On November 05 2012 14:46 Saryph wrote: Defacer, in my post at the top of the page I was talking about something similar. People who requested an absentee ballot more than two months ago have not received them yet in Florida.
It is unacceptable.
It's one thing to change voting requirements.
It's another thing to actively decrease the opportunity to vote.
It's borderline criminal to knowingly shorten the period and opportunity with which to vote but not provide the staffing and resources to compensate for increased demand. It's the reason why the Voter ID laws were deemed unfair and unenforceable in other states -- while there is nothing wrong with the law itself, the states themselves couldn't prove they had the capacity or the infrastructure to actually issue ID cards to every eligible voter four months before the election.
People should be outraged about Rick Scott and his blatant attempt to sabotage the voting system.
Don't forget that they denied active service members the right to vote. Active military can be denied the right to vote because of the way Florida seeks to maintain their active voter rolls. Pretty messed up if you ask me.
On November 05 2012 14:46 Saryph wrote: Defacer, in my post at the top of the page I was talking about something similar. People who requested an absentee ballot more than two months ago have not received them yet in Florida.
It is unacceptable.
It's one thing to change voting requirements.
It's another thing to actively decrease the opportunity to vote.
It's borderline criminal to knowingly shorten the period and opportunity with which to vote but not provide the staffing and resources to compensate for increased demand. It's the reason why the Voter ID laws were deemed unfair and unenforceable in other states -- while there is nothing wrong with the law itself, the states themselves couldn't prove they had the capacity or the infrastructure to actually issue ID cards to every eligible voter four months before the election.
People should be outraged about Rick Scott and his blatant attempt to sabotage the voting system.
The liberal media and other liberal entities are trying to exert pressure on him but it's not working. He's a stubborn one, that guy. I doubt he'll get re-elected so he might as well screw things up while he can.
When it comes down to it the media is not the determining factor in shifting this kind of policy. He has to get heat from his constituents before anyone is going to expect anything to change. The media can influence the electorate to an extent, and he's obviously already facing some serious derision from Democrats, but apparently it hasn't been strong enough to concern him or cause him to seek a different course. There's a lot of finger pointing at Rick Scott specifically, but the Florida State Senate is 28-12 in favor of the Republicans and the House is 81-39 in favor of the Republicans. Scott isn't up for election this year. Those state representatives are. If Florida voters are very unhappy with how their vote is being handled then they have the ability to move to counteract it. That is if they overcome the restrictions that have already been put in motion. From the little I've read a number of counties have had outstanding turnout rates so maybe this is all energizing the parties in question rather than squelching their vote. They'd need some massive swings to get the state senate and house back though, which is probably a part of the reason Republicans are so confident in pushing these types of voting procedures into law.
Most states have multiple WEEKS of early voting, not to mention absentee balloting, not to mention the traditional election day.
There are more opportunities to vote than ever before in the history of the US and it's growing every year. I love to hear people bitching about not getting the opportunity to vote.
What the hell else do you people want? 6 months of 24/7 poll access? You do realize at some point you have to have limitations on it, just for the sake of things being organized, timely, and not costing a bazillion dollars. The longer a period of time votes can be cast also opens the door for a lot more fraud too.
On November 05 2012 14:46 Saryph wrote: Defacer, in my post at the top of the page I was talking about something similar. People who requested an absentee ballot more than two months ago have not received them yet in Florida.
It is unacceptable.
It's one thing to change voting requirements.
It's another thing to actively decrease the opportunity to vote.
It's borderline criminal to knowingly shorten the period and opportunity with which to vote but not provide the staffing and resources to compensate for increased demand. It's the reason why the Voter ID laws were deemed unfair and unenforceable in other states -- while there is nothing wrong with the law itself, the states themselves couldn't prove they had the capacity or the infrastructure to actually issue ID cards to every eligible voter four months before the election.
People should be outraged about Rick Scott and his blatant attempt to sabotage the voting system.
The liberal media and other liberal entities are trying to exert pressure on him but it's not working. He's a stubborn one, that guy. I doubt he'll get re-elected so he might as well screw things up while he can.
When it comes down to it the media is not the determining factor in shifting this kind of policy. He has to get heat from his constituents before anyone is going to expect anything to change. The media can influence the electorate to an extent, and he's obviously already facing some serious derision from Democrats, but apparently it hasn't been strong enough to concern him or cause him to seek a different course. There's a lot of finger pointing at Rick Scott specifically, but the Florida State Senate is 28-12 in favor of the Republicans and the House is 81-39 in favor of the Republicans. Scott isn't up for election this year. Those state representatives are. If Florida voters are very unhappy with how their vote is being handled then they have the ability to move to counteract it. That is if they overcome the restrictions that have already been put in motion. From the little I've read a number of counties have had outstanding turnout rates so maybe this is all energizing the parties in question rather than squelching their vote. They'd need some massive swings to get the state senate and house back though, which is probably a part of the reason Republicans are so confident in pushing these types of voting procedures into law.
That's pretty much the gist of it, yeah. In the end it depends on the constituents, as it naturally should. The apathetic nature of many Americans these days allow these politicians to step all over them, however, and oftentimes adds to the jadedness of the populace. But if what you say is true, in that turnout rates are great, then it really portrays the low-point that Florida politics has reached - low enough to fire up a traditionally unresponsive citizenship. Maybe having Rick Scott in Florida will be a good thing in the long term if it causes people to wake up. God knows Florida needs to get their act together (it speaks volumes when a Californian sympathizes with the state of politics of another state).
On November 05 2012 16:11 Zaqwert wrote: Most states have multiple WEEKS of early voting, not to mention absentee balloting, not to mention the traditional election day.
There are more opportunities to vote than ever before in the history of the US and it's growing every year. I love to hear people bitching about not getting the opportunity to vote.
What the hell else do you people want? 6 months of 24/7 poll access? You do realize at some point you have to have limitations on it, just for the sake of things being organized, timely, and not costing a bazillion dollars. The longer a period of time votes can be cast also opens the door for a lot more fraud too.
The issue is that recently in certain areas of the states it isn't growing, it is being restricted. The specific case in question here is Florida. The number of days to cast your vote early in person was reduced from 14 to 7 and made to stop prior to the Sunday before the election. Democrats are arguing that these are racially and socio-economically motivated changes, and on the surface there seems to be merit there.
Saying there is all this time and there are more opportunities than in previous elections is simply false in this case. Your final point is a straw man and doesn't even deserve a reply.
Its really unfortunate, I listened to my mother use the same straw man in support of vote limiting legislation earlier today. When that is the best argument you have, you need to start reading up to come up with something better or step away from the conversation.
I couldn't bring myself to say that to my mom, but more people need to be told this.
On November 05 2012 16:41 Zaqwert wrote: Well, according to your logic if they had 6 months of early voting and reduced it to 5.9 months they would be removing opportunity to vote, OMG!!
That's you're argument?
I would love to hear an American try to rationalize reducing early voting from 14 days to 7, without compensating with additional voting stations or longer hours.
Seriously. Rationalize Rick Scott's actions.
How can anyone pretend to care about American values, or democracy, or dare call themselves patriotic, and have the audacity to make defend someone actively trying to make voting more difficult. Ridiculous.
On November 05 2012 16:41 Zaqwert wrote: Well, according to your logic if they had 6 months of early voting and reduced it to 5.9 months they would be removing opportunity to vote, OMG!!
Are you seriously trying to argue that it isnt a massive stain upon Flordia that people are waiting in line up to 6 hours just to vote? One should not have to give up there entire day just to do what takes about 5 minutes to do and it is an embarrassment to the state of Flordia that it takes that long.
On November 05 2012 16:41 Zaqwert wrote: Well, according to your logic if they had 6 months of early voting and reduced it to 5.9 months they would be removing opportunity to vote, OMG!!
No one apart from you is talking about 6 months of early voting. I don't get why your bringing it up?
Do you honestly think that waiting 4-6 hours to vote is reasonable?
What are your thoughts on the following observations?
For someone with just two years in the Senate (before near full-time campaigning) he has performed as about the level you’d expect. He’s made some good calls in quite a few areas. He’s failed to show leadership in quite a few also.
However his fiscal policy is dangerous and wrong. It is vital the US gets onto a path out of deficit. The deficit is massive. To break things down the US spends $121,000 a second. Of that $121,000 it borrows $52,000. This is so far living beyond the means, it is not funny.
Romney is a flip-flopper, and has said some silly things. but he does have a good proven record on financial management – both in government and the private sector. For that reason I would vote Romney. I seriously worry about the US economy with another four years of massive and growing deficits.
If Obama does get re-elected, his second-term performance on the economy will I believe form a large part of how history judges him.
On November 05 2012 16:41 Zaqwert wrote: Well, according to your logic if they had 6 months of early voting and reduced it to 5.9 months they would be removing opportunity to vote, OMG!!
For someone with just two years in the Senate (before near full-time campaigning) he has performed as about the level you’d expect. He’s made some good calls in quite a few areas. He’s failed to show leadership in quite a few also.
However his fiscal policy is dangerous and wrong. It is vital the US gets onto a path out of deficit. The deficit is massive. To break things down the US spends $121,000 a second. Of that $121,000 it borrows $52,000. This is so far living beyond the means, it is not funny.
Romney is a flip-flopper, and has said some silly things. but he does have a good proven record on financial management – both in government and the private sector. For that reason I would vote Romney. I seriously worry about the US economy with another four years of massive and growing deficits.
If Obama does get re-elected, his second-term performance on the economy will I believe form a large part of how history judges him.
Bolded part made me think he is trying to make Obama into someone he wants him to be as opposed to candidate he is. If you take the things that Romney is specific on then you have about 5 trillion added to deficit (4.8 trillion tax cut+2trillion for defense+1 trillion for extending Bush ones-2.8 trillion which is total amount of every deduction in existance outside of ones Romney said he wouldnt get rid of).
Now while we look at Obamas debt related specifics the only thing we have is that 4 trillion measure of spending cuts and tax increases. It sort of lacks specifics but if its modeled after the 4 trillion plan that was being floated in congress around debt cieling time then at least its a workable goal.
To be fair to Romney he will probably also save a lot more money with his medicare and medicaid handling but it seems unlikely to me that his plan for that would ever survive thru congress which is constantly scared of getting voted out and that it would save enough to make him come even with the numbers we have for Obama.
For someone with just two years in the Senate (before near full-time campaigning) he has performed as about the level you’d expect. He’s made some good calls in quite a few areas. He’s failed to show leadership in quite a few also.
However his fiscal policy is dangerous and wrong. It is vital the US gets onto a path out of deficit. The deficit is massive. To break things down the US spends $121,000 a second. Of that $121,000 it borrows $52,000. This is so far living beyond the means, it is not funny.
Romney is a flip-flopper, and has said some silly things. but he does have a good proven record on financial management – both in government and the private sector. For that reason I would vote Romney. I seriously worry about the US economy with another four years of massive and growing deficits.
If Obama does get re-elected, his second-term performance on the economy will I believe form a large part of how history judges him.
I have to side with the Economist on this, a right-leaning international publication that recently endorsed Obama. Here are some of the reasons.
While Obama is an imperfect candidate, particularly for the economy, he has shown a willingness to decrease the deficit by cutting spending AND increasing revenue through taxes.
Meanwhile, based on everything that Romney has said in the past two years, he is committed to lowering revenue by reducing the tax rate, while increasing defense spending by a trillion (with a T) dollars. In fact, Romney has pledged never to raise taxes, even if it meant trading 1 dollar of tax revenue for 10 dollars of spending cuts.
Any serious economist (or thinker) can't take a position like this seriously, unfortunately. It is irresponsible, dangerous, and frankly unrealistic to think you can decrease the deficit without cutting spending and increasing revenue.
And while it's wishful thinking to think that Mitt doesn't really mean what he has said the past two years, and will magically transform into a fiscally responsible president once in office, he is still beholden to the donors that gave him hundreds of millions of dollars and the Tea Party Republicans in the house.
He has had ample opportunities to stand up against the most extreme elements of his party and show leadership -- Remaining silent when Rush Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke a slut; dumping his Neocon Foreign Policy advisor when a Christian radio show realized he was gay; sitting on his hands as Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock's pontificated about rape babies ... the list goes on.
While we don't know much about Romney's 'plans', we do know that Romney is merely a proxy for the Republican party, and not it's leader. I do not see him standing up to his own party about tax increases, the way the Obama administration stood up to the Democratic majority in the senate and argued that YES -- we have to cut spending if you want to take this deficit seriously.
Obama is an okay president. But Romney, based on his lack of leadership within his own party, and his uncompromising position on lowering taxes regardless of the deficit, is a worse option. In fact, if your primary concern is the deficit, it's enough of a reason to disqualify him.
For someone with just two years in the Senate (before near full-time campaigning) he has performed as about the level you’d expect. He’s made some good calls in quite a few areas. He’s failed to show leadership in quite a few also.
However his fiscal policy is dangerous and wrong. It is vital the US gets onto a path out of deficit. The deficit is massive. To break things down the US spends $121,000 a second. Of that $121,000 it borrows $52,000. This is so far living beyond the means, it is not funny.
Romney is a flip-flopper, and has said some silly things. but he does have a good proven record on financial management – both in government and the private sector. For that reason I would vote Romney. I seriously worry about the US economy with another four years of massive and growing deficits.
If Obama does get re-elected, his second-term performance on the economy will I believe form a large part of how history judges him.
Standard Republican hypocrisy.
If reducing the deficit is such a good idea, why are Republicans talking about the fiscal cliff as if it is apocalyptic for the economy? If your worldview is that deficits are bad then it must necessarily follow that the fiscal cliff is good.
As for Obama blowing up the deficit, from my previous post:
People who accuse Obama of reckless spending need to answer questions of the following sort: Given that Obama inherited a $11.9 trillion debt in 2009, which is projected to be $16.4 trillion in 2012, what reckless spending did Obama embark on to increase the debt by $4.5 trillion over his term?
The stimulus? That's only $0.8 trillion, which is only 18% of that increase. Where did the other 82% of the increase come from?
Obamacare? The CBO says that will reduce, not increase the deficit, but even if you don't believe that, Obamacare doesn't come into effect until 2014, so it can't possibly be responsible for any of the increase.
So where's the increase in the debt coming from? What's Obama recklessly spending all that money on?
Maybe, just maybe, Obama didn't recklessly increase spending, and the increase in the debt mainly comes from the GFC and past policies such as the Bush tax cuts.
Obama isn't going to blow up the deficit, Romney is. Romney has a 20% tax rate cut, which will cost $5 trillion. He claims it will be closed by loopholes, but he has failed to specify any loopholes he would close and it has already been shown to be mathematically impossible. He'll also increase defense spending. So given all this spending and loss of revenue, what's he going to cut to reduce the deficit? He won't say. He has no plan.
Obama's last budget plan would have stabilized debt to GDP and then slowly reduce it as I've argued here.
Its indeed a bit weird to see that the republicans have the image that they favour cuts and a balanced budget and the democrats have the reputation for mindless spending, increasing the deficit. If you look at democratic and republican presidents in the past, then the republican ones grew the deficit by alot more then the democrats did (who even had a surplus during some of the clinton years). Obama cant realy be blamed for the deficit now and not having done much about it, as the deficit is also a result of manny projects started by his predecessor wich obama has to continue. Still i do think that romney will grow the deficit less then obama (wich not neccesarely will be a good thing for the usa!) though i have atm no clue how he will do that. i imagine massive cuts on healthcare and social security, and possible raise a few taxes (not income taxes but other taxes). it would not be the first time a president didnt keep his promise "read my lips no more taxes" Obama will go on a spending spree i think
You might call romney a proxy but then obama is a proxy as well. i find romney a much better candidate then mccain and i think he does have his own ideas, he just has to play it all realy carefull now. If he would be elected i think he would act different.
And yes:off course the republicans in florida changed the law for early voting in the hope it would benefit them. Thinking otherwise is extremely naive lol. Florida has a great reputation in this area, some might still remember the butterfly ballot controversy 8 years ago.
@below:Yes we all know that, the situation is verry complicated of course. Even professors who studied economics for 10 years + do not agree on this subject. I find the debate in the usa about this pretty broad tbh, on one end you have the tea party and on the other hand you have bernanke and the other advisors regarding monetary policy, they both get their voices heard.
This is going to be like farting at a hurricane but...
We all know that there is no evidence that cutting government spending will do anything to reduce the deficit right? That examples of a nation states spending their way out of a financial hole abound in history?
Don't get me wrong, our conversation about this issue here in the U.K. is terribly stunted but the occasional rational voice gets through. Is no one in the U.S. worried by how limited the debate is?
On November 05 2012 19:19 Dapper_Cad wrote: This is going to be like farting at a hurricane but...
We all know that there is no evidence that cutting government spending will do anything to reduce the deficit right? That examples of a nation states spending their way out of a financial hole abound in history?
Don't get me wrong, our conversation about this issue here in the U.K. is terribly stunted but the occasional rational voice gets through. Is no one in the U.S. worried by how limited the debate is?
Enjoying your double-dip recession?
Which, by the way, has lasted longer than the Great Depression in the UK.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/374963_10151141951669582_1187650617_n.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2012/01/ukausterity1.gif)
