see how much your social issues matter when we go bankrupt...

 

 

 

Oh keep quiet. You're a slave to money then you'll die.

 

Money's sure as hell important to me but I have my values and what kind of life would it be if I was forced to live by your sh*tty rules?

see how much your social issues matter when we go bankrupt...

 

 

 

Oh keep quiet. You're a slave to money then you'll die.

 

Money's sure as hell important to me but I have my values and what kind of life would it be if I was forced to live by your sh*tty rules?

No sir. I just know that the social issues that are being harped upon now are the same social issues that have been for the past 50 or so years. People will never be satisfied. It doesnt matter what resolution is reached, because people will still try to take it one step further.

Money in my pocket is not the issue. Money being borrowed is the issue. You are a slave to your debtors. We are involuntarily borrowing at an astronomical rate. It has to stop.

see how much your social issues matter when we go bankrupt...

 

 

 

Oh keep quiet. You're a slave to money then you'll die.

 

Money's sure as hell important to me but I have my values and what kind of life would it be if I was forced to live by your sh*tty rules?

 

And exactly what social issues are you entrusting with Obama more than you would Romney?

 

Keep in mind that a good portion of the social issue that Obama and like-minded people 'defend' are defended through coercion and force, which your values should tell you to reject if Gary Johnson and Ron Paul's messages resonate with you.

 

Not to mention that Obama's got some pretty disgusting violations under his belt already.

What's your point? I'm not supporting Barack Obama or Mitt Romney. I never said I was.

If "extends them further" means "doubles down" then you are correct. Executive order 13603, the provisions in the NDAA, extrajudicial assassinations of US Citizens, etc.

I don't know who you read/listen to on the left but I've heard plenty of criticism (particularly the far left, granted). Unfortuantely I don't expect the GOP to be moving away from those positions either.

Is it as amusing as Republicans nominating the guy who invented Obamacare?

 

Or republicans praising Reagan as a great man, despite the fact that he ran up huge deficits and increased the national debt in his 8 years?

great point that Mark Cuban made

 

Cuban doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

1) It will be extremely easy to agree on a deduction cap. It's currently unlimited. Somewhere between zero and unlimited are many numbers that could attract overwhelming support. But, overwhelming support, while nice to have isn't needed. It's not the slightest issue in the House and only 50 are actually needed in the Senate to do tax reform as part of budget reconciliation, with the VP casting the 51st vote. The Bush cuts were initially enacted as part of budget reconciliation.

 

2) Romney's proposal is to cut the corporate rate from 35 to 25%. Period. Only a further cut below 25% would involve broadening the base. He would also go to a territorial system from the current worldwide system, which would get rid of the problem of U.S. firms not repatriating foreign profits because they don't want to take the U.S. tax hit (35% less foreign tax already paid.)

 

Do we really believe that corporations will gladly accept an increase in their net tax bill?

 

Lower rates result in higher revenue, especially over time as taxpayers no longer have as great an incentive to structure things so as to avoid taxes. See individual income tax revenue under Coolidge, Kennedy/LBJ, Reagan, Bush, revenue following every single capital gains tax cut ever made, and corporate income tax revenue following the cut from 50% to 35%.

 

dems are likely going to retain the Senate.

 

Says you. But, it doesn't really matter, there are always a handful of conservative Democrats who will join the Republicans on tax issues. And 60 votes aren't necessary, as I already mentioned. 50 Senators plus the VP can get the job done.

 

Youre missing a key aspect of the way the Senate works. If the dems retain a majority, as it is clearly looking like they will, no Romney tax plan can come to the floor for a 50 person vote without Harry Reid letting it come to the floor. The party leaders control what is or isn't voted on. So even if you got 2-3 dems to back all republicans, no way Reid lets Romney get a plan on the floor that most dems would oppose.

 

Bush had a 1 person majority when his tax cuts passed the Senate.

Youre missing a key aspect of the way the Senate works. If the dems retain a majority, as it is clearly looking like they will, no Romney tax plan can come to the floor for a 50 person vote without Harry Reid letting it come to the floor. The party leaders control what is or isn't voted on. So even if you got 2-3 dems to back all republicans, no way Reid lets Romney get a plan on the floor that most dems would oppose.

 

Odds are pretty good that we wind up with an R majority of 52 or 53. But, let's say that doesn't happen. If there are 50 or more votes for tax reform it can be done. You pass it in the House, Romney, having the bully pulpit talks about it and Democrat refusal to bring it up every single day, and the Senate is brought to a stand-still by refusing to conduct any unanimous consent business at all by demanding roll call votes on everything, and by any number of other procedural methods of slowing things down until the bill is brought to the floor.

 

Public opinion can be brought to bear over time and force Reid's hand. Not to mention that there are 20 Ds up for re-election in 2014 and only 8 of them are "safe" seats. That's going to provide a lot of internal pressure in the D caucus. And not to mention that a new President enjoys some sort of "honeymoon" period with Congress and the public.

 

If all of that fails, you could easily be looking at 55 to 60 Rs in the Senate after the 2014 election because the Ds will be hammered relentlessly on it all the way to 2014. It's going to get done one way or another.

Is it as amusing as Republicans nominating the guy who invented Obamacare?

 

Or republicans praising Reagan as a great man, despite the fact that he ran up huge deficits and increased the national debt in his 8 years?

 

I never said that the Republicans were not at fault.

 

However, to their credit, Romney's nomination was not without resistance. Ultimately there was some intellectual dishonesty among the party (basically "anyone but Obama" mentality), but the primary was contested to the point where there clearly was some concern among Republicans questioning whether or not Romney's background was consistent enough with their professed ideology and stated criticisms of Obama. I took away from the primaries that there was at the very least some reluctance among party members to nominate Romney because of his policies in MA.

 

I can't really say so much for the liberals. Yes, it's very uncommon for the sitting president to face a primary challenger, but still not without precedent. At the very least there should have been more debate among liberals questioning whether or not Obama would be best to represent them for a second term considering he is basically a George W. Bush clone for most of the major issues that dominated the last presidential election cycle.

 

Both parties are intellectually dishonest, but I give conservatives a bit more credit.

 

Your Romney comparison doesn't work because when there is an open primary not involving an incumbent, usually there is a drawn out fight. If you want to compare conservatives being intellectually honest or dishonest in comparison to liberals and Obama, go back to 2004 and check their behavior with an incumbent president.

 

-prescription drug benefit bill expanded government in 2003.

-foreign intervention in Iraq war

-deficit spending in years 2001-2004.

 

Yet conservatives showed no resistance to Bush's 2004 campaign.

 

In fact, Id say throughout time, liberals have usually been much more about shaking up the foundation of the establishment when it deviates from their views. A liberal, Ralph Nader, essentially cost democrats the 2000 election. When has that happened with the right? I largely expected that with Ron Paul this year, but then saw him actively assist Romney in the debates and never attack Romney. Basically the opposite of Nader.

Youre missing a key aspect of the way the Senate works. If the dems retain a majority, as it is clearly looking like they will, no Romney tax plan can come to the floor for a 50 person vote without Harry Reid letting it come to the floor. The party leaders control what is or isn't voted on. So even if you got 2-3 dems to back all republicans, no way Reid lets Romney get a plan on the floor that most dems would oppose.

 

Odds are pretty good that we wind up with an R majority of 52 or 53. But, let's say that doesn't happen. If there are 50 or more votes for tax reform it can be done. You pass it in the House, Romney, having the bully pulpit talks about it and Democrat refusal to bring it up every single day, and the Senate is brought to a stand-still by refusing to conduct any unanimous consent business at all by demanding roll call votes on everything, and by any number of other procedural methods of slowing things down until the bill is brought to the floor.

 

Public opinion can be brought to bear over time and force Reid's hand. Not to mention that there are 20 Ds up for re-election in 2014 and only 8 of them are "safe" seats. That's going to provide a lot of internal pressure in the D caucus. And not to mention that a new President enjoys some sort of "honeymoon" period with Congress and the public.

 

If all of that fails, you could easily be looking at 55 to 60 Rs in the Senate after the 2014 election because the Ds will be hammered relentlessly on it all the way to 2014. It's going to get done one way or another.

 

This is a pretty bold prediction. Id like you to follow up with this on Wednesday.

In fact, Id say throughout time, liberals have usually been much more about shaking up the foundation of the establishment when it deviates from their views. A liberal, Ralph Nader, essentially cost democrats the 2000 election. When has that happened with the right?

 

 

By your logic... does the name Ross Perot mean anything to you at all?

 

 

I largely expected that with Ron Paul this year, but then saw him actively assist Romney in the debates and never attack Romney. Basically the opposite of Nader.

 

 

Ron Paul didn't attack anyone, because that's not what Ron Paul has been about for the past 4 years at least. Ron Paul knows he wont win. Ron Paul is about pushing his platform and making an influence. Shaking up the election. He was not assisting Romney, and he is not supporting Romney. It's why he has not endorsed, nor will he endorse, his party's candidate.

Perot didnt cost Bush that election. If you go back and look at the actual polls, Clinton had a huge lead over Bush in the period after Perot dropped out. Then when Perot came back, the race heavily tightened. Bush was also pretty low in the approval ratings, and faced a huge uphill climb to get reelected. Exit polls also showed that Perot voters were evenly divided between Bush and Clinton. For details on this, see below:

 

http://www.pollingre...ibbitts1202.htm

 

Bush senior did face a difficult primary challenge. But so did Jimmy Carter. Both were vulnerable because of economic conditions, not because of being moderate at the expense of the base.

 

As for Paul, he really didnt shake up the election at all, did he? In what way did he influence the election? Which of his views did Romney adopt as part of his platform? In fact, Romney at the first debate basically moved hard to center left positions to try and make movement in the campaign, knowing he faced no backlash.

 

I like Ron Paul, as he is consistent. But the guy is overrated in terms of his ability to move his agenda anywhere.

Perot didnt cost Bush that election. If you go back and look at the actual polls, Clinton had a huge lead over Bush in the period after Perot dropped out. Then when Perot came back, the race heavily tightened. Bush was also pretty low in the approval ratings, and faced a huge uphill climb to get reelected. Exit polls also showed that Perot voters were evenly divided between Bush and Clinton. For details on this, see below:

 

 

For reference... Ross Perot ran in 1996 as well. And took nearly 9% of the vote.

 

What you're missing here is that you're considering '2nd place votes'. That sh*t doesn't matter. Ross Perot was an opposition for the right from the right. In both years. So was Ron Paul in 1998. In 2008. Isn't every Libertarian candidate who takes ~0.5% of the election an 'opposition from the right on the right'?

 

Don't try and pull that crap. There is always a third party candidate doing damage internally, both ways.

 

 

As for Paul, he really didnt shake up the election at all, did he? In what way did he influence the election? Which of his views did Romney adopt as part of his platform? In fact, Romney at the first debate basically moved hard to center left positions to try and make movement in the campaign, knowing he faced no backlash.

 

I like Ron Paul, as he is consistent. But the guy is overrated in terms of his ability to move his agenda anywhere.

 

 

And now you've misunderstood me. Shake up the election? As in shaking it up making an impact on the people leaving a legacy. Are you freaking kidding me? There's such a youthful movement behind Ron Paul right now. Ron Paul doesn't give a sh*t about influencing the election. He wants to influence the people. The only influence he wants on the election is his viewpoints. His platform, he was hoping the GOP would adopt some of his viewpoints based upon the fact that he brought so many delegates to the RNC (which they denied him because he wouldn't endorse Romney).

Your Romney comparison doesn't work because when there is an open primary not involving an incumbent, usually there is a drawn out fight. If you want to compare conservatives being intellectually honest or dishonest in comparison to liberals and Obama, go back to 2004 and check their behavior with an incumbent president.

 

-prescription drug benefit bill expanded government in 2003.

-foreign intervention in Iraq war

-deficit spending in years 2001-2004.

 

Yet conservatives showed no resistance to Bush's 2004 campaign.

 

In fact, Id say throughout time, liberals have usually been much more about shaking up the foundation of the establishment when it deviates from their views. A liberal, Ralph Nader, essentially cost democrats the 2000 election. When has that happened with the right? I largely expected that with Ron Paul this year, but then saw him actively assist Romney in the debates and never attack Romney. Basically the opposite of Nader.

 

Generally the narrative throughout the entire 2012 primary cycle was that in light of the weakness of the other candidates in the field, Romney had much more difficulty securing the nomination than he should have given his funds and level of name recognition. That's basically why you would see this cyclical trend of people like Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, and New Gingrich "surging" to become the frontrunner. He didn't really have an opponent on the caliber of a John McCain to fight against. Combined with the low turnout (in spite of the incredible dissatisfaction among conservatives toward Obama), I think that the primary battle clearly demonstrates some reluctance to nominate Romney.

 

Also, in 2004, Bush's intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan was very much in step with the pulse of the conservative base at the time. He might have campaigned on a more non-interventionist approach in 2000, but 9/11 basically changed all of that for his base. The cost of financing the wars was also probably something that compelled his base to overlook the deficits. National security in response to 9/11 was the dominant concern among the GOP base for 2004. George W. Bush was definitely their guy. I don't think that less significant policies like the prescription drug plans could have conceivably amounted a primary challenge.

 

That's not nearly the same as liberals dwelling on Bush's foreign policy and civil liberties positions for 8 years (those issues pretty much defined the Bush backlash) and then being silent when Obama emulates Bush and goes even further. I'd say that the intellectual dishonesty among liberals right now is on a different order of magnitude.

 

You already said that you are voting for Obama. Assuming that you disliked Bush for his Iraq War and surveillance policies, you are just as hypocritical as the Romney voter who opposed Obamacare.

 

And the Nader angle is silly. He represents a small demographic of the liberal base. If he did indeed cost Gore the election, it's only because the election results were exceptionally close. With such a narrow margin of victory, you cannot really say that Nader represents a meaningful voice of dissension among liberals.

 

This is really a selective assessment of what Bush did, what Obama did, what conservatives were upset about and what liberals were upset about.

 

Are liberals being hypocritical for not showing more resistance to Obama over the civil liberties issue? Sure. Im not denying that.

But what I cant understand is how youre minimizing conservative hypocrisy while inflating liberal hypocrisy. This is such a subjective assessment and really is in the eye of the beholder.

 

 

I can do the same selective assessment. The biggest event that set off liberal outrage towards Bush was not the civil liberties issues. Yes, those things outraged liberals. But the war in Iraq was by far the biggest touchstone. Obama ending that war was a pretty big event in his presidency.

 

Another example of the hypocrisy is conservative continuing to praise Reagan as some great president, while ignoring his history of deficit spending (no Iraq war there?) or his history of expanding the federal government.

 

At the end of the day, liberals support democratic presidents if they are popular, and whether they are popular is a factor of the overall economic conditions. Conservatives do the same thing.

 

What I do question is the distinction between libertarians and conservatives. When talking to libertarians, I often get the response of "well Im not voting for the republican, so Im not a hypocrite." But there is certainly hypocrisy in terms of how much outrage libertarians show when depending on the president. Libertarians are much more forgiving of republican presidents than they are of democratic presidents, regardless of who they end of voting for. Romney knows he wont get libertarians to vote for him, but he will never see any rallies against him like the tea party rallies, no matter what he does during his presidency.

Odds are pretty good that we wind up with an R majority of 52 or 53.

 

 

I've seen pretty much nothing that supports this assertion. Even the ridiculous "Unskew the polls" guy who was Obama losing by something like 6 in the general election has the Senate going to Dems with 52 seats.

 

Nate Silver has the Democrats at 52 seats with the 53rd a toss up. And a 91% chance of retaining the majority.

 

Interested in seeing why you think that way.

Don't be ridiculous. Fox News has told me several times that the Rommers will have a popular vote win, and the only trouble he's facing is the EC! Duh!

Prediction time:

 

Senate - I don't see how the GOP ends up with 52 or 53 Senate seats. My prediction is 48.

 

Popular vote - Romney wins it 49.3% - 48.7%. The voters will be D+ 4 but Romney wins independents by 10%.

 

EC - Romney wins it 275 - 263. He'll flip Fla, NC, VA, CO, IN and OH.

Prediction time:

 

Senate - I don't see how the GOP ends up with 52 or 53 Senate seats. My prediction is 48.

 

Popular vote - Romney wins it 49.3% - 48.7%. The voters will be D+ 4 but Romney wins independents by 10%.

 

EC - Romney wins it 275 - 263. He'll flip Fla, NC, VA, CO, IN and OH.

 

 

Your wording in your predictions is biased enough.

 

Senate - Don't see how the GOP... this is what the GOP gets... GOP loses

 

Popular Vote - Romney wins popular vote... Romney wins independents... Romney wins

 

EC - Romney wins EC.... Romney takes states.... Romney wins

 

cahman man.

 

 

 

 

The impression I get from S. Florida and here in Orlando... Florida is going red.

Don't be ridiculous. Fox News has told me several times that the Rommers will have a popular vote win, and the only trouble he's facing is the EC! Duh!

 

 

I mean, that very well could end up happening. Obama seems to be doing better in the key swing states than he is in the national polls

I will eat my hat if the GOP ends up with 52-53 Senate seats. That is just not happening.

 

I will also be wholly surprised to see Ohio go Romney's way, especially since no poll has had Romney winning in consecutive polls in Ohio in what? 6+ months if at any point this election cycle?

 

Without Ohio and Wisconsin, the path to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave is grim.

 

That's just math, Romney would literally have to run the table with every other state in play to win the White House. And he isnt leading the polls in all of the other states in play. It would be a major miracle for him to win without both Ohio or Wisconsin.

 

I'd be shocked if he won Ohio, and I'd be amazed if he won Wisconsin.

Don't be ridiculous. Fox News has told me several times that the Rommers will have a popular vote win, and the only trouble he's facing is the EC! Duh!

 

 

I mean, that very well could end up happening. Obama seems to be doing better in the key swing states than he is in the national polls

 

Doesn't mean they're not blowing it out of proportion. Gotta figure the more vocal individuals at this point are the Romney people, whereas Obama does have a lot of ignorant people who are just going to vote for him because he's Barack Obama and generally don't have a voice or representation normally.

If you simplify the tax code things just won't work. They tried super simplification with the Articles of Confederation and it failed.

Leave it to politics to make a long thread about nothing.

If you simplify the tax code things just won't work. They tried super simplification with the Articles of Confederation and it failed.

 

That's a false analogy.