Front Office Football Central - The Obama Presidency

Mitt Romney suggested that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is taking his cues from the White House in Reid's repeated allegations that the Republican presidential candidate paid no taxes for 10 years.

Reid, a Nevada Democrat, has only said his source is an investor in Romney's former venture capital firm Bain Capital. Romney again Wednesday said Reid needs to "put up or shut up" about his source for the disputed information, adding that when the truth comes out, he wouldn't be surprised if the "source" is someone in the White House pushing that line of attack.

larrymcg421

08-03-2012 10:49 PM

I'm not a fan of Reid as I generally think he's a scumbag, but if the story is made up (which I think it is), then it's a pretty brilliant political ploy. It puts Romney into a defensive position where his only good defense is to do something he doesn't want to do (release his returns).

stevew

08-03-2012 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JediKooter (Post 2696127)

Haha! I like it. Needs to be whittled down to one word. Something like, 'He just douched it' or something like that.

Mike Kelly is my drama congressman. He made some silly ruckus about a Chevy Volt earlier thus year. He's a crummy used cat salesman.

SirFozzie

08-03-2012 11:11 PM

Anyone see the near Wall Street Meltdown this week?

Trading Group's program goes nuts, issuing buy orders on 158 stocks.
Other people's program's respond to this bit of "static on the wire", and go a bit nutty themselves.
At one point there was SIX times the normal trading volume as the oscillating loop from the rogue program and the response to the rogue program just kept feeding into a vicious cycle.

It took a half hour for the rogue program to be shut off, but this software burp has cost the trading group (KNight Trading Group) dearly. They struck a deal with Goldman Sachs to buy the unwanted stock from them, at a cost of $440 million. They only have $365 million or so on hand, and are spending the weekend desperately trying to find additional funding, etcetera.

If a half hour software burp costs your firm a half BILLION dollars, trading stocks has become way too fucking complicated.

Trading Program Ran Amok, With No 'Off' Switch - NYTimes.com

stevew

08-03-2012 11:21 PM

I wonder if it was a plot against Bruce Wayne

SirFozzie

08-03-2012 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirFozzie (Post 2696812)

Actually, I would love to be in the Trading Group's CEO's office>

"Sir, we've fixed the software glitch. The software team has said that it won't happen again."

"So, how much will it take to fix the mess the computer made for us?"

"Um...we're estimating about $400 million"

"Son, I've got good news and bad news. The bad news is: You're fired. The good news is, that I didn't bring my gun to the office today, so you get a running start. Oh, and the Computer's fired too"

Edward64

08-04-2012 06:29 AM

I haven't really thought about it but the article is right in saying that both Obama and Romney have seemed to shy away from Afghanistan. Obama is pulling out the troops and bringing Afghanistan to a closure. Romney basically says he would listen to commanders which is essentially saying he doesn't want to say.

It'll be interesting debates. BTW - thoughts on who will do better at the debate. I think all things held equal, Obama has better presence and delivery.

Jackson Diehl: Obama and Romney are ignoring the Afghanistan war - The Washington Post

Quote:

Yet this may be the first presidential campaign in U.S. history in which an ongoing war fails to produce a significant debate. Explicitly or implicitly, the candidates have successfully encouraged much of the media to accept the following conventional wisdom: The war is a failure but is winding down; U.S. combat troops will be out by the end of 2014; and Obama and Romney agree on the strategy.

Yet Americans are still dying — and the strategy that the presidential candidates supposedly agree upon is far from firm. In fact, the U.S. president has a series of crucial decisions to make about the future of Afghanistan, most within 12 months of the election. And, for now at least, there’s no knowing whether Obama and Romney differ over them — because neither has given much hint of what he would do.

The first choice may come within weeks after Nov. 7: Whether reelected or not, Obama will have to consider his commanders’ recommendations on the pace of the next U.S. troop drawdown. By September, the 30,000 surge troops Obama dispatched to Afghanistan will be gone, leaving some 68,000. The question will be whether to leave those forces there through next summer’s fighting season, as favored by the generals, or order quicker withdrawals.

Obama’s history suggests that he would order more troops out before next fall: After all, he has rejected the commanders’ favored option on Afghan troop deployments twice before. Romney, for his part, has faulted Obama for not listening to his generals. But does that mean he would forgo any withdrawals next year? He’s offered no indication.

The next big presidential decision may come sometime during 2013: how many and what quality of U.S. forces to leave in Afghanistan after 2014. In principle, it’s already agreed that U.S. and NATO special forces, trainers and “enablers” will help the Afghan army secure the country. But a detailed agreement must still be worked out with the Afghan government. The Pentagon will likely seek a force in the tens of thousands, including a robust special-forces contingent. But the plan for a similar force in Iraq was shredded by the Obama White House, which first drastically reduced its size, then failed to sell it to the Iraqi government.

Would Obama do the same to the follow-on Afghan force? Would Romney decide differently? Voters are in the dark.

sterlingice

08-04-2012 09:14 AM

It's the opposite of usual. The GOP candidate typically wins foreign policy debates by default: "I like war and I support bigger defense budgets". However, Romney's only been a governor and not Senator, Romney can't seem to make a foreign policy statement without sticking his foot in his mouth ("Palestinians are lazy slobs" gives "Ubeki-beki-beki-stan-stan" a run for its money in stupid), and then there's the whole "who has two thumbs and killed Osama Bin Laden" argument.

SI

Grover

08-04-2012 02:11 PM

pourmecoffee @pourmecoffee
51 years ago Obama's mom delivered him in Kenya then got up and called in birth to Hawaii paper because he looked kinda presidential.

Edward64

08-04-2012 09:04 PM

Romney has picked up a couple important endorsements.

Clint Eastwood backs Mitt Romney for president - NBC News Entertainment

Quote:

Clint Eastwood officially endorsed Mitt Romney on Friday evening, during a fundraiser for the presumptive Republican candidate in Sun Valley, Idaho.

According to a pool report, Eastwood told the crowd that he was backing the Republican candidate because "the country needs a boost."
:
:
Earlier this year, Eastwood made waves when a Super Bowl commercial for Chrysler that he appeared in was interpreted as a nod to President Obama. The actor denied the allegation in interviews. He tersely told Fox: "l am certainly not politically affiliated with Mr. Obama. It was meant to be a message about job growth and the spirit of America."

On Friday, there was no doubt that Eastwood was a Romney man.

Porn queen Jenna Jameson endorses Mitt Romney for president - NBC News Entertainment

Quote:

Retired porn star queen Jenna Jameson has thrown in with presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney, citing the party's preference for low taxes on the wealthy.

"I’m very looking forward to a Republican being back in office,” Jameson told a CBS reporter at the anniversary celebration of a gentleman's club in San Francisco on Thursday. "When you’re rich, you want a Republican in office."

Peregrine

08-04-2012 09:09 PM

Wow you know it's true but it's rare to see someone come right out and say it.

"When you’re rich, you want a Republican in office."

Edward64

08-04-2012 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peregrine (Post 2697084)

Wow you know it's true but it's rare to see someone come right out and say it.

"When you’re rich, you want a Republican in office."

Made me look up demographics supporting republicans.

Republican Party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

Currently, most of the Republican voter base is Caucasian. While historically the party had been supporters of rights for African Americans since the 1860s, it lost its leadership position; the GOP has been winning under 15% of the black vote in recent national elections (1980 to 2008). The party has recently nominated African American candidates for senator or governor in Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Maryland, though none were successful. In the 2010 elections, two African American Republicans were elected to the U.S. House of Representatives.[66] The Republican Party abolished slavery under Abraham Lincoln, defeated the Slave Power, and gave blacks the vote during Reconstruction in the late 1860s. Until the New Deal of the 1930s, blacks supported the GOP by large margins.[67] Most black voters switched to the Democratic Party in the 1930s when the New Deal offered them employment opportunities, and major figures, such as Eleanor Roosevelt, began to support civil rights. They became one of the core components of the New Deal Coalition. In the South, blacks were able to vote in large numbers after 1965, when a bipartisan coalition passed the Voting Rights Act, and ever since have formed a significant portion (20-50%) of the Democratic vote in that region.[68]

In recent decades, the party has been moderately successful in gaining support from Hispanic and Asian American voters. George W. Bush, who campaigned energetically for Hispanic votes, received 35% of their vote in 2000 and 44% in 2004.[69] The party's strong anti-communist stance has made it popular among some minority groups from current and former Communist states, in particular Cuban Americans, Korean Americans, Chinese Americans, and Vietnamese Americans. The election of Bobby Jindal as Governor of Louisiana has been hailed as pathbreaking.[70] He is the first elected minority governor in Louisiana and the first state governor of Indian descent.[71] In the 2008 presidential election, John McCain won 55% of white votes, 35% of Asian votes, 31% of Hispanic votes, and 4% of African American votes.[72] In the 2010 House election, the GOP won 60% of the white votes, 38% of Hispanic votes, and 9% of the African American vote.[73]

For decades, a greater percentage of white voters identified themselves as Democrats, rather than Republicans. However, since the mid-1990s whites have been more likely to self-identify as Republicans than Democrats.[74]

In recent elections, Republicans have found their greatest support among whites from married couples with children living at home.[75] Unmarried and divorced women were far more likely to vote for Kerry in 2004.[76]

Low-income voters tend to favor the Democratic Party while high-income voters tend to support the Republican Party. President George W. Bush won 41% of the poorest 20% of voters in 2004, 55% of the richest twenty percent, and 53% of those in between. In the 2006 House races, the voters with incomes over $50,000 were 49% Republican, while those under were 38%.[63]

Republicans hold a large majority in the armed services, with 57% of active military personnel and 66% of officers identified as Republican in 2003.[77]

Regarding graduate-level degrees (masters or doctorate), there is a rough parity between Democrats and Republicans. According to the Gallup Organization: "[b]oth Democrats and Republicans have equal numbers of Americans at the upper end of the educational spectrum — that is, with post graduate degrees..."[78] Fried provides a slightly more detailed analysis, noting that Republican men are more likely than Democratic men to have advanced degrees, but Democratic women are now more likely than Republican women to have advanced degrees.[79]

Republicans remain a small minority of college professors, with 11% of full-time faculty identifying as Republican.[80]

The Democrats do better among younger Americans and Republicans among older Americans. In 2006, the GOP won 38% of the voters aged 18–29.[63]

Exit polls conducted in 2000, 2004, and 2006 indicate that about one quarter of gay and lesbian Americans voted for the GOP. In recent years, many in the party have opposed same-sex marriage, adoption by same-sex couples, inclusion of sexual orientation in federal hate crimes laws, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, while supporting the use of the don't ask, don't tell policy within the military. Some members of the party, particularly in the Northeast and Pacific coast, support civil unions and adoption rights for same-sex couples.[81] The opposition to gay rights largely comes from the socially conservative wing of the party.[82]

Religion has always played a major role for both parties but, in the course of a century, the parties' religious compositions have changed. Religion was a major dividing line between the parties before 1960, with Catholics, Jews, and Southern Protestants heavily Democratic, and Northeastern Protestants heavily Republican. Most of the old differences faded away after the realignment of the 1970s and 80s that undercut the New Deal coalition. Voters who attend church weekly gave 61% of their votes to Bush in 2004; those who attend occasionally gave him only 47%, while those who never attend gave him 36%. Fifty-nine percent of Protestants voted for Bush, along with 52% of Catholics (even though John Kerry was Catholic). Since 1980, large majorities of evangelicals have voted Republican; 70–80% voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, and 70% for GOP House candidates in 2006. Jews continue to vote 70–80% Democratic. Democrats have close links with the African American churches, especially the National Baptists, while their historic dominance among Catholic voters has eroded to 54-46 in the 2010 midterms.[72] The main line traditional Protestants (Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians) have dropped to about 55% Republican (in contrast to 75% before 1968). Their church memberships have declined in that time as well as the conservative evangelical churches have grown. Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly known as Mormons, are overwhelmingly Republican and vote in line with the Christian right - George W. Bush received 89% of the Mormon vote.[83] Bush also received almost 80% of the Muslim vote in the 2000 Presidential election. However, his support among Muslims declined sharply and, by the 2004 election, at least half of those voters supported Democratic candidate John Kerry or a third party candidate

DaddyTorgo

08-07-2012 02:27 PM

Not trying to make a mountain out of this or anything, and it really doesn't mean anything, but it's a hilariously bad coincidence given what's going on right now.

As a history major and a Bostonian I should have remembered this, but it took someone else pointing it out online I'm ashamed to say.

The name of the ship that the British sent over to Boston Harbor to enforce the Townshend Act and collect taxes from the colonists in 1768?

Yes...that's right...HMS Romney

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Romney_%281762%29

JediKooter

08-07-2012 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2698184)

You know who else had a ship that collected taxes?

Hitler.

DaddyTorgo

08-07-2012 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JediKooter (Post 2698187)

You know who else had a ship that collected taxes?

Hitler.

:lol:

Hey - I said I wasn't trying to make anything out of it, it's just an amusing coincidence -- particularly given this whole thing about Romney's tax returns.

JediKooter

08-07-2012 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2698188)

:lol:

Hey - I said I wasn't trying to make anything out of it, it's just an amusing coincidence -- particularly given this whole thing about Romney's tax returns.

Haha! It was definitely meant as a joke on my part. Just channeling my inner Glenn Beck. :D

DaddyTorgo

08-07-2012 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JediKooter (Post 2698190)

Just channeling my inner Glenn Beck. :D

Some little part of me misses that crazy fat fucker. A teeny little bit.

JediKooter

08-07-2012 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2698192)

Some little part of me misses that crazy fat fucker. A teeny little bit.

He's probably hiding away with David Barton as they work on their ultimate tome how in 1776 the Illuminati conspired with Ottoman Empire to bring an illegitimate person to the US Presidency.

This conspiracy also included heads of state in England, Germany and France. They knew this would take time and money, so in mid 19th century, the Ottoman Empire started to issue banknotes throughout the Empire and also reforming their financial system to...you guessed it, the French model. Then in the early 20th century, the Ottoman Empire signed a secret treaty with Germany forming an alliance against the Russians (not to be confused with the Soviets).

This led to the Arab Revolt (sounds familiar?) which eventually led to the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and giving rise to the Islamic Fascist countries we know today. This all ties in to England purposefully not doing anything to stop Hitler in the 30s through the late 30s. As this was to ensure that there was enough of a 'distraction' to keep anyone from noticing a young Kenyan businessman from traveling to different locations in search of a white wife.

As the Second World War ended, the Illuminati set up a birthing facility and wire service in a remote village in Africa. To make everything seem legit, they had be in operation for several years to keep any scrutiny away. Now that the Illuminati had successfully created the UN, they declared war on North Korea when North Korea invaded South Korea. Since the war dominated the headlines in 1951, this began a decades worth of birth announcements sent to various newspapers around the United States. However, each state was actually a code word for what country the person was actually born in. If the state was "Hawaii", they were actually born in Kenya.

So then in early 1960, one Barack Obama Sr, paid George Soros 3 million dollars for an 'investment'. What was that 'investment'? You guessed it, a white wife and the mechanizations set in place for Barack Obama Jr to become the 44th president of the United States.

Know what else 44 stands for? Fascism.

DaddyTorgo

08-07-2012 03:07 PM

Wow. Just wow. Impressive sir! Good for a big laugh.

JediKooter

08-07-2012 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2698203)

Wow. Just wow. Impressive sir! Good for a big laugh.

It's easy to play the "Beck Connect the Dots" game. :)

Easy Mac

08-07-2012 04:04 PM

but what about the reverse vampires?

Edward64

08-07-2012 05:04 PM

Interesting option. Will change dynamics if true,

OBAMA: ROMNEY WANTS VP PETRAEUS

Quote:

President Obama whispered to a top fundraiser this week that he believes GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney wants to name Gen. David Petraeus to the VP slot!

"The president wasn't joking," the insider explains to the DRUDGE REPORT.

A Petraeus drama has been quietly building behind the scenes.

Romney is believed to have secretly met with the four-star general in New Hampshire.

The pick could be a shrewd Romney choice. A cross-party pull. The Obama administration hailed Petraeus as one of history's greatest military strategists. Petraeus was unanimously confirmed as the Director of the CIA by the US Senate 94-0.

But Petraeus has categorically asserted that he has NO political ambitions. And Team Obama stands prepared to tie one of their own to "Bush wars." A Petraeus pick could been seen as simply shuffling the decks of power in DC.

"He's a serious man, for seriously dangerous times," notes a top Republican.

A DRUDGE POLL on Tuesday morning showed readers split on if Romney should give it a go.

And the calendar is running out of days.

Developing...

SirFozzie

08-07-2012 05:10 PM

Petraeus has already said he will not seek elective office

Grover

08-07-2012 05:13 PM

lol the drudge report.

panerd

08-07-2012 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grover (Post 2698254)

lol the drudge report.

I sometimes wonder when the unbiased media that we speak about on here would have broken Lewinsky story or the Edwards affair without the work of the "laughable" outlets like Drudge and the National Enquirer.

Dutch

08-07-2012 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grover (Post 2698254)

lol the drudge report.

...says the self-proclaimed socialist. ;)

JPhillips

08-07-2012 06:30 PM

The base won't accept Petraeus unless he makes clear pro-life statements first.

Why would Petraeus sacrifice his reputation on a campaign that will probably be a loser?

Swaggs

08-07-2012 07:35 PM

Semi-VP related -- I read somewhere recently that one of the things folks are watching for in the VP sweepstakes is whose wikipedia pages are being spruced or cleaned up. I guess so many people immediately check "background" info on wikipedia, that it is really important to make it look as impressive as possible.

JPhillips

08-07-2012 07:43 PM

Nobody has checked my wiki page.

Guess I'm out.

Edward64

08-08-2012 06:38 AM

Obamaloney & Romneyhood ... like the imagination.

Presidential campaign gets even dirtier - CNN.com

Quote:

Washington (CNN) -- Hypocritical. Contemptible. Dishonest. "Obamaloney." The rhetoric, charges and counter-charges flew fast and thick Tuesday as the presidential election campaign continued on its sharply negative trajectory.

New advertisements by each side prompted caustic responses from the other as name-calling and finger-pointing dominated the debate less than three months before the November vote that pits President Barack Obama against certain Republican nominee Mitt Romney.

A day after Obama coined the phrase "Romneyhood" to describe policies by Romney that Obama said tax the poor to help the rich -- or Robin Hood in reverse -- Romney fired back by creating his own word -- Obamaloney -- to accuse the president of making things up.

bronconick

08-08-2012 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirFozzie (Post 2696812)

Clancy already did this story. It was Japanese businessmen.

molson

08-08-2012 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 2698408)

Obamaloney & Romneyhood ... like the imagination.

Presidential campaign gets even dirtier - CNN.com

This is going to be a long few months.

Marc Vaughan

08-08-2012 09:48 AM

So is either presidential candidate going to set out something truly revolutionary like maybe ... policies that they might support and undertake or just throw mud back and forth?

Coffee Warlord

08-08-2012 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan (Post 2698485)

So is either presidential candidate going to set out something truly revolutionary like maybe ... policies that they might support and undertake or just throw mud back and forth?

Silly foreigner.

Kodos

08-08-2012 10:20 AM

It's the mud option.

JPhillips

08-08-2012 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2685227)

I just hope I don't have to choose between Akin and McCaskill in the election. That would be a nightmare scenario IMO.

I see that your nightmare came true.

Edward64

08-08-2012 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 2688932)

Its likely Romney-Pawlenty per NY Times ...

Pawlenty Looked at as Romney Running Mate - NYTimes.com

Ready to know ...

Quote:

JACKSON, Mich. — After a brief speech at the opening of a campaign office here, Tim Pawlenty was asked if he would return to Michigan “when you’re vice president.”

“We’ll know soon enough,” Pawlenty, dressed in shirt sleeves, told the crowd with a chuckle.

The former Minnesota governor is believed to be on Mitt Romney’s short list of running mates and there is speculation that the choice could be made any day.

Mizzou B-ball fan

08-09-2012 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2698823)

I see that your nightmare came true.

Yes, it's a walking disaster. Which loud-mouthed goofball do we bless Washington with now????

gstelmack

08-09-2012 08:27 AM

I do love the new Romney ad, where he has Obama quoted as saying "I will cut the deficit in half by the end of my term" but shows all the debt numbers to make his point. I mean, the intent of the ad is there (and yes, I get that the Repubs in congress have made his life difficult, but then he also introduced a budget with a $1.4 trillion deficit, so he's just as much to blame), but the bait-and-switch on the numbers is misleading.

I don't think either of these candidates is going to turn the economy around soon.

JediKooter

08-09-2012 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstelmack (Post 2699065)

And this is where the GOP shows their complete lack of foresight and one track mindedness. Had they been trying to actually deal with the deficit and the economy and jobs instead of worrying about stripping women's reproductive rights, they could have had a complete list of bills they introduced to help return to a healthier economy. The ad could have said something like this:

"President Obama said he would reduce the deficit by half by the end of your term. We introduced Bills A, B, C, D, E, F & G, but, he vetoed everyone of them. We did our part Mr. President, why didn't you do yours?" ZING!!!

Nope. Got to make sure that someone gets an ultrasound before getting an abortion instead.

bronconick

08-09-2012 11:21 AM

They voted to overturn PPACA 34 times. They don't have time for that other stuff.

JediKooter

08-09-2012 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bronconick (Post 2699125)

They voted to overturn PPACA 34 times. They don't have time for that other stuff.

That's a good point. Nothing like exhausting all efforts to overturn a law that your party endorsed during the Clinton administration and that your current presidential candidate signed into law while governor. The P in GOP definitely does not stand for 'Priorities'.

Edward64

08-10-2012 09:34 PM

I don't know why the slip, his world tour didn't go that bad. I think he needs to name his VP to re-engerize the base and start swinging the numbers back upward.

Romney camp: Polls can change 'next week' - First Read

Quote:

Top aides to the GOP's presumptive nominee Mitt Romney were at a loss today to explain the candidate's recent slide in a series of national polls which show Romney dropping anywhere from seven to nine points behind the president as the nominating conventions approach at the end of this month.

"It’s the middle of summer. It’s the doldrums. It’s the middle of the Olympics,” a senior Romney adviser told reporters gathered for a briefing at the campaign's Boston headquarters. “There's not been any national news, anything that would push these numbers from minus-three to minus-nine points. That's a huge shift. You have to have some kind of precipitating event to move numbers like that."

As we noted this morning, three national polls released late this week -- from CNN, Fox and Reuters/Ipsos -- all show Romney slipping out of the margin of error nationally in his effort to unseat the president

Edward64

08-10-2012 09:40 PM

Interesting read. Plenty for folks to agree and disagree with.

Five myths about Obama’s stimulus - The Washington Post

Quote:

President Obama’s February 2009 stimulus bill, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, was a political disaster. It helped fuel the Republican revival of 2010 and now stars in Mitt Romney’s ads. The president even stopped uttering the word “stimulus.” But the $787 billion bill was one of the most important and least understood pieces of legislation in modern history. It was the purest distillation of what Obama meant by change, transforming our approaches to energy, education, health care, transportation and the economy, promoting long-term reinvestment as well as short-term recovery. Just about everything Americans think they know about it is wrong. Here are a few examples.

DaddyTorgo

08-10-2012 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 2699865)

Umm...there's the issue of him not releasing his tax returns. Hell, even Republican pundits are saying he should at this point. Which can only mean that whataever is in them is something he judges is MORE damaging than the hits that he's taking for not releasing them.

JonInMiddleGA

08-10-2012 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 2699865)

I think he needs to name his VP to re-engerize the base and start swinging the numbers back upward.

Unless he's got a Reagan clone hidden somewhere ... wait, that wouldn't do it either.

Virtually anyone he picks seems likely to energize some but turn off others. Momentary bump from coverage & then he settles right back in. Sink or swim, it's on him to make the numbers work out, no veep choice is going to do that.

Edward64

08-11-2012 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 2699865)

Here is the VP candidate Paul Ryan. Wonder how he stacks up against Biden.

Romney picks Paul Ryan as vice presidential running mate - First Read

Quote:

Mitt Romney's campaign has announced that the presumptive GOP nominee has chosen House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan as his vice-presidential running mate. The two candidates will appear together at a campaign event in Norfolk, VA Saturday morning.

JPhillips

08-11-2012 07:11 AM

So Romney is now going to spend the campaign talking about his VP's plans. That seems like really bad optics to me. I can't recall another VP pick that came with a complete domestic policy agenda.

Dutch

08-11-2012 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2699941)

So Romney is now going to spend the campaign talking about his VP's plans. That seems like really bad optics to me. I can't recall another VP pick that came with a complete domestic policy agenda.

Agreed, stupid primary discussion point. I'd be pushing the National Debt Lie (President Obama said he was going to bring us back to pre-Bush level debt within 4 years.) with full force. The American voter soaked that up and it won the "hearts and minds" of millions, but it was never based on reality. Should Romney's campaign be better served to discuss the reality of the change we actually got? For instance, the accelerated national debt increase.

2000 - $5.7B (At GWB inauguration)
2004 - $7.4B (At GWB re-election)
2008 - $10.1B (At Obama inauguration)
2012 - $16.0B (At Obama re-election campaign)
2016 - ?

JPhillips

08-11-2012 09:02 AM

The Ryan budget won't balance until 2040. It actually increases the short term deficit.

mckerney

08-11-2012 09:08 AM

They want to talk about reducing the debt/deficit while also proposing massive tax cuts? Well, okay then...

Dutch

08-11-2012 09:13 AM

So far it sounds like we are skirting the issue. :)

panerd

08-11-2012 09:25 AM

Everyone will mock it but here is the onl candidate talking about an actual plan.

The Economy and Taxes

Edward64

08-11-2012 09:31 AM

High level Ryan Budget plan.

Still not sure if I like him, continuing with my research.

What is the Ryan budget? - First Read

Quote:

If you're already not familiar with the term, you'll certainly hear it over the next three months -- the Ryan budget.

What is it?

It substantially restructures Medicare; cuts Medicaid, food stamps, and transportation infrastructure; and it reduces the top tax rate from 35% to 25%. Regarding Medicare, the 2011 version of the Ryan budget would transform it from a government-run program to one where future seniors receive a voucher or premium support to purchase health insurance from private insurers. The Congressional Budget Office said the plan would force most seniors to pay more for their health care than under the current Medicare system. The latest version, however, would give future seniors the choice of purchasing private insurance or through Medicare's traditional fee-for-service model, and it received the backing of at least one Democrat, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR).

Ryan and his allies say a bold plan - reforming entitlements like Medicare and Medicaid - and slashing discretionary spending is needed to reduce the deficit and debt. But critics argue that the pain comes primarily from the poor and middle class. An analysis from the liberal-leaning Center on Budget Policies and Priorities says that 62% of the spending cuts in the Ryan budget would come from low-income programs, while 37% of its tax benefits would go to those making more than $1 million per year.

JPhillips

08-11-2012 10:16 AM

It is not a serious plan. It takes thirty years to balance if you believe the unspecified tax reforms will ever happen. It isn't about the deficit, it's about eliminating the New Deal.

Edward64

08-11-2012 07:06 PM

No, I don't think he gets the credit, just an interesting note.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48613404...ks_and_economy

Quote:

Barack Obama often gets slammed for his stewardship of the U.S. economy, but for stock investors, he's been one of the best presidents since World War Two.

At 1,400, the S&P 500 on Friday was closing in on a four-year high and was up 74 percent since January 20, 2009, the day Obama took office. Not since Dwight Eisenhower's first term has a president had such a strong run for their first term.

JonInMiddleGA

08-11-2012 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2699941)

I can't recall another VP pick that came with a complete domestic policy agenda.

Almost a rhetorical question I suppose but .. I wonder how many VP picks had been as {struggles for right word} engaged in the specifics of some broad element of policy?

What I'm trying to get at is that -- using McCain for example -- campaign finance reform is not as broad as issue as overall budgeting.

Ryan comes with a large segment of domestic policy agenda because he's chosen to attach himself to one of those big segments. (Because, IMO, he figures himself a future President and needed to find a niche to elevate his profile with). If BO had ended up with Hillary as a running mate, she would have come with a similar high-profile/large scale agenda.

Not sure what the dynamic of that being uncommon actually is (never really thought too much about it until you raised the point, tbh). Are those big item people not inclined to be somebody's #2, are they failed primary opponents & there's bad blood, are they too threatening to the guy at the top of the ticket? Dunno the answer, but for that matter maybe someone will point out that there are a lot of those folks & neither you nor I are giving past veep candidates proper credit.

sterlingice

08-11-2012 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 2700129)

No, I don't think he gets the credit, just an interesting note.

Analysis: Obama presidency great for stocks - Business - Stocks & economy - NBCNews.com

To be fair, that's from digging out of the mess that the stock market was in after the freefall of 2008

SI

RainMaker

08-11-2012 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sterlingice (Post 2700151)

To be fair, that's from digging out of the mess that the stock market was in after the freefall of 2008

I agree, but the Republicans did blame him when the stock market dropped when he was elected. So if they used that against him, they have to accept it when he uses it for him.

Edward64

08-11-2012 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sterlingice (Post 2700151)

To be fair, that's from digging out of the mess that the stock market was in after the freefall of 2008

SI

I do think an argument can be made that he/team/policies stopped the freefall.

RainMaker

08-11-2012 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2699987)

Everyone will mock it but here is the onl candidate talking about an actual plan.

The Economy and Taxes

The public doesn't want to cut the things he wants to cut. It's not that people are ignoring him, it's just he holds an extreme minority position.

JPhillips

08-11-2012 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2700148)

I think it's the last. Today Romney called Ryan the intellectual leader of the GOP. What other candidate would give away that mantle? Can you imagine Reagan saying his running mate is the one with the ideas? Clinton? It's just very strange that the campaign is going to be about the policy prescriptions of the VP nominee not the guy at the top.

In the end I think that will sink Romney more than any specific proposal from the Ryan budget. Romney can't afford to be the second banana, it makes him look weak.

Edward64

08-11-2012 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2700168)

I think its too soon to tell if its good/bad, however it is refreshing to have a VP play a key role in administration/policy vs second fiddle. This is really an intriguing pick for me.

As healthcare needed a major shakeup to change the dynamics (for better or worse), I do think the budget needs a major shakeup also to change the dynamics.

JonInMiddleGA

08-11-2012 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2700168)

Romney can't afford to be the second banana, it makes him look weak.

As opposed to the largely wishy-washy half-assed candidate he is already? How much worse can he actually get?

bronconick

08-11-2012 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 2700181)

Having a VP play a role in a certain part of government isn't a new thing. Both Cheney and Biden had foreign policy experience the top of the ticket didn't have.

For all intents and purposes, "the budget" is the government. Outside of the occasional flag burning amendment/renaming monuments, everything in Washington comes back to the budget. If Ryan's the go to guy on that, why the hell do we need Romney around?

RainMaker

08-11-2012 08:51 PM

I don't see why it's a big deal. This is a person who would be a heartbeat away from assuming the role of the President. They should be qualified and intelligent. I'd take it over someone who couldn't pass a high school Civics class like Palin anyday.

JPhillips

08-11-2012 08:52 PM

Of course Romney is also saying he isn't running on the Ryan budget. Why pick the intellectual leader of the GOP if you aren't going to support the one thing that made him the intellectual leader? I gather that Romney understands the Ryan budget is poisonous, but then why pick him at all?

RainMaker

08-11-2012 09:21 PM

He supports the Ryan budget and has said he'd sign it into law. So he might not be "running on it", but it's part of his platform.

Edward64

08-11-2012 09:45 PM

I like the 20% of GDP by 2015.

What is the 'Ryan plan'? Budget proposal back in spotlight with VP announcement | Fox News

Quote:

With Rep. Paul Ryan selected as Mitt Romney's running mate, voters will be hearing a lot about the so-called "Ryan" plan.

So what is it?

Though each party has strong feelings about what Ryan's controversial budget proposal entails, here are a few highlights. Just the facts:

The latest full-scale version of the plan, unveiled in March, vows to cut spending by $5 trillion over the next decade, compared against President Obama's plan.
The plan would, a decade from now, give seniors the option of taking a government payment to purchase health insurance. That payment could be used to buy a private insurance plan, or go toward the traditional Medicare plan. The plan calls for extra assistance to help low-income beneficiaries and those with "greater health risks."
The plan would overhaul Medicaid by turning it into a block grant system for states.
The plan would cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. It would implement two individual income tax brackets -- 10 percent and 25 percent.
The plan would head off the scheduled automatic defense cuts, first by diverting the planned $55 million defense cut in 2013 by implementing those cuts elsewhere.
The plan vows to bring the size of government to 20 percent of GDP by 2015.

JPhillips

08-11-2012 09:49 PM

Not anymore. From a memo distributed by his campaign today:

Quote:

1) Does this mean Mitt Romney is adopting the Paul Ryan plan?

· Gov. Romney applauds Paul Ryan for going in the right direction with his budget, and as president he will be putting together his own plan for cutting the deficit and putting the budget on a path to balance.

miked

08-12-2012 06:51 AM

Didn't Ryan want to eliminate capital gains taxes? That would mean Romney wouldn't pay any taxes. But I guess it would stimulate the economy.

lcjjdnh

08-12-2012 06:55 AM

With Ryan, Romney Casts Spotlight on Budget Details - NYTimes.com

Quote:

Nonpartisan analyses of Mr. Ryan’s proposed income tax cuts reached conclusions much like those of Mr. Romney’s tax proposals in recent weeks. “The tax cuts in Paul Ryan’s 2013 budget plan would result in huge benefits for high-income people and very modest — or no — benefits for low-income working households,” Howard Gleckman, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute, a policy research organization, wrote in summarizing the findings of the Tax Policy Center.

The center is a joint effort of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution that includes economists and tax experts with experience in both Republican and Democratic administrations. It concluded that a tax-code overhaul meeting Mr. Romney’s goal — a 20 percent cut in all rates without adding to annual budget deficits — would leave wealthy taxpayers with a large tax cut but 95 percent of Americans with a net tax increase once tax breaks for items like mortgage interest are curtailed to keep deficits in check.

Edward64

08-12-2012 07:15 AM

Reps argument on Obama's broken promises. Although factual, other than for Guantanamo (who really cares?), I think somewhat weak imo and will be "excused" by lack of bipartisan e.g. the "party of no" tag line.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...ovember-nears/

Quote:

... cast the president as a leader who has not lived up to the rhetoric of his 2008 race.

The following pledges appear to be getting the most attention:

Cut the Deficit in Half: The Romney campaign and other Republicans have repeatedly pointed out what they consider to be the biggest broken promise – the president vowing shortly after taking office to cut an inherited deficit in half by the end of his first term.
:
:
Fix the Economy: Regardless of when the country’s economic problems started, the president also vowed during his campaign to fix the economy in three years. Fourteen months later, he said missing the deadline would make his presidency a “one-term proposition.”
:
:
Close Guantanamo Bay: Obama has also so far been unable to shutter the Guantanamo Bay military prison in Cuba, though this is more of a concern for Obama's base than Republicans.
:
:
Televise Health Care Debate: Obama also said repeatedly in his run for the White House – in TV ads, on the campaign trail and in at least one debate – that the negotiations on his health care reform plan would be televised, if he were elected. However, final health care talks, including the meetings between House and Senate conferees, were held behind closed doors.
:
:
Increase Transparency: Obama once predicted that his administration would have an “unprecedented” level of transparency.

And the Dems rebuttal (which I think is fair) ...

Quote:

Obama supporters point to several promises that Obama has fulfilled, primarily reforming health care as well as making good on vows to overhaul the financial industry and help commercial-bank customers with a credit card bill of rights.

In addition, he has partially fulfilled a promise to end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq: The Iraq war is officially over while roughly 80,000 U.S. troops remain in Afghanistan. Obama is still drawing down the U.S. force there.

The administration and other Democrats also have repeatedly argued they had no idea about the depth of the economic downturn upon taking office.

“Republicans need to ask themselves the Reagan question but say, 'Are you better off than you were four-and-a-half years ago,'" said Democratic strategist David Heller of Main Street Communications. “Wall Street cracked and the economy cratered on George W. Bush’s watch.”

Edward64

08-12-2012 07:23 AM

Thought this was a good read.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...0,356566.story

Quote:

With his surprise decision to run with Rep. Paul D. Ryan, Mitt Romney did something truly rare in today's politics: He united the left and the right.

Both sides loved the vice presidential choice. For Romney and his fellow Republicans, the selection of the author of a controversial plan to shrink the size of government served to fire up the party's conservative base. For President Obama and fellow Democrats, the pick offered a way to divert focus from the president's record on jobs and the economy to the Republican effort to alter Medicare and domestic programs.

Whichever side is right, Romney appears to have concluded that success was iffy on his original course — to make the election a referendum on Obama. The new and decidedly different trajectory will make the fall election more of a choice between contrasting visions of the future — a frame that Obama had already been attempting to put around the contest.

"Romney must have recognized that what he was doing was not working and he needed to shake the race up," said Scott Reed, who managed Republican nominee Bob Dole's presidential campaign in 1996.

"He's rolled the dice. The conservative base is now really energized," he added.

Jon	08-12-2012 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2700195)

Remember though-- Romney is the guy who is also not running on his greatest political accomishment.

JPhillips

08-12-2012 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miked (Post 2700276)

Didn't Ryan want to eliminate capital gains taxes? That would mean Romney wouldn't pay any taxes. But I guess it would stimulate the economy.

One analysis had Romney paying a little less than 1% based on Ryan's plan.

DaddyTorgo

08-12-2012 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miked (Post 2700276)

Didn't Ryan want to eliminate capital gains taxes? That would mean Romney wouldn't pay any taxes. But I guess it would stimulate the economy.

Read an article the other day that under the Ryan budget that Romney's tax rate for the years he has released his returns would have been 0.82%.

Chew on that.

DaddyTorgo

08-12-2012 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2700287)

One analysis had Romney paying a little less than 1% based on Ryan's plan.

Just to source this point (which I hadn't noticed you made too) - it was an article in The Atlantic.

Mitt Romney Would Pay 0.82 Percent in Taxes Under Paul Ryan's Plan - Matthew O'Brien - The Atlantic

Edward64

08-12-2012 10:08 AM

The Tea Party angle.

I really do like how there is so much clear contrast between the 2 parties on domestic issues.

Ryan Brings the Tea Party to the Ticket - NYTimes.com

Quote:

For two years, Tea Party lawmakers in the House have been the stubborn barbarians at the gate, strong-arming their often reluctant Republican colleagues by refusing to compromise on spending, taxes, debt or social policy.

But Paul Ryan’s ascendency to No. 2 spot on the Republican ticket is a signal event for a movement that counts him as one of their own. If Mitt Romney wins in November, a Tea Party favorite will be a heartbeat from the Oval Office.

More than that, Mr. Ryan is now unquestionably the face of the Tea Party caucus in Washington, and his success is certain to embolden House lawmakers whose proudly unyielding approach to governing has contributed to legislative gridlock.

mauchow

08-12-2012 10:13 AM

Let's call him by his real name -- Willard Romney

sterlingice

08-12-2012 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mauboy1 (Post 2700330)

Let's call him by his real name -- Willard Romney

That would really help the stereotype that he's just a rich, white guy :D

SI

Dutch

08-12-2012 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sterlingice (Post 2700353)

That would really help the stereotype that he's just a rich, white guy :D

SI

Well shit, we should just start calling Obama that too then.

RainMaker

08-13-2012 11:12 AM

I don't know how you can get rid of the massive deficit if rich people are paying no taxes. That's like eliminating 10% of your tax revenue immediately. Probably more as most businesses would choose to pay in stock options instead of salary.

Edward64

08-15-2012 06:47 AM

I support increased immigration of educated, skilled workers. Honestly not sure about this though. The cynic in me says it was Obama thinking ahead on the 2012 elections.

Young immigrants to apply for Dream Act protection Wednesday - The Washington Post

Quote:

The Obama administration will kick off one of the most sweeping changes in immigration policy in decades Wednesday, allowing an estimated 1.7 million young undocumented immigrants to apply for the temporary right to live and work openly in the United States without fear of deportation.

Immigrants have waited for final details of the plan in the two months since President Obama pledged to brush aside years of congressional stalemate over the Dream Act and grant de facto residency to qualified immigrants who were brought to the country as children.
:
:
The program is open to immigrants ages 15 to 31 who came to the country before they were 16 and have lived here continuously for at least the past five years. Among other restrictions, they must be free of serious criminal convictions, be enrolled in or have completed high school, or have served in the U.S. military. On Tuesday, officials confirmed that those enrolled in GED programs and certain training programs will also qualify, broadening the program’s potential reach.

SirFozzie

08-15-2012 08:28 PM

Is it me or is a major part of Romney's "Hey, Obama's being a meanie" rants seeming a bit hypocritical to you?

A) The last few campaigns saw a TON of really negative campaigning going on (Swift Boating, anyone?).

B) All during the run up, the Romney campaign systematically buried each challenger as they rose under a barrage of negative ads.. (almost like whack a mole.. one would pop up, get blitzed, next one would pop up..)

C) All during the fund raising campain, republicans bragged how they would have a massive warchest and just bury Obama with negative ads..

To me, it's kinda like the Romney campaign is saying "Hey, the Democrats aren't being the punching bags we expect them to!" and "They stole our plan!"

sterlingice

08-15-2012 08:32 PM

It's all theater and politics just like it always is. Obama is likeable even if his policies are not (and that second point is arguable like the whole "people hate Obamacare but like all the provisions in it") so if you can take away some of that luster, it makes it easier for Mitt

SI

mckerney

08-15-2012 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirFozzie (Post 2702019)

It's right up there with Romney touting his business background as his main qualification and then crying foul when Obama starts talking about Romney's business background.

Dutch

08-15-2012 08:41 PM

You know, I was waiting for somebody, anybody to stand up to express to us all just how mean that Mitt Romney guy is. I mean, he's all secretive...and hypocritical...and mean...and hates women (and uh....black people of course)...and I don't think he likes Jews or hispanics either...and...what other major voting block is there...oh yes...teh gays....he hates them. He's just so mean and it shows in his campaign. Granted, I get that Obama doesn't do anything important or take responsibility for being...you know...the President...but he does take rich peoples money and provides us with free condoms and stuff...and he's so pleasant and his smile is to die for. I'm def voting Obama.

Dutch

08-15-2012 08:50 PM

What?

Dutch

08-15-2012 08:50 PM

Crapshoot

08-15-2012 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutch (Post 2702026)

Are you drunk?

Dutch

08-16-2012 08:13 AM

I was just backing up the awesomeness of the Democratic Party. It's so nice.

Marc Vaughan

08-16-2012 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 2701568)

I support increased immigration of educated, skilled workers. Honestly not sure about this though. The cynic in me says it was Obama thinking ahead on the 2012 elections.

Is this not allowing people who are already here but forced to work jobs which don't pay tax (ie. off the radar) to get jobs which pay tax? ...

(I imagine if you're an illegal immigrant then getting health insurance is also problematic? - which again means when they are seriously ill they have no cover .. this again should help with this?)

DaddyTorgo

08-16-2012 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 2701568)

I'm not familiar with the final wording of the Dream Act. Does it give them citizenship right away? Even so, they wouldn't be able to register to vote in time for the 2012 elections methinks. Methinks your cynicism is a bit misguided here.

Peregrine

08-16-2012 09:45 AM

From what I have read, the pseudo-Dream act won't give anyone citizenship, now or later. It simply lets people who meet certain qualifications apply for a two year deferment from being deported, and after those two years they can apply to be extended on a case by case basis. Now the Dream Act that stalled in Congress would have allowed citizenship, but what the President put into place is not the same thing.

You can read all the details here - the FAQ makes clear that this deferral does not include any path to citizenship.

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/usc...00082ca60aRCRD

"Does deferred action provide me with a path to permanent residence status or citizenship?
No. Deferred action is a form of prosecutorial discretion that does not confer lawful permanent resident status or a path to citizenship. Only the Congress, acting through its legislative authority, can confer these rights."

DaddyTorgo

08-16-2012 09:49 AM

Aaaah.

Good stuff.

So yes - misguided cynicism Edward.

JediKooter

08-16-2012 10:37 AM

So Romney asked for previous tax records from Ryan? Pot, meet kettle.

lungs

08-16-2012 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peregrine (Post 2702142)

You can read all the details here - the FAQ makes clear that this deferral does not include any path to citizenship.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/usc...00082ca60aRCRD

Thanks for the link. I've got a guy working for me that may be eligible for this. He's kind of been a project of mine. He came here at 14, went to high school for a few years to learn English then dropped out. I hired him when he was 22 and it has kind of been a process like breaking a wild horse. He's really starting to come around and mature now. He's enrolled to get his GED and has some potential and has shown some interest in diesel mechanics (his job for me is feeding the cows but that involves a fair amount of mechanical work too). He has a son and I know health insurance was brought up a few posts back and we pay his health insurance.

The only possibly sticky part of him when it comes to this is that he got a battery conviction when he was 18. The link says that domestic violence will disqualify somebody but I'm not sure what is considered domestic? I know the story here and it wasn't a family member or wife or girlfriend but it was a female. Knowing who he was convicted of battering I'm pretty sure he was probably the one defending himself but being the male, he was the one arrested and convicted. He didn't go to jail and successfully served 18 months of probation and hasn't been in trouble since.

I guess I'll just help him apply and see what happens.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:38 PM.

Page 179 of 264

179

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page