On October 09 2012 11:27 Darknat wrote: I was reading Mitt Romney's foreign policy speech and it reaffirmed my belief that Mitt Romney has all the ingredients needed to be the greatest president the United States has ever had.
We found him. We found the man in the US who is actually excited and enthusiastic about Mitt Romney. Someone get Fox News on the phone immediately.
On a serious note, are you just a troll poster, or you really believe this?
i'm excited and enthusiastic about Mitt Romney. i don't think he will be the greatest President we've ever had... lol, but i do think he'll be a good one.
I agree with sc2superfan. I would never raise the bar higher than Reagan for Mitt Romney, but I do think he will be a great president (if he wins obviously).
On October 09 2012 11:27 Darknat wrote: I was reading Mitt Romney's foreign policy speech and it reaffirmed my belief that Mitt Romney has all the ingredients needed to be the greatest president the United States has ever had.
We found him. We found the man in the US who is actually excited and enthusiastic about Mitt Romney. Someone get Fox News on the phone immediately.
On a serious note, are you just a troll poster, or you really believe this?
i'm excited and enthusiastic about Mitt Romney. i don't think he will be the greatest President we've ever had... lol, but i do think he'll be a good one.
I agree with sc2superfan. I would never raise the bar higher than Reagan for Mitt Romney, but I do think he will be a great president (if he wins obviously).
yeah increasing the military budget is an amazing start
for the record i would like johnson to win but with either obama or romney winning, it doesn't affect my household at all. no one works for a salary etc. really for me, i'd probably want romney but only because under republican leadership it has been shown that science funding increases. would rather not go to war with iran or other countries but it won't actually affect my family at all.
I was in the military so I have somewhat of a different perspective on the military budget :\ the Marine Corps is absurdly underfunded and we get all the Army hand-me-down shit. I just hope that the military doesn't waste the money on stupid shit like they tend to do and that Mitt Romney doesn't start any new wars.
I agree with you, Johnson would be much more appealing to me as well.
Veterans Benefits -- do you feel like you're getting enough or do vets deserve more?
Veterans benefits are fine. Military pay and benefits are great. No need for more money there.
To be more specific, it is the fact that we were forced to do so much with so little in regards to our equipment and training that was available to us.
Where does the money go? Big lucrative defense contract things, that go whizz and make big explosions?
Hey, it's not like it's Kmillz' grand plan to increase defense spending. But yeah, tying it to a percentage of the GDP arbitrarily is a fucking dumb way to create a budget.
On October 09 2012 11:27 Darknat wrote: I was reading Mitt Romney's foreign policy speech and it reaffirmed my belief that Mitt Romney has all the ingredients needed to be the greatest president the United States has ever had.
We found him. We found the man in the US who is actually excited and enthusiastic about Mitt Romney. Someone get Fox News on the phone immediately.
On a serious note, are you just a troll poster, or you really believe this?
i'm excited and enthusiastic about Mitt Romney. i don't think he will be the greatest President we've ever had... lol, but i do think he'll be a good one.
I agree with sc2superfan. I would never raise the bar higher than Reagan for Mitt Romney, but I do think he will be a great president (if he wins obviously).
yeah increasing the military budget is an amazing start
for the record i would like johnson to win but with either obama or romney winning, it doesn't affect my household at all. no one works for a salary etc. really for me, i'd probably want romney but only because under republican leadership it has been shown that science funding increases. would rather not go to war with iran or other countries but it won't actually affect my family at all.
I was in the military so I have somewhat of a different perspective on the military budget :\ the Marine Corps is absurdly underfunded and we get all the Army hand-me-down shit. I just hope that the military doesn't waste the money on stupid shit like they tend to do and that Mitt Romney doesn't start any new wars.
I agree with you, Johnson would be much more appealing to me as well.
they don't need to increase the budget they need to change up how the money is spent. yeah let's just make the military budget $1trillion/yr that will make everything better
On October 09 2012 11:27 Darknat wrote: I was reading Mitt Romney's foreign policy speech and it reaffirmed my belief that Mitt Romney has all the ingredients needed to be the greatest president the United States has ever had.
We found him. We found the man in the US who is actually excited and enthusiastic about Mitt Romney. Someone get Fox News on the phone immediately.
On a serious note, are you just a troll poster, or you really believe this?
i'm excited and enthusiastic about Mitt Romney. i don't think he will be the greatest President we've ever had... lol, but i do think he'll be a good one.
I agree with sc2superfan. I would never raise the bar higher than Reagan for Mitt Romney, but I do think he will be a great president (if he wins obviously).
yeah increasing the military budget is an amazing start
for the record i would like johnson to win but with either obama or romney winning, it doesn't affect my household at all. no one works for a salary etc. really for me, i'd probably want romney but only because under republican leadership it has been shown that science funding increases. would rather not go to war with iran or other countries but it won't actually affect my family at all.
I was in the military so I have somewhat of a different perspective on the military budget :\ the Marine Corps is absurdly underfunded and we get all the Army hand-me-down shit. I just hope that the military doesn't waste the money on stupid shit like they tend to do and that Mitt Romney doesn't start any new wars.
I agree with you, Johnson would be much more appealing to me as well.
Veterans Benefits -- do you feel like you're getting enough or do vets deserve more?
Veterans benefits are fine. Military pay and benefits are great. No need for more money there.
To be more specific, it is the fact that we were forced to do so much with so little in regards to our equipment and training that was available to us.
Where does the money go? Big lucrative defense contract things, that go whizz and make big explosions?
Hey, it's not like it's Kmillz' grand plan to increase defense spending. But yeah, tying it to a percentage of the GDP arbitrarily is a fucking dumb way to create a budget.
Oh, I was being sympathetic with him. I bet soldiers get fucked over because money to give them good training and equipment on the ground gets sacrificed for the flashy stuff that looks good on camera
On October 09 2012 11:27 Darknat wrote: I was reading Mitt Romney's foreign policy speech and it reaffirmed my belief that Mitt Romney has all the ingredients needed to be the greatest president the United States has ever had.
We found him. We found the man in the US who is actually excited and enthusiastic about Mitt Romney. Someone get Fox News on the phone immediately.
On a serious note, are you just a troll poster, or you really believe this?
i'm excited and enthusiastic about Mitt Romney. i don't think he will be the greatest President we've ever had... lol, but i do think he'll be a good one.
I agree with sc2superfan. I would never raise the bar higher than Reagan for Mitt Romney, but I do think he will be a great president (if he wins obviously).
No, seriously, if you're really into "less government" you should read what Rothbard has to say about Reagan.
our last 3 republican presidents have had the same 3 goals:
-lower taxes -expand the role of the presidency -defeat an enemy of the united states
i don't like rothbard because his philosophy essentially supports child labor, but he's dead on here. republicans haven't been for limited government since goldwater. it's also ludicrous to say romney wouldn't operate on those same goals, the enemy would likely be iran because that's what israel wants.
On October 09 2012 11:30 jdseemoreglass wrote: [quote] We found him. We found the man in the US who is actually excited and enthusiastic about Mitt Romney. Someone get Fox News on the phone immediately.
On a serious note, are you just a troll poster, or you really believe this?
i'm excited and enthusiastic about Mitt Romney. i don't think he will be the greatest President we've ever had... lol, but i do think he'll be a good one.
I agree with sc2superfan. I would never raise the bar higher than Reagan for Mitt Romney, but I do think he will be a great president (if he wins obviously).
yeah increasing the military budget is an amazing start
for the record i would like johnson to win but with either obama or romney winning, it doesn't affect my household at all. no one works for a salary etc. really for me, i'd probably want romney but only because under republican leadership it has been shown that science funding increases. would rather not go to war with iran or other countries but it won't actually affect my family at all.
I was in the military so I have somewhat of a different perspective on the military budget :\ the Marine Corps is absurdly underfunded and we get all the Army hand-me-down shit. I just hope that the military doesn't waste the money on stupid shit like they tend to do and that Mitt Romney doesn't start any new wars.
I agree with you, Johnson would be much more appealing to me as well.
Veterans Benefits -- do you feel like you're getting enough or do vets deserve more?
Veterans benefits are fine. Military pay and benefits are great. No need for more money there.
To be more specific, it is the fact that we were forced to do so much with so little in regards to our equipment and training that was available to us.
Where does the money go? Big lucrative defense contract things, that go whizz and make big explosions?
Hey, it's not like it's Kmillz' grand plan to increase defense spending. But yeah, tying it to a percentage of the GDP arbitrarily is a fucking dumb way to create a budget.
Oh, I was being sympathetic with him. I bet soldiers get fucked over because money to give them good training and equipment on the ground gets sacrificed for the flashy stuff that looks good on camera
This. I actually don't think increasing spending on the military is necessary, just spend the money that already goes there better. I was appalled at the incompetence and wasteful spending I witnessed first hand just on shit we didn't need and training that was pointless...meanwhile the pieces of gear that are beneficial to us (in my case useful signals intelligence equipment and radios) were not there when we needed them. The classes to use the appropriate gear were rare and my particular unit was just trying to get everyone into recon courses (fast-roping, intense swimming, over-the-top physical training) on top of our already very difficult jobs and it just wasn't feasible to have these high of expectations. The guys who actually were in radio recon didn't know shit about their jobs but were PT studs...so essentially useless to us, but they can run fast. Our company was run by a 1st sergeant who came from an infantry unit, so he was a hardass and didn't know what the fuck we do and our battalion was run by an infantry sergeant major (one of the dumbest men I have ever met in my life). Our boot (fresh out of boot camp) officers didn't know anything about our job either yet they were the ones calling the shots and then blaming us (experienced Sergeants and Corporals) when their plans fail.
See? You think Romney's gonna listen to that? His buddies are in the defense industry.
This cranky Marxist is more on your side than he is!
edit: which is to say, if I gotta live in the empire, I'd rather live in an empire with a small, efficient military than this military-industrial complex bullshit
edit: it's convenient how they spend lots of money on flashy shit to power the defense industry, then short soldiers on the basics in order to get military families to cheer about "increased defense spending," huh?
I know this might sound off-topic, but there's a congressional election shortly after the presidential election, right? How does that look, opionion-wise, will the Democrats make a comeback? Because if Romney's elected and the Democrats regain some kind of majority in the houses, I think they'll be wanting some vengeance....
Which will make the american people despise congress even more, and nothing important except an increasingly aggressive foreign policy stance will be had. I.e. is Romney in danger of running into an equally obstructionist congress, that Obama has faced?
I found this video and I thought I'd share it with everyone here. First thing, I know it is heavily edited but it is still an interesting video none the less if you want to hear some of Romeny's policies from his early political career and now. EDIT: It does have some Ron Paul thrown in there but please try not to focus on that portion of the video.
On October 09 2012 16:34 Reivax wrote: I know this might sound off-topic, but there's a congressional election shortly after the presidential election, right? How does that look, opionion-wise, will the Democrats make a comeback? Because if Romney's elected and the Democrats regain some kind of majority in the houses, I think they'll be wanting some vengeance....
Which will make the american people despise congress even more, and nothing important except an increasingly aggressive foreign policy stance will be had. I.e. is Romney in danger of running into an equally obstructionist congress, that Obama has faced?
its the same day, Republicans will keep the house and Dems will keep the senate. AKA nothing will get done for another 4 years
On October 09 2012 16:34 Reivax wrote: I know this might sound off-topic, but there's a congressional election shortly after the presidential election, right? How does that look, opionion-wise, will the Democrats make a comeback? Because if Romney's elected and the Democrats regain some kind of majority in the houses, I think they'll be wanting some vengeance....
Which will make the american people despise congress even more, and nothing important except an increasingly aggressive foreign policy stance will be had. I.e. is Romney in danger of running into an equally obstructionist congress, that Obama has faced?
The congressional and presidential elections are on the same ballot. Also the Democrats might try to stymie Romney if they regain Congress, but they're generally less effective at being an opposition party than the Republicans are.
On October 09 2012 09:51 sam!zdat wrote: This whole 47% Romney scandal thing is absurd. It is a perfect example of ideological blinders. Romney is caught saying something secretly that is supposed to be scandalous, but in fact EVERYBODY KNOWS ALREADY that both candidates write off their opponents' bases and work on a) mobilizing their bases by vilifying that of their opponent and b) pandering to those swing state voters too stupid to yet have an opinion or too marginal to belong to either base.
There is nothing scandalous about what Romney said. In fact, the very way that our system is constructed DEMANDS that he hold this opinion - it is a strategic necessity. If he did not, he would lose to a candidate who did. It is only when something that everybody already knows is the case, but represses ideologically, is brought to light that the "scandal" appears.
It is not Romney's comments that are scandalous - it is the system itself! Everybody already knows that he thinks this! The "scandal" is only a symptom!
There's actually a statement in the video that he makes that is arguably worse ... He admits in the video that he believes the economy will improve, even without any changes to economic policy.
It's basically a tacit admission that he believes his own candidacy is irrelevant to economy. I'm surprised that that hasn't exploded over the internet.
That's because serious people know the point isn't the economy "recovering" but how fast and how strong. While Obama is bragging about 4 million jobs in the last few years those of us actually paying attention know we should be at twice that at least.
Recoveries after recessions:
Those are standard recessions which can easily be solved by monetary policy. They are not financial crises.
Financial crises are different, because there is a large build up of private-sector and household debt, which has to be paid off. Households need to deleverage, as a result of their consumption during the housing boom. This deleveraging restricts their spending, leading to a fall in aggregate demand. Financial crises take a long time to recover from, because it takes a long time to deleverage.
Here's Republican economist Ken Rogoff in an interview:
And the main prediction we made in our work was that deep financial crises are different than typical recessions. It takes longer to recover from a financial crisis. So those economists who had just studied the handful of previous U.S. recessions and used those to benchmark everything – that is, the overwhelming majority of forecasters --- missed the boat because this kind of recession really is different.
The US is in a standard financial crisis recession. It's doing as well as can be expected.
Fact-checking financial recessions is a salient issue, especially in a US election year. On the one hand, the incumbent faces criticism that the recovery is slow. In August the Mitt Romney campaign invoked US history to argue that performance has been poor: “The 2007-2009 financial crisis produced a severe recession ... But GDP growth has been anaemic since then, averaging just 2.2% per year since the trough. This pattern is unusual. The past ten recessions have been followed by faster recoveries, and GDP has fairly swiftly recovered to the previous trendline.” On the other hand, none of the last ten US downturns coincided with a financial crisis. In his convention speech nominating Barack Obama a month later, Bill Clinton intimated that the usual pattern in normal recessions was not relevant in this instance: “The difference this time is purely in the circumstances… no president, not me, not any of my predecessors, no one could have fully repaired all the damage that he found in just four years.” ... We reach back into the historical record over 140 years, examining the experiences of 14 advanced countries, to document the pervasive cyclical influence of credit in the economic fortunes of nations … The more excess credit in the preceding expansion, the worse the recession and subsequent recovery appear to be ... By this reckoning the US has done quite well, steering out of the to-be-expected financial recession range based on the inherited level of excess credit, especially if the shadow system is considered. Most importantly a deep financial recession was avoided at the outset, and this level effect remained intact ... To assume that this US recovery would resemble previous “normal recession” is to use the wrong benchmark.
The comparison to past recessions is unfair. Those previous recessions were not caused by a financial crisis where the Fed has hit the zero lower bound. For example the 80s recession was self-induced by the Fed's (successful) attempt to end stagflation, and the economy recovered when the Fed decided to loosen monetary policy.
In this case, the recession was caused by the GFC, where households built up a lot of debt, mostly through housing, and when the economy crashed households were forced to pay down that debt, and so aggregate demand collapses. Thus the paradox of thrift applies: spending = income, so when everyone stops spending everyone's income falls.
These factors of massive household debt build up, forced deleveraging, and Fed at the ZLB make this recession principally unique.
Brad DeLong has a summary of the things we've already said about Romney's $5T (yes) tax plan:
What Everybody Needs to Know About Romney' $5 Trillion Tax Cut Promises
Arithmetic is not just optimal. Arithmetic is prohibited:
Paul Ryan says that cutting tax rates by 1/5 is non-negotiable--that even if Congress does not eliminate a single deduction, the Ryan-Romney administration will cut tax rates by 1/5.
Cutting tax rates by 1/5 boosts the national debt in a decade by $5 trillion plus interest.
Mitt Romney has, by now, said pretty much everything it is possible to say about the place of the 1/5 tax rate cut--from claiming that he will not cut tax rates at all if Congress won't eliminate deductions, to claiming that the tax rate cut will pay for itself through faster economic growth without any cuts in deductions.
Paul Ryan has at least a consistent message.
Families making over $200,000/year will over the next decade receive $1.7 trillion in non-savings deductions: health insurance, home mortgages, charitable contributions, etc.
Families making over $200,000/year would over the next decade receive $2.7 trillion from Romney's 1/5 rate cut.
Even were Congress to eliminate all non-savings deductions, families making over $200,000/year would get a $1 trillion tax cut from Romney.
By arithmetic, if Romney keeps his promise to make his tax cut for the rich revenue-neutral, households making less than $200,000/year would get a $1 trillion or more tax increase--more if the over $200,000/year crowd retain any of their deductions at all.
Romney has by now promised not just to leave savings deductions untouched and to implement his 1/5 tax rate cut but also to make the plan as a whole revenue neutral and to not lower taxes on the "rich": it just cannot be done.
Romney claimed six studies support him. Romney lied. Romney's six are:
Alex Brill says Romney would have to raise taxes on life insurance policies and state and local bonds--thus breaking Romney's commitment not to tax savings--eliminate all deductions for the $200,000/year plus crowd, and still not be revenue neutral: Brill ha to add a Medicare and an economic growth magic asterisk.
John Diamond says that you could write a plan that would be revenue neutral, but he doesn't have enough information to model Romney's plan.
Martin Feldstein says that Romney could pay for it if he retains the Estate Tax--which Romney has promised to eliminate--and massively raises taxes on all households making between $100,000/year and $200,000/year by eliminating all of their deductions as well.
Harvey Rosen also says that Romney could pay for it if he retains the Estate Tax--which Romney has promised to eliminate--and massively raises taxes on all households making between $100,000/year and $200,000/year by eliminating all of their deductions as well. Two Wall Street Journal op-eds that contain no analysis whatsoever.
Thus there are only four studies on Romney's list, and none of them say what he claims they say.
What Everybody Needs to Know About Romney' $5 Trillion Tax Cut Promises
Arithmetic is not just optimal. Arithmetic is prohibited:
Paul Ryan says that cutting tax rates by 1/5 is non-negotiable--that even if Congress does not eliminate a single deduction, the Ryan-Romney administration will cut tax rates by 1/5.
Cutting tax rates by 1/5 boosts the national debt in a decade by $5 trillion plus interest.
Mitt Romney has, by now, said pretty much everything it is possible to say about the place of the 1/5 tax rate cut--from claiming that he will not cut tax rates at all if Congress won't eliminate deductions, to claiming that the tax rate cut will pay for itself through faster economic growth without any cuts in deductions.
Paul Ryan has at least a consistent message.
Families making over $200,000/year will over the next decade receive $1.7 trillion in non-savings deductions: health insurance, home mortgages, charitable contributions, etc.
Families making over $200,000/year would over the next decade receive $2.7 trillion from Romney's 1/5 rate cut.
Even were Congress to eliminate all non-savings deductions, families making over $200,000/year would get a $1 trillion tax cut from Romney.
By arithmetic, if Romney keeps his promise to make his tax cut for the rich revenue-neutral, households making less than $200,000/year would get a $1 trillion or more tax increase--more if the over $200,000/year crowd retain any of their deductions at all.
Romney has by now promised not just to leave savings deductions untouched and to implement his 1/5 tax rate cut but also to make the plan as a whole revenue neutral and to not lower taxes on the "rich": it just cannot be done.
Romney claimed six studies support him. Romney lied. Romney's six are:
Alex Brill says Romney would have to raise taxes on life insurance policies and state and local bonds--thus breaking Romney's commitment not to tax savings--eliminate all deductions for the $200,000/year plus crowd, and still not be revenue neutral: Brill ha to add a Medicare and an economic growth magic asterisk.
John Diamond says that you could write a plan that would be revenue neutral, but he doesn't have enough information to model Romney's plan.
Martin Feldstein says that Romney could pay for it if he retains the Estate Tax--which Romney has promised to eliminate--and massively raises taxes on all households making between $100,000/year and $200,000/year by eliminating all of their deductions as well.
Harvey Rosen also says that Romney could pay for it if he retains the Estate Tax--which Romney has promised to eliminate--and massively raises taxes on all households making between $100,000/year and $200,000/year by eliminating all of their deductions as well. Two Wall Street Journal op-eds that contain no analysis whatsoever.
Thus there are only four studies on Romney's list, and none of them say what he claims they say.
It seems like it really just revolves around how strictly you want to stick to the 20% rate cut and how strictly you want to define 'savings deductions'.
Simpson-Bowles wanted to cut the top tax rate as much as Romney yet also made the tax code more progressive.
On October 09 2012 11:27 Darknat wrote: I was reading Mitt Romney's foreign policy speech and it reaffirmed my belief that Mitt Romney has all the ingredients needed to be the greatest president the United States has ever had.
We found him. We found the man in the US who is actually excited and enthusiastic about Mitt Romney. Someone get Fox News on the phone immediately.
On a serious note, are you just a troll poster, or you really believe this?
i'm excited and enthusiastic about Mitt Romney. i don't think he will be the greatest President we've ever had... lol, but i do think he'll be a good one.
I agree with sc2superfan. I would never raise the bar higher than Reagan for Mitt Romney, but I do think he will be a great president (if he wins obviously).
I almost feel like republicans have short term memory. They're like "Romney said this!!! Gooooo Romney!" then two weeks later Romney disagree's with his own statement "Romney said that!!! Goooooo Romney!".
"We don’t want to turn the safety net into a hammock that lulls able-bodied people into lives of dependency and complacency, that drains them of their will and their incentive to make the most of their lives." -Paul Ryan
Paul Krugman has been relentlessly bashing Paul Ryan for years now. Here's some reading material that Biden should look at ahead of his debate.
On October 09 2012 23:32 paralleluniverse wrote: "We don’t want to turn the safety net into a hammock that lulls able-bodied people into lives of dependency and complacency, that drains them of their will and their incentive to make the most of their lives." -Paul Ryan
Paul Krugman has been relentlessly bashing Paul Ryan for years now. Here's some reading material that Biden should look at ahead of his debate.
Biden doesn't have the intellectual horses to compete with Ryan on hard policy. Biden's only hopes for doing well are either a) a major Ryan gaffe (not likely), and b) using his folksy approach to connect with viewers and voters. Biden can be aggressive, but he probably is going to open himself up to embarrassment if he ventures too far outside the realm of generalities.
On October 09 2012 23:32 paralleluniverse wrote: "We don’t want to turn the safety net into a hammock that lulls able-bodied people into lives of dependency and complacency, that drains them of their will and their incentive to make the most of their lives." -Paul Ryan
Paul Krugman has been relentlessly bashing Paul Ryan for years now. Here's some reading material that Biden should look at ahead of his debate.
Biden doesn't have the intellectual horses to compete with Ryan on hard policy. Biden's only hopes for doing well are either a) a major Ryan gaffe (not likely), and b) using his folksy approach to connect with viewers and voters. Biden can be aggressive, but he probably is going to open himself up to embarrassment if he ventures too far outside the realm of generalities.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2012-03-12-recessionrecovery.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1331565714849)
![[image loading]](http://www.voxeu.org/sites/default/files/image/FromApr2012/taylor_new4.png)
