Log in:  

Register

U.S. Politics

Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Moderators: Irondan, Eshnar, Red Rick, Valv.Piti, Pricey_sky, Tonton, King Boonen

24 Oct 2011 15:02

Scott SoCal wrote:Yep (December 17, 2007).

I think (December 17, 2007) Romney's got real (December 17, 2007) problems with this recent development.

Yes, which is why I said I hoped it "comes up again". You might have missed that part in among the other 8 words in that message.
User avatar VeloCity
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,638
Joined: 10 Sep 2009 16:17
Location: Washington, DC

24 Oct 2011 16:13

VeloCity wrote:And then you said that it shows that Obama has more support from Bain than does Romney. Still not sure how 18 Bain employees donating to Romney and 3 Bain employees donating to Obama constitutes "more support".


I dunno... maybe he raised more money?
Scott SoCal
 

24 Oct 2011 16:19

VeloCity wrote:Yes, which is why I said I hoped it "comes up again". You might have missed that part in among the other 8 words in that message.


You are going to have to do better than this. I'm sorry.
Scott SoCal
 

24 Oct 2011 16:22

""Still in disbelief after the panel reenacted the Texas governor’s interview with Parade magazine, Mika Brzezinski was forthright in her assessment of the GOP field.

“I’m disturbed,” she told co-host Joe Scarborough. “You have a disturbing set of candidates in your party, I’m sorry. It’s disturbing. Either they are walking around with slogans or they’re crazy.”


Scarborough said he had “no defense” for those seeking the White House in his party.

“This is lunacy,” he said. “People will look back these candidates and just said, ‘What idiots. What total, absolute idiots.’ I’ll suspect we’ll do what Republicans do. All the idiots will be thrown overboard""
redtreviso
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,409
Joined: 23 May 2010 12:55

24 Oct 2011 18:35

Scott SoCal wrote:You are going to have to do better than this. I'm sorry.
It came up once before. I hope it comes up again. It's really not a difficult concept to grasp.
User avatar VeloCity
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,638
Joined: 10 Sep 2009 16:17
Location: Washington, DC

24 Oct 2011 18:48

Scott SoCal wrote:I dunno... maybe he raised more money?
So if 1000 employees donated $5000 to Romney and 1 employee donated $5001 to Obama, Obama has more support from that company? Ok then.
User avatar VeloCity
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,638
Joined: 10 Sep 2009 16:17
Location: Washington, DC

24 Oct 2011 18:59

I really wish Hillary would run. I was an avid Obama supporter last time around (even though I could not vote at the time), but I have been disappointed with Obama's presidency. I understand that he did get alot done, but I wish he would have tried more. His Congress has been awful however. It seems to me that the system needs an overhaul. But I digress. I think that people would gladly support Hillary. Her husband was after all one of the best presidents in terms of financial policy. I think she would get even more support than in 2008. That being said, I really hope Perry does not win. Romney is at least somewhat moderate, but Perry is on the verge of being crazy.
Moser fanboy.

Libertine Seguros wrote:Colombia is a world of totally alien wonder, a bit like putting the Amish in the control room at NASA.
User avatar gustienordic
Member
 
Posts: 1,176
Joined: 15 Feb 2011 02:57
Location: Wisconsin

24 Oct 2011 19:01

VeloCity wrote:So if 1000 employees donated $5000 to Romney and 1 employee donated $5001 to Obama, Obama has more support from that company? Ok then.


You are in the science world, right? Is the above what happened at Bain or are you exaggerating a little?
Scott SoCal
 

24 Oct 2011 19:03

VeloCity wrote:It came up once before. I hope it comes up again. It's really not a difficult concept to grasp.


Oh, I get the concept. But if that's what you're going to hang your hat on then I'm guessing there will be some disappointment in your future.
Scott SoCal
 

24 Oct 2011 19:08

Of course Hillary won't run. Not against Obama. Still a good shot she'll run in 2016 though.

VeloCity wrote:You've got to love Republicans. Their solution to the mess is to put back into power people who share the same philosophy and policies as the people who created the mess while blaming the people who are trying to clean up the mess for creating the mess in the first place.

It's my opinion that much of the current economic mess is rooted in bribery and collusion between the super wealthy and politicians, coupled with supply-side economics. Obama has continued both of those extensively. This is why many people consider Obama to essentially be a black Bush. His economic policies are very similar. Ardent Democrats, and Republicans, will show you the hair splitting differences and focus on them, but the thrust of his economic policies has been very similar.

Bavarianrider wrote:don't see how you could not be in favor of Ron Paul

Let's see, he's in favor of eliminating all social programs, and if you're poor or in need of assistance the local church or neighbors will take care of you. Yeah, that will work really well.
User avatar Alpe d'Huez
Veteran
 
Posts: 10,055
Joined: 11 Mar 2009 03:51
Location: New England

24 Oct 2011 19:20

Scott SoCal wrote:You are in the science world, right? Is the above what happened at Bain or are you exaggerating a little?
You're the one who set the criteria that "more money = more support" and "more employees donating = less support". I just took it to it's logical conclusion.
User avatar VeloCity
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,638
Joined: 10 Sep 2009 16:17
Location: Washington, DC

24 Oct 2011 19:21

Scott SoCal wrote:Oh, I get the concept. But if that's what you're going to hang your hat on then I'm guessing there will be some disappointment in your future.
Never said I was hanging my hat on anything. All I said was that I hope it comes up again.
User avatar VeloCity
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,638
Joined: 10 Sep 2009 16:17
Location: Washington, DC

24 Oct 2011 20:05

Alpe d'Huez wrote:It's my opinion that much of the current economic mess is rooted in bribery and collusion between the super wealthy and politicians, coupled with supply-side economics. Obama has continued both of those extensively. This is why many people consider Obama to essentially be a black Bush. His economic policies are very similar. Ardent Democrats, and Republicans, will show you the hair splitting differences and focus on them, but the thrust of his economic policies has been very similar.
"Economic policies" is a pretty broad brush. The only thing Obama has in common with Bush is in having failed to restructure the banking system - which is quite a chore - and failing to enact longer-term restructuring and regulations in the greater financial sector (ie reversing primarily-Republican introduced deregulation) which is understandable given the intense pressure to focusing on improving things in the short term first. But that's about where the similarities end.

But collusion with the super wealthy? Buffett, maybe. Doubt many others, since Obama's certainly not working in their interest by pushing for increasing regulations on the financial sector, increasing taxes on the wealthy, closing corporate tax loopholes, etc (pretty much the exact opposite of Bush's and pretty much the exact opposite of the current crop of Republican's approach). You'd think that Obama would be rewarded handsomely by Wall St and the big banks and the super wealthy if he were just continuing on with the Bush policies. But quite the opposite - they've cut their campaign contributions to Obama significantly and shifted them to the Republican candidates (compared to the distribution of the '08 campaign - check out the Goldman Sachs numbers, for eg, for Obama '08 vs Obama '12 and Romney '12) because they know full well that it's the Republican's who are working in their - Wall St's - best interest and that it's Obama who wants to put on the brakes.

And that's not to mention that even if Obama came up with THE SOLUTION TO EVERYTHING, congressional Republican's would just say "no" anyway. Kind of hard to get anything done when one party just wants to sit on their collective hands and do nothing. (And another big reason our system is broken beyond repair - what do you suppose the Dems are going to do in return, if say Romney became president? I can't see any incentive they'd have now to work with a Republican president.)

Also, see the GAO report released today about what would happen to GDP if the PPACA were to be repealed - another thing Republicans want to do.

btw, according to Suskind (so take it with a grain of salt, but still an interesting read), it was Obama who wanted to go very, very big on insolvent bank restructuring - Romer (? I think it was) called it Obama's Rooseveltian moment - and it was Obama who wanted to "change the course of the Wall Street ship" etc. But he was talked out of it by Emmanuel, Geithner, and Summers.
User avatar VeloCity
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,638
Joined: 10 Sep 2009 16:17
Location: Washington, DC

24 Oct 2011 21:30

Alpe d'Huez wrote:Michelle Bachman's entire staff in New Hampshire resigned today. She was already a long passed flavor of the month, but this is a pretty strong nail in her presidential coffin if you ask me.

As I noted in the other thread, it's Romney's nomination to win or lose. He seems to be the only one who understands this is a marathon, not a sprint. Only Perry can upend him as I see it, and that is if Perry can sweep South Carolina and Florida, then several states on Super Tuesday and get momentum from that.


Apparently, the NH staff was asked to go 'off payroll' in mid September. Likely Bachman simply doesn't have the money, and the little she has, she's focusing on Iowa.

In similar news, I believe Huntsman, Gingrich & Santorum are in the red without ever passing a few % on any poll. So they're toast (ok, so that wasn't news after all). All in all, the largest red numbers are written by Gingrich ($1m), followed by Bachman ($1/2m), with a very distant 3rd and 4th by Hunstman & Santorum.

Paul & Cain are doing reasonably well for 2nd tier candidates with their fundraising ($1-2m). Obviously Perry and Romney with around $15m each are taking the cake. Interestingly, the Perry campaign has maxed out 70% of their donors, while the Romney campaign has more small donors than Perry has (fewer % maxed out). Also, Perry raises mostly in Texas & California. Romney's campaign fundraising is more diversified. Yes, that was a surprise for me, too.
User avatar Cobblestones
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,042
Joined: 12 May 2009 23:22
Location: Ohio

25 Oct 2011 04:29

Alpe d'Huez wrote:Of course Hillary won't run. Not against Obama. Still a good shot she'll run in 2016 though.


It's my opinion that much of the current economic mess is rooted in bribery and collusion between the super wealthy and politicians, coupled with supply-side economics. Obama has continued both of those extensively. This is why many people consider Obama to essentially be a black Bush. His economic policies are very similar. Ardent Democrats, and Republicans, will show you the hair splitting differences and focus on them, but the thrust of his economic policies has been very similar.


Let's see, he's in favor of eliminating all social programs, and if you're poor or in need of assistance the local church or neighbors will take care of you. Yeah, that will work really well.


I agree completely. However, I feel like that it is impossible to be a high end politician without the "support" of huge corporations. It is quite impossible to even run for president these days without $$$$ backing you up. Since the only way you can get this $$$$ is to do what the corporations tell you, you run out of options. Because of this, any candiate that we may elect, will end up being similar to Bush. Obama, Romney, or Perry; all will be influenced by the giant multinationals. I wish there were someone else to vote for, but sadly it seems we are stuck.
Moser fanboy.

Libertine Seguros wrote:Colombia is a world of totally alien wonder, a bit like putting the Amish in the control room at NASA.
User avatar gustienordic
Member
 
Posts: 1,176
Joined: 15 Feb 2011 02:57
Location: Wisconsin

25 Oct 2011 17:52

Rick Perry announced some of his plans today, and I thought I would slice them up and give some comments:

• Keep benefits intact for current retirees, but allow younger workers to choose to put their income into private accounts instead. - Proposed by Bush, not popular at all, failed miserably. Back 20 years ago or so it was proposed to have an "add on" SS investment, on top of your current SS, like a 401k. Why no one proposes this today and insist it replace SS is beyond me. I also much prefer the idea of eliminating, or at the very least increasing the cap in order to increase long-term sustainability.

• Allow states and local governments to opt out of the federal program and invest in different funds instead. - I see this is a recipe for disaster when states are in distress, and when markets fluctuate. However, the key phrase is opt out. Provided a state could later opt back in, this makes for a compelling argument.

• Raise the retirement age for younger workers. - This would maybe work if wages were up over the last few decades for working people, and headed up by all projections. But the fact that they are flat only means people would be working for less money, longer. I'm thus completely against it, and in no way do I see this passing anything.

• a) Allow Americans to receive a payment or a credit for the purchase of health insurance instead of the direct Medicare benefits provided through the current program. b) Raise the Medicare eligibility age. c) Pay people benefits based on their income levels. - Very similar to the current Republican plan in Congress (Ryan plan). The only part I agree with is c) paying benefits on income levels (means testing). There is no way the majority of these people are going to be able to negotiate a better deal for themselves than what they get with Medicare.

Image

• Flat 20 percent income tax rate, but also gives taxpayers the option of sticking with their current rate. - Not sure how this would work. You can choose which rate you wish to pay?

• a) Maintain popular deductions for families making less than $500,000 a year; b) end taxes on Social Security benefits. c) End corporate loopholes and lower the general corporate tax rate to 20 percent. - The devil is in the details, but he may be on to something here and on the surface it sounds better than the quagmire we currently have. I generally disagree with ending SS taxes, but the entire issue is definitely worth discussing.

"Opposition to this simple measure is based on a simple supposition: that the people are not smart enough to look out for themselves." is a comment he had. I don't think it's an issue with intelligence. Certainly when it comes to things like raising the eligibility age for SS, let alone the tax code, or elderly and infirm trying to understand or purchase health care.

I actually applaud Perry though for putting this out there. At a time like this he has to start stepping up and sticking his neck out, which somewhat did. Unfortunately, he also made comments on Obama's birth certificate, and was jumped on by Karl Rove for it, saying it made him side with the nutcases, or something like that.

No surprise Obama also quickly criticized Perry's plan, though he was short on specifics and analyzing why. And I think during a time like this, a missed opportunity for the President. Maybe he'll give more full comments later today, or this week.
User avatar Alpe d'Huez
Veteran
 
Posts: 10,055
Joined: 11 Mar 2009 03:51
Location: New England

25 Oct 2011 18:00

Alpe d'Huez wrote:• Flat 20 percent income tax rate, but also gives taxpayers the option of sticking with their current rate. - Not sure how this would work. You can choose which rate you wish to pay?


I believe this is precisely how it works. How on earth that should be revenue neutral is beyond me if everybody can chose either pay the current rates or the new ones (whichever is less I suppose). And if it's not revenue neutral, how is it balanced in the budget? And if it's not balanced in the budget, is Perry still a TP darling?

Also the opt-out of SS would be a disaster in the making. Of course a LOT of particularly younger people will opt out. And of course they will then not make deposits of a similar magnitude into a 401k or similar. What should become of them once they're nearing ~60-65 years of age is anybody's guess. Perry will of course be long gone by then.
User avatar Cobblestones
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,042
Joined: 12 May 2009 23:22
Location: Ohio

25 Oct 2011 22:05

Is it individuals that can opt out, or states that can opt out? The former would result in exactly what you say.
User avatar Alpe d'Huez
Veteran
 
Posts: 10,055
Joined: 11 Mar 2009 03:51
Location: New England

28 Oct 2011 10:37

Came across this AP article today showing how in certain Obama strong holds in 2008 where he received millions of dollars, he isn't getting the same support, and some if it is going to Romney.

This lends credence why I think it's 50/50 at this point in an Obama/Romney race, and I imagine why Scott seems as confident as hopeful that Romney will win.
User avatar Alpe d'Huez
Veteran
 
Posts: 10,055
Joined: 11 Mar 2009 03:51
Location: New England

28 Oct 2011 13:26

Alpe d'Huez wrote:Came across this AP article today showing how in certain Obama strong holds in 2008 where he received millions of dollars, he isn't getting the same support, and some if it is going to Romney.

This lends credence why I think it's 50/50 at this point in an Obama/Romney race, and I imagine why Scott seems as confident as hopeful that Romney will win.


Do you think fundraising totals for both candidates will be lower than last election, given the depressed economy?
User avatar Bala Verde
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,119
Joined: 10 Mar 2009 02:32
Location: Chapel Hill, NC

PreviousNext

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

Back to top