the last debate, and from Libya had to be stopped or at least stemmed, and it wasn't at all. in fact, it was ramped up by Biden being forced into talking about it. it gives Romney and the Republicans another huge lie to lob back at the administration, and it's not about some numbers that half the voters don't even begin to understand anyway.
i guess we'll have to wait and see, but I'm predicting a Romney win over Obama that rivals or overtakes Obama's own win over John McCain. easily a 100 point electoral difference, a 2-4 point difference in the popular vote, and gains in both the Senate and the House. and I think Biden's debate has helped cement that eventuality into an inevitability.
From the gallup article: Public opinion of Biden is decidedly mixed, with 44% viewing him favorably and 45% unfavorably. While this favorable rating is not stellar, it has been steady at this level for much of Barack Obama's presidency. Only in late 2008 and 2009 was it significantly higher, likely reflecting the surge in popularity for Obama around the time of his election and inauguration.
Ryan's image is also mixed, although, in contrast to Biden's image, slightly more view Ryan favorably than unfavorably, 43% vs. 40%. Roughly six in 10 Americans had no opinion of Ryan when Mitt Romney first tapped him as his running mate in mid-August. Negative views of Ryan initially grew more sharply than positive views. However, since the Republican National Convention, Ryan's favorable and unfavorable scores each increased by a consistent four to five percentage points.
On October 13 2012 03:49 jdseemoreglass wrote: Oh, so you're Jack Kennedy now?
In 1960, the rate for the top bracket was 91%. In 2012 the rate for the top bracket is 35%.
Those are obviously two very different positions on the Laffer Curve.
You cannot compare "Top bracket" to "Top bracket" and have it mean nearly anything important. The top bracket back then was applied on what would be millions in income today, that is, it affected a very small number of people\incomes as compared to today's bracket. Not to even mention the loopholes.
On October 13 2012 05:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote: I see your point but its wishful thinking. States and the Federal government spend money on very different things so $ for $ comparisons can be awkward.
For example some states have a small population but lots of military bases. Other states receive a large influx of retirees. Either situation would make one state receive more in federal dollars yet would do nothing to help CA's budget if the state took care of these functions on its own.
I don't think that's disagreeing with what I said.
States that receive more than they get from the federal government (such as the examples of a state with small population but lots of military spending, or with a large population of retirees on Social Security) would be worse off if they did not receive a net influx of federal dollars. I agree, that would hurt said state's budget if the state took over those functions.
Or in the opposite situation, a state that is currently getting less than it pays in aggregate, if the federal government decided to give them more military bases, or spend more on infrastructure there, or pay their retirees an extra bonus, etc - that would help their state budget. If nothing else than by increasing the size of the economy of that state, thus increasing the state government's revenues.
Yes but the military doesn't decide to build bases based on some form of equality between states. Nor does social security pay benefits differently depending on which state you live in. Changing these government programs, or any other, to make government spending more equitable between states would simply make federal government spending less effective. So yes, CA would benefit more relative to the other states (on average and in the short-term) by changing the system, but the country would on balance be harmed.
Ah yes, I'm not necessarily saying that anything should be done about it. Just that it's another factor (of many) that contributes to their fiscal difficulties.
In 1960, the rate for the top bracket was 91%. In 2012 the rate for the top bracket is 35%.
Those are obviously two very different positions on the Laffer Curve.
You cannot compare "Top bracket" to "Top bracket" and have it mean nearly anything important. The top bracket back then was applied on what would be millions in income today, that is, it affected a very small number of people\incomes as compared to today's bracket. Not to even mention the loopholes.
$388,950 in 2012 would be equal to roughly $50,097.15 in 1960 dollars
Income over that amount in 2012 is taxed at 35% by the federal government. In 1960 it was taxed from 59% all the way up to 91%.
I don't think it actually panned out this way, but JFK believed, as he said in that video, that cutting taxes would lead to increased revenues. But tax code that he was looking at was very different than the one that currently exists.So the claim implicit in the video that I was responding to, i.e. that JFK would push for tax cuts now and so Obama should too, is absolutely fucking retarded.
In 1960, the rate for the top bracket was 91%. In 2012 the rate for the top bracket is 35%.
Those are obviously two very different positions on the Laffer Curve.
You cannot compare "Top bracket" to "Top bracket" and have it mean nearly anything important. The top bracket back then was applied on what would be millions in income today, that is, it affected a very small number of people\incomes as compared to today's bracket. Not to even mention the loopholes.
$388,950 in 2012 would be equal to roughly $50,097.15 in 1960 dollars
Income over that amount in 2012 is taxed at 35% by the federal government. In 1960 it was taxed from 59% all the way up to 91%.
I don't think it actually panned out this way, but JFK believed, as he said in that video, that cutting taxes would lead to increased revenues. But tax code that he was looking at was very different than the one that currently exists.So the claim implicit in the video that I was responding to, i.e. that JFK would push for tax cuts now and so Obama should too, is absolutely fucking retarded.
Is there a greater chance of my vote being the one that decides the presidency, or me being killed on my way to the polling booth (assume I have to drive 2 miles)?
Which has greater effect on my life if one outcome were to happen?
On October 13 2012 10:15 ChThoniC wrote: Is there a greater chance of my vote being the one that decides the presidency, or me being killed on my way to the polling booth (assume I have to drive 2 miles)?
Which has greater effect on my life if one outcome were to happen?
Assume I live in California.
In both cases, you're still more likely to achieve your objective combined than you are to be killed in a terrorist attack
In 1960, the rate for the top bracket was 91%. In 2012 the rate for the top bracket is 35%.
Those are obviously two very different positions on the Laffer Curve.
You cannot compare "Top bracket" to "Top bracket" and have it mean nearly anything important. The top bracket back then was applied on what would be millions in income today, that is, it affected a very small number of people\incomes as compared to today's bracket. Not to even mention the loopholes.
$388,950 in 2012 would be equal to roughly $50,097.15 in 1960 dollars
Income over that amount in 2012 is taxed at 35% by the federal government. In 1960 it was taxed from 59% all the way up to 91%.
I don't think it actually panned out this way, but JFK believed, as he said in that video, that cutting taxes would lead to increased revenues. But tax code that he was looking at was very different than the one that currently exists.So the claim implicit in the video that I was responding to, i.e. that JFK would push for tax cuts now and so Obama should too, is absolutely fucking retarded.
Would love to hear a response to your points
The response is that he's completely missing the point.
Biden said it never occured. Ryan said it did occur, under JFK. Biden made a quip. The fact is it did occur under JFK.
The question about whether the same exact thing would happen today is a separate issue and irrelevant.
EPT![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/Laffer-Curve.svg/260px-Laffer-Curve.svg.png)
![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_VsIB2Nr2f1c/SNiWCiV09VI/AAAAAAAAAQ0/D_fhwJN6weI/s400/Laffer_Curve_3.png)
