The ONE & ONLY 2012 Politics/Election Thread

[Mike!]

I'm not. I'm a part of the "give everything a 20% haircut" tribe. From DOD to every single fed agency. I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. Neither party suits me...but at the end of the day, Obama (or any Dem leadership) has not and will not realistically address the debt/deficit concerns.

Now your turn, what do you see as failures of this administration?

I'll go. He failed by not pushing for a public option as the health care solution, and now all the positive aspects of health care reform are in jeopardy due to the individual mandate clause that no one really preferred to begin with. He's been unable to fully close Guantanomo or rein in extrajudicial killings of 'terror' targets. He's continued a lot of Bush's imperialistic, world-policing policies in action, if not in tone.

He has not followed through on the openness and honesty he promised for his administration. They still only release what they want to release, and they tightly control their public relations. He's had a dereliction of leadership in not appropriately reprimanding his cabinet when they muck things up. Fast & Furious should have meant Eric Holder's resignation quite some time ago. Geithner's management of TARP had its issues that never seemed to be addressed.

That said, he's still infinitely preferable to me over Romney. I do not trust the Republicans to actually reduce the deficit. They would cut revenues significantly faster than they would cut spending, and dig us into an even deeper hole. Obama has also had his great successes, like repealing DADT, masterful handling of US involvement in the civil war in Libya, excellent judgment in his decisions surrounding the Bin Laden raid. He has tried to compromise with political opponents rather than playing chicken, which is a refreshing approach. His policy that the path to deficit reduction is a combination of cutting spending and increasing revenue, along with wishes to close loopholes and simplify the tax code, is right-headed.

Nothing at this point would compel me to vote for Romney over Obama.

[dubinsincuwereindiapers]

Oh come on... get a grip. Sheep? Who are you calling a sheep?

Yeah my last post was overly venomous (sincere apologies... I was in a mood to unload and you said something stupid. Which doesn't invalidate my 'venomous' response), as you said; but you writing stuff like this is what provokes it.

You get taxed for stuff, and call it rape (*****, but worse; parasite). You fail to answer my Q about what you use every day that is paid for by... taxes. Or how the overall situation in this country can be improved by the "Free Market" feudalism you seem to support.


So please enlighten us. I'll ask that you refrain from using phrases (or close permutations of); "trickle down economics", "taxation is theft", "better dead than Red", or "peace, with honor".

If you have the age and wisdom you purport to project, the last is easiest... and we both know how that one worked out.

[side note, tech advice; best to write/ keyboard with one hand and lube/ stroke with the other. Jus' sayin'.]

You wrote: "Communism is still communism, regardless of what brush you use to paint it; it still comes out RED".

Yeah and...? There's no Commies left. Even Fidel is trying to make a buck these days. Mebbe you need to find a valid argument. You seem to rely on obsolete terms, and trust that they'll be the bug-a-boo that they used to be.

Umm... Reagan is dead, OK? So is the USSR. Buy a calendar, make a printer happy; do yer bit for the US economy.


I'm no sheep, nor are you.


As I see it, this thread is debate not so much about politics as such (NEWS! Newt Gingrich drops out of the race!) but about conflicting ideas of what our country is, and should be/ could be. You keep presenting ideas, getting challenged, and answering challenges with "cuz, so".


You're smarter (or at least like to present yourself so). OK, do that. Tell me how trickle down economics will work this time, given that it's been tried before and been observed to be that "trickle down" means Rich piss on Poor.

Tell me how "Free Market" works, with no oversight to see that it's not gamed (how many examples of that would you like?).

Tell me how your ideas make my country stronger and safer, how your "the best (connected) succeed" protects freedom for all. I am a citizen, born here (Texas, if it matters); and I get damn twitchy when my rights are threatened. Specifically (in this case) the right to not be evaluated solely on my value as a worker (although I might have you beat, there; wage- wise. I do specialist work and am damn well- paid for it).


Stop with the smug propaganda BS. It is either beneath you... or not. Decide, buy a mirror to keep yourself honest.


You seem to be advocating a predatory world, and defending it as somehow being the natural state of things. You may be right, but human beings have been trying to improve Nature for a few thousand years... made some progress, in agriculture, social systems, and so on.

Civilization is an artificial construct. Yep.

Choose. Carefully. You haven't thought it through. You think you're a King, but more likely you're roadkill [if it all comes apart].


Well, this'll either ramp up the thread (yay!) or get it locked (...sorry...).

I try to avoid ad-hominem arguments... but when one is bashing someone else, it's kinda hard to not at least imply. Eh... Mods, sorry. Ban me if you wish, I'll avoid a time- sink for a while; everybody wins.

Are you drinking again Karl?

It's obvious that you disagree with my right leaning views, but damn get a grip buddy. I apologize for not taking the time to reply with long winded, verbose explanations for my thoughts; but I find it largely unnecessary, as well as a waste of time. I've explained myself very clearly on several occasions, only to receive the same reception. If people disagree they will always disagree; as political preference is akin to religion.

That said; I tend to single out people who make blanket statements, presented as fact; when in reality; said statements are merely a knee jerk response intended to either amuse their audience, or again to present BIASED opinion as fact.

^^^^IMO..

Don't get butthurt over opposing viewpoints. These same posters but down any right leaning viewpoint; even when presented in a concise, logical manner by a seasoned, corporate attorney; such as Zukiphile...

You people won the damned election, and will likely win the next.

Y umadbro?

[Mike!]

That said; I tend to single out people who make blanket statements, presented as fact; when in reality; said statements are merely a knee jerk response intended to either amuse their audience, or again to present BIASED opinion as fact.

Pot... kettle?

[dubinsincuwereindiapers]

Pot... kettle?

Apparently you skim past the "IMO" that I frequently post. I've stated numerous times that my opinions are just that; OPINIONS..

If everyone else would admit the same; these discussions would go much smoother.

[pentaxshooter]

SOPA was just a show to make the masses feel like they had some say in the political process. I'm sure Obama will veto this just like he said he would not sign NDAA

http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertco...phers-and-you/

[tbvvw]

His policy that the path to deficit reduction is a combination of cutting spending and increasing revenue, along with wishes to close loopholes and simplify the tax code, is right-headed.

It's a great policy to talk about, when exactly do we see any results? And while I agree with you about trusting the Republicans on reducing the deficit...I know the Dems won't either. what exactly is being / will be cut in any of Obama's 4 or 8 years. Revenue increases? Sure.

And FWIW, his Tax Reform Proposal basically adds/raises taxes on all business with $10M/yr in receipts, effectively raising taxes on American small and medium sized businesses which will then allow for us to lower the brackets for the F500 corps. That's not a real solution or "wish"?

[zukiphile]

That said, he's still infinitely preferable to me over Romney. I do not trust the Republicans to actually reduce the deficit.

Given the expansion of debt, how can that be a basis for preferring BHO? Is it possible that the preference for BHO is a matter of pleasant tones?

He's continued a lot of Bush's imperialistic, world-policing policies in action, if not in tone.

I can only guess that some of the complaining about Texas swagger and American cowboyism from so many corners was a complaint about tone with little basis in policy.

I also notice the changes in tone more than policy, though in some areas, like the honduran constitutional crisis, iranian dissidents and N. Korea the tone is a part of the policy.

He failed ...He's been unable to fully close Guantanomo or rein in extrajudicial killings of 'terror' targets.

Yet,

Obama has also had his great successes, like ...excellent judgment in his decisions surrounding the Bin Laden raid.

Aren't those bolded terms the same thing?

His policy that the path to deficit reduction is a combination of cutting spending and increasing revenue, ...

If this were BHO's policy, would we have seen some evidence of it by now?

[Mike!]

Apparently you skim past the "IMO" that I frequently post. I've stated numerous times that my opinions are just that; OPINIONS..

If everyone else would admit the same; these discussions would go much smoother.

I think Obama is a communist dictator who kills kittens and is a grand cyclops in the KKK...

IMO






You are right to rail against people stating opinions as irrefutable fact. But the inverse problem is making factually incorrect statements (like I just made, above... I am not attributing those ones to you), and adding "IMO" as a disclaimer that somehow means "you can't refute my inaccurate facts, they're just my opinion."

Everyone's entitled to their opinions, but statements related to those opinions and the support for you deriving them can be factually correct or incorrect. It is my opinion that you should reevaluate some of your recent 'opinions' in this thread. It is a fact that you have made some factually incorrect statements within those opinions.

[Mike!]

Given the expansion of debt, how can that be a basis for preferring BHO? Is it possible that the preference for BHO is a matter of pleasant tones?

I know many in this thread disagree with the benefits of Keynesian budgetary policy, but the expansion of debt was in mine and BHO's view a necessary response to a legitimate crisis. Outside of that, the large structural deficit was already well established before his administration.

I can only guess that some of the complaining about Texas swagger and American cowboyism from so many corners was a complaint about tone with little basis in policy.

I also notice the changes in tone more than policy, though in some areas, like the honduran constitutional crisis, iranian dissidents and N. Korea the tone is a part of the policy.

There is plenty of truth in this. However, particularly with foreign policy, tonality is a critical diplomatic tool that can be used to the nation's international benefit. Hostility against 'American cowboy imperialism' can hurt trade and endanger the lives of Americans on foreign soil. Cooperation among allies can reduce costs to the US military and limit our handprint on an international involvement (NATO coalition going into Libya).

Yet,



Aren't those bolded terms the same thing?

There's a nuanced distinction between Predator drone strikes or bombings with a specific intent to kill, and a manned raid with apparent intent of capture/extraction that resulted in a killing. Perhaps the Bin Laden raid was meant to be an execution with the ability to obtain and dispose of the body, and capture was never really an option, but the distinction still stands. I'm not a fan of unilateral killings, or even death penalty executions for that matter, but my praise for Obama's judgment and decision-making primarily focuses on his decision to act on the intelligence available despite the inherent risks, and the call to not inform Pakistan until after the raid had taken place. The latter may or may not have been in violation of international law. It's not my area of expertise. But I still think it may have been the right call to make in the event that a sympathizer within the Pakistani government would have tipped Bin Laden off.

If this were BHO's policy, would we have seen some evidence of it by now?

Do I need to cite State of the Union addresses or budget proposals? Chicago or MLA?

[zukiphile]

I know many in this thread disagree with the benefits of Keynesian budgetary policy, but the expansion of debt was in mine and BHO's view a necessary response to a legitimate crisis.

***

Do I need to cite State of the Union addresses or budget proposals? Chicago or MLA?

OK, but if BHO expanded spending considerably, isn't it an odd thing to rule out a vote for Romney because you don't trust him to reduce spending?

If I produce a speech (or a dozen speeches) in which Romney calls for less spending, isn't that just as indicative of Romney's policy?

[petesell]

And FWIW, his Tax Reform Proposal basically adds/raises taxes on all business with $10M/yr in receipts, effectively raising taxes on American small and medium sized businesses which will then allow for us to lower the brackets for the F500 corps. That's not a real solution or "wish"?

$10M in receipts is not a small/medium business. that's really a large business, statistically speaking.

the largest american corporations, which are neary all subsidized by the american taxpayer, hardly pay any taxes these days, and corporate tax as a % of tax revenue is at a post WWII low. that former revenue has been transferred to upper management & CEO pay, which is at an all time high, while labor has remained stagnant - a dangerous mix when you live in a consumption based economy. we need to bring back a little sanity to the equation because current tax policy distributes wealth in a way similar to an oligargy, or banana republic. it's neither healthy nor sustainable. the middle class needs to thrive in order for this country to remain on sound economic footing. i don't give the time of day to anyone who suggests otherwise & i know you don't either.

the vast majority of the country's debt problems can be solved through a reasonable combination of ending the bush tax cuts and reforming corporate tax policy, with the balance thru spending cuts to DoD and tweeks to medicare. SS can be almost entirely fixed by eliminating the payroll tax limit (another gift to the rich) and raising the retirement age a notch. afaic, obama's proposed tax policies are much more in line with shoring up the middle class compared to romney's, which are very simply cutting taxes even further for the wealthy at the expense of the tax policy & social contracts that benefit the middle & lower classes, aka the 99%. apparently he's not satisfied with paying 13.9%!

if you are a true fiscal conservative worried about increases to the national debt, do the math. romney should scare the hell out of you.

[dubinsincuwereindiapers]

$10M in receipts is not a small/medium business. that's really a large business, statistically speaking.

WAT!?

$10mil in receipts is nothing. My fathers small trucking company exceeds that with only a dozen or so trucks/employees. He only makes a couple hundred grand a year; hardly a "big fish"

[FlashRedGLS1.8T]

$10M in receipts is not a small/medium business. that's really a large business, statistically speaking.

$10M in revenue is a medium sized company/business.
Regardless of the statistics about the number of companies under the $10M mark.

$10mil in receipts is nothing. My fathers small trucking company exceeds that with only a dozen or so trucks/employees. He only makes a couple hundred grand a year; hardly a "big fish"

$10M in revenue is not nothing.

12 trucks averaging more than $16K in revenue per truck per week. This is the case?

Don't confuse sales/revenue with what you father "makes".

[Mike!]

OK, but if BHO expanded spending considerably, isn't it an odd thing to rule out a vote for Romney because you don't trust him to reduce spending?

If I produce a speech (or a dozen speeches) in which Romney calls for less spending, isn't that just as indicative of Romney's policy?

There's two aspects to a budget: revenue and expenditures. I believe the deficit should be reduced, but there's a practical limit to what can be achieved from reducing expenditures alone.

The proposals Obama has made to curb growth in spending and increase revenue may not be enough to eliminate the deficit, but they are a step in the direction of reducing the deficit.

Romney's tax policies from his website are as follows:

Individual Taxes

America’s individual tax code applies relatively high marginal tax rates on a narrow tax base. Those high rates discourage work and entrepreneurship, as well as savings and investment. With 54 percent of private sector workers employed outside of corporations, individual rates also define the incentives for job-creating businesses. Lower marginal tax rates secure for all Americans the economic gains from tax reform.

•Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates
•Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains
•Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains
•Eliminate the Death Tax
•Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)
Corporate Taxes

The U.S. economy’s 35 percent corporate tax rate is among the highest in the industrial world, reducing the ability of our nation’s businesses to compete in the global economy and to invest and create jobs at home. By limiting investment and growth, the high rate of corporate tax also hurts U.S. wages.

•Cut the corporate rate to 25 percent
•Strengthen and make permanent the R&D tax credit
•Switch to a territorial tax system
•Repeal the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)

Those are significant cuts to revenue, which I don't believe to be balanced out even by Romney's aggressive spending cut proposals. Hence, my belief is that his proposal is not in the right direction and will increase the deficit, if anything.

Further, all the talk about "lower spending!" and "raise/lower taxes!" tends to skirt around the fundamental issue of what level of services should government provide. "Cut spending" isn't so simple if we can't agree on what we the people want government to provide. "Taxes are too high!" is a meaningless claim in the absence of the context of what we want to spend.

Frankly, the most simple solution would be to raise taxes to bring in enough revenue to match what we currently spend. I do however agree that what we spend money on can be changed, altered, streamlined, and made more efficient, however, and I would like to see that happen as well.

[petesell]

that's really a large business, statistically speaking.

Regardless of the statistics about the number of companies under the $10M mark.

OK

a matter of interest, ~ 1 in 10 american businesses has receipts > $10M.

[Mike!]

Canada, but I work for a company with about $15m in receipts and a payroll of about 80 people. We're decidedly a 'medium' corporation. Certainly not 'small' anyway.

[zukiphile]

$10M in revenue is a medium sized company/business.
Regardless of the statistics about the number of companies under the $10M mark.

Indeed. Whether a business is "large" isn't a statistical measure. 10 million isn't GE, GM or even LTV. It's a small suburban manufacturing facility or a furniture store or a small shopping center, not a "big" business; it's more likely a family business.

Mike, I am not arguing your politics with you. I think you may be measuring BHO by his rhetoric, and ignoring his action, while holding that you don't trust Romney to act as he says he will.

[dubinsincuwereindiapers]

WAT!?

$10mil in receipts is nothing. My fathers small trucking company exceeds that with only a dozen or so trucks/employees. He only makes a couple hundred grand a year; hardly a "big fish"

$10M in revenue is a medium sized company/business.
Regardless of the statistics about the number of companies under the $10M mark.



$10M in revenue is not nothing.

12 trucks averaging more than $16K in revenue per truck per week. This is the case?

Don't confuse sales/revenue with what you father "makes".

Bolded for clarification. Im well aware of what he "makes", and it's nothing in relation to his gross revenue. The size of a business is determined by gross revenue; not net revenue, which can be affected by too many variables; including, but not exclusive to taxes.

[Mike!]

Mike, I am not arguing your politics with you. I think you may be measuring BHO by his rhetoric, and ignoring his action, while holding that you don't trust Romney to act as he says he will.

I think you're conflating lack of action with lack of success in attempted actions. Many proposals BHO has made or supported have been filibustered in the Senate, or perhaps passed in the Senate and voted down or never brought to the floor in the House.

And I'm actually taking Romney at his word that he will cut taxes and cut spending by his stated amounts. I believe that these two actions in tandem, however, will not succeed in eliminating the deficit. If completing a marathon is a metaphor for eliminating the deficit, Romney's plan is akin to shooting one's self in the foot while running said marathon. You're probably not going to make it to the finish.

[tbvvw]

$10M in receipts is not a small/medium business. that's really a large business, statistically speaking.

$10M in annual gross receipts is not a large business.

http://www.sba.gov/content/what-sbas...siness-concern

if you are a true fiscal conservative worried about increases to the national debt, do the math. all 535+2 politicians in DC should scare the hell out of you.

Fixed.

[pentaxshooter]

I may vote for Obama.

[20DYNAMITE07]

I may vote for Obama.

[Fritz27]

I may vote for Obama.

Were your fingers crossed when you made this post?

[pentaxshooter]

Were your fingers crossed when you made this post?

No, it's a serious thought I've had for a long time now.

[FlashRedGLS1.8T]

The size of a business is determined by gross revenue; not net revenue, which can be affected by too many variables; including, but not exclusive to taxes.

Thanks for letting the accountant in on that secret.
I am impressed that someone used "affected" correctly. Well done.

Let's try this again Popeye:

$10M in revenue is not nothing; 12 trucks averaging more than $16K in revenue per truck per week. This is the case?

[pentaxshooter]

Really interesting concept in response to the ACA. Thoughts from you guys? BJ is a local to me and true statesman. Brilliant guy.

http://physiciancaredirect.com/

[barry2952]

I may vote for Obama.

I had to stop in to applaud this.

[dubinsincuwereindiapers]

$10M in revenue is not nothing; 12 trucks averaging more than $16K in revenue per truck per week. This is the case?

Sounds about right. Point being that we're still talking about a smalll business here. A dozen or so employees, and $10 million gross really isn't "big business" at all. Granted its not a small business like your local deli, but representative of small business in general.

[2.FOH!!]

Not to downplay the honour just bestowed upon pentax, but I believe his
thoughts of voting for BHO are for reasons that run slightly adrift of thinking
he makes a super swell president.

I could be wrong, of course.

[pentaxshooter]

I could be wrong, of course.

You are not.

[VarianceVQ]

Now your turn, what do you see as failures of this administration?

It was within my prior statement (no public option in healthcare reform, the Afghanistan war that's winding down but still not done).

Not to downplay the honour just bestowed upon pentax, but I believe his
thoughts of voting for BHO are for reasons that run slightly adrift of thinking
he makes a super swell president.

You don't say.

[lojasmo]

OK, but if BHO expanded spending considerably, isn't it an odd thing to rule out a vote for Romney because you don't trust him to reduce spending?

If I produce a speech (or a dozen speeches) in which Romney calls for less spending, isn't that just as indicative of Romney's policy?

Romney is, demonstrably, untruthful about damn near everything. Anybody who believes a word he says is a rube.

[tbvvw]

It was within my prior statement (no public option in healthcare reform, the Afghanistan war that's winding down but still not done).

Pretty thin list, and the fact that there's no mention of the debt increase since he's taken office is interesting. At some point, Obama has to take responsibility for what's happening on his watch.
"Time will tell" isn't a confidence building answer.

[2.0T_Convert]

Pretty thin list, and the fact that there's no mention of the debt increase since he's taken office is interesting. At some point, Obama has to take responsibility for what's happening on his watch.
"Time will tell" isn't a confidence building answer.

Sound better than saying we need to sound the alarm and slash away left & right in the style that has led to negative growth EU economies.

[zukiphile]

Romney is, demonstrably, untruthful about damn near everything. Anybody who believes a word he says is a rube.

I agree that the pivotal difference lies partly in an assessment and perception of credibility, even if I see your ability to correctly judge it as impaired.

I do not agree that the level of trust one feels toward another is a generally useful metric. Lots of people trusted BHO to do what he promised and push some agendas, but that didn't necessarily happen. Whether you trust someone isn't a good predictor of future action. To the degree trust can legitimately come into play, voters can reasonably ask whether a candidate can be trusted to press the agenda on which he runs.

What would be the word for anyone who believed what candidate BHO's words about Guantanimo, transparency in government, and reduction of partisan rhetoric?