2012 Presidential Campaign

[molson]

Kind of muddled, as I expected.

73% Barack Obama, Democrat
on foreign policy, economic, and environmental issues

62% Mitt Romney, Republican
on immigration and science issues
(Not sure why I agree with Romney on "science issues".)

61% Gary Johnson, Libertarian
on healthcare, domestic policy, and immigration issues

51% Jill Stein, Green
on environmental issues

25% Rocky Anderson, Justice
on environmental issues

13%
Virgil Goode, Constitution
no major issues

[stevew]

Romnesia may cause sexual side effects including the desire to hire binders full of women.

[JPhillips]

The whole Romnesia bit was well written. I liked the tie to You might be a redneck, and the turn to Obamacare offering coverage for preexisting conditions was nice.

I don't know if it's effective politically, but the writer did his/her job.

[Izulde]

84% Jill Stein
domestic, social, foreign policy, environmental, science, immigration

81% Gary Johnson
domestic, economic, foreign policy, social, immigration

73% Barack Obama
foreign policy, healthcare, environmental, science

25% Mitt Romney
no major issues

[JediKooter]

Good news for the Obama campaign or make no difference?

Unemployment rates fall in 7 US swing states - Yahoo! Finance

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Good news for the Obama campaign or make no difference?

Unemployment rates fall in 7 US swing states - Yahoo! Finance

It's good news in the sense that it looks like a good indicator for what the number published on November 2nd is going to say. If lower than 7.8, I don't see how Romney wins.

[SirFozzie]

Republican contract hire in Virginia charged with voter fraud - Associated Press - POLITICO.com

GOP hired firm tries to throw away democratic party registrations.

For all the GOP's rhetoric about how there's widespread voter fraud going on, how come it's only GOP groups getting caught? This is the second or third MAJOR scandal this election season tied to GOP-hired/sponsored groups deliberately discarding non-GOP registrations...

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Good news for the Obama campaign or make no difference?

Unemployment rates fall in 7 US swing states - Yahoo! Finance

Does the unemployment rate actually correlate with the feelings of voters? It doesn't measure a number of factors, and it feels like it is disconnected from reality (how people feel about the employment situations around them). The unemployment rate could go down, but it doesn't necessarily mean the job market is actually better in terms of salary, who and who isn't hiring and who and who isn't getting hired, ect.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Republican contract hire in Virginia charged with voter fraud - Associated Press - POLITICO.com

GOP hired firm tries to throw away democratic party registrations.

For all the GOP's rhetoric about how there's widespread voter fraud going on, how come it's only GOP groups getting caught? This is the second or third MAJOR scandal this election season tied to GOP-hired/sponsored groups deliberately discarding non-GOP registrations...

Because everyone knows voter fraud is a Dem problem.

[panerd]

Maybe a little slanted but still some truth to it. Anyone know how to resize if I am copying it off their webpage?

[lighthousekeeper]

cue kodos:

[stevew]

Copy to desktop resize with irfanview. Attach to post.

[molson]

Eh, I figure your one single vote isn't going to sway the election, might as well vote with principle. I'd love it if third party votes just increased some, just to embolden that alternative voice a little, but Nader costing Gore the election in 2000 set that idea way back. Still, if you find a 3rd party candidate you really respect, your vote matters more in a sense, because you represent a higher % of that candidate's support. I like the idea of alternatives, even if it's not realistic they can actually win, so I go third party every time.

[RainMaker]

Little easier to make your candidate look good if you leave off the unpopular policies they support. Odd that completely privatizing health care, privatizing social security, raising the retirement age, and implementing a regressive sales tax are not included.

And anyone proposing an end to the fed doesn't know enough about modern economics to be considered a legitimate candidate. What exactly do these people propose replacing it with?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Little easier to make your candidate look good if you leave off the unpopular policies they support. Odd that completely privatizing health care, privatizing social security, raising the retirement age, and implementing a regressive sales tax are not included.

And anyone proposing an end to the fed doesn't know enough about modern economics to be considered a legitimate candidate. What exactly do these people propose replacing it with?

Just highlighting the unpopular policies both of the two "diametrically opposed" parties support.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

Just highlighting the unpopular policies both of the two "diametrically opposed" parties support.

But not all of those are unpopular policies. The repercussions of cutting the budget by 43% are unpopular. There would likely be riots in the streets. I know people think there is all this waste that can be cut out, but it's not that much. Cutting the budget by 43% means huge cuts to social security, medicare, veteran benefits, and the defense budget. Cutting the defense budget that dramatically that quickly would cost tons of jobs in this country.

And labeling both Romney and Obama as anti-gun is just a blatant lie (along with a few others).

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

But not all of those are unpopular policies. The repercussions of cutting the budget by 43% are unpopular. There would likely be riots in the streets. I know people think there is all this waste that can be cut out, but it's not that much. Cutting the budget by 43% means huge cuts to social security, medicare, veteran benefits, and the defense budget. Cutting the defense budget that dramatically that quickly would cost tons of jobs in this country.

And labeling both Romney and Obama as anti-gun is just a blatant lie (along with a few others).

I was going to say, "Balance the budget now!" is popular until you tell people how you're actually going to do it. Same with, "Repeal Obamacare!" when you're not listing it as, "Don't allow children to stay on parents coverage until they're 26," "No more coverage for preexisting conditions," and, "Allow insurance companies to end your coverage if you get sick!" when you're not replacing it with anything else. Plus is probably was a good idea to gloss over his opposition to net neutrality.

I really agree on the Obama gun rights characterization too. Reading how his expansion of gun rights in his first term is a clear sign that he wants to ban guns in his second is equal parts sad and hilarious.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

And anyone proposing an end to the fed doesn't know enough about modern economics to be considered a legitimate candidate. What exactly do these people propose replacing it with?

The 10th Amendment?

[molson]

Originally Posted by mckerney

I really agree on the Obama gun rights characterization too. Reading how his expansion of gun rights in his first term is a clear sign that he wants to ban guns in his second is equal parts sad and hilarious.

It's kind of funny how the Obama administration has been like, the best thing ever to happen to the gun industry.

AP: Gun Industry Thriving Under Obama - Law Blog - WSJ

I think it's a battle he's just chosen not to fight and I respect him for that. A few more federal gun laws isn't going to reduce violence further from its already historically-low levels, it's just going to make a lot of people pissed off. Obama's got more important issues to deal with than to get in the middle of that.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

The 10th Amendment?

Yeah that wouldn't be a disaster.

I do like how people think that backing currency with gold and silver somehow makes things better. It just means you get greater swings down and can't prevent deflation. You also have no control over your own currency. A foreign country could destroy your currency if they wanted to with ease.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

cue kodos:

One of the best episodes ever.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

But not all of those are unpopular policies. The repercussions of cutting the budget by 43% are unpopular. There would likely be riots in the streets. I know people think there is all this waste that can be cut out, but it's not that much. Cutting the budget by 43% means huge cuts to social security, medicare, veteran benefits, and the defense budget. Cutting the defense budget that dramatically that quickly would cost tons of jobs in this country.

And labeling both Romney and Obama as anti-gun is just a blatant lie (along with a few others).

Yeah, I look at that chart and think Johnson is totally crazy. First, no way he could get all that through Congress. Second, if he somehow did he'd blow up the world economy. That's a wildly radical platform.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Yeah that wouldn't be a disaster.

Only partly joking but in some cases (as evident in reality), some states would do much better, some would do worse an any given non-federal legislations (assuming no unfunded federal mandates). There are many examples of states (and counties/cities) doing very well on some aspects of public programs, even within a balanced budget too! One of the problems states have is that they don't know or can't scale back when population and tax revenues decline. But there many things the cities/counties/states can do better in comparison to the federal government but we end up paying both to do the same thing ineffectively. A stronger division of responsibilities (with a transition period), as stated in the Bill of Rights, is needed. You may talk about a "level playing field" but after so much money being expended, the feds have not acheived that in many respect (not all). So why continue to throw so much money at something that does not get results? The feds should handle domestic and international defense, as stated in the Constitution, but they shouldn't treat that as unending pool of money and influence.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by Kodos

One of the best episodes ever.

+1

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Yeah, I look at that chart and think Johnson is totally crazy. First, no way he could get all that through Congress. Second, if he somehow did he'd blow up the world economy. That's a wildly radical platform.

What I find most amusing about the big government types (both dems and GOP) is that every solution proposed by a third party will cause "the end of the world" or "collapse the world economy" but the irony is that they want even more "temporary" big government programs and then ten years down the line when someone wants to get rid of them they will laugh and say "yeah and crash the world economy ha ha ha". How they can't see the endless cycle is astounding to me.

[JPhillips]

That 43% means Johnson wants to cut 3 trillion dollars from the economy. Doing that right now will certainly send the U.S. into a deep recession. Ending the Fed means changing the global banking system. Doing it at all is stupid, but doing it without a serious transition play is reckless and guaranteed to fuck the global economy.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

Eh, I figure your one single vote isn't going to sway the election, might as well vote with principle. I'd love it if third party votes just increased some, just to embolden that alternative voice a little, but Nader costing Gore the election in 2000 set that idea way back. Still, if you find a 3rd party candidate you really respect, your vote matters more in a sense, because you represent a higher % of that candidate's support. I like the idea of alternatives, even if it's not realistic they can actually win, so I go third party every time.

I would love a parliamentary/proportional representation system, but we do not have that here. Since we don't, I refuse to vote for people who would only make things worse. Ralph Nader's run in 2000 did alot of damage to this country. I know Democrats can be wimps who don't hold true to principle, but when you merely look at SCOTUS appointments, that isn't true. Not one single Dem appointment voted for Citizens United. 5 GOP appointees voted for it and two of them were there because Ralph Nader's candidacy. We have Citizens United today thanks to him. I may agree with Jill Stein more than Obama, but her decision to run and potentially cost Obama a close state is poor, childish judgment and I refuse to vote for someone like that.

[AENeuman]

Guess there are rallies "against federal birth control mandate" planned today.

Here are some comments from the redding ca, article about the rally:

Birth control mandate?? First his wife tries to make me eat broccoli and now Obama is going to force me to wear a condom?? This is disgusting! Where will this madness end??

So isnt mandating birth control just like putting a limit on the number of children we can have, so in fact the US is no different than that of "Communist China"

The reason for the chronic condition of our Society has much more to do with the Secular movement than anything else, Hollywood, the cesspool of immorality has promoted that kid have sex as often as they want and with whomever they want, that exploiting ones sexuality is cool, and profitable, and they certainly oppose the traditional definition of what a family is, to them it is better if a child has two dads or two moms than a mom and a dad.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

That 43% means Johnson wants to cut 3 trillion dollars from the economy.

$3.8 trillion times 0.43 = $1.634 trillion, coincidentally the amount of borrowed spending in the last budget. Basically, he wants to spend what we take in.

Where are we supposed to get the money to pay for all this spending? I pointed it out elsewhere, but if you doubled income tax revenue right now, you're still around $200 billion in the hole. Do you think repealing the Bush tax cuts and implementing the Buffet rule will more than double income tax revenues? The Buffet rule is estimated at $50 billion / year, where are you getting the other $1.55 trillion from to pay for all these programs we can't touch?

[JPhillips]

My number came from a total spending that included federal/state/local. My mistake. The point, though, still stands. Taking 1 trillion out of the economy in one shot would almost certainly put us into a recession. I'm not opposed to spending cuts, but growth has to be established first or we'll be like a host of Euro countries cutting the budget, lowering growth and ending up with an even bigger deficit.

But going back to the Clinton tax rates sure would solve a lot of the problem.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But going back to the Clinton tax rates sure would solve a lot of the problem.

If we were back at Clinton tax rates, what would the income tax revenue have been last year? Are there numbers on this? My gut based on the Buffet Rule bits is what, 200 - 300 billion MAYBE? Still $1.3 trillion in deficit. But I'm making an educated guess, I don't know what it really is.

Recession or no recession, you can't be running deficits of 40+% in a year.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

If we were back at Clinton tax rates, what would the income tax revenue have been last year? Are there numbers on this? My gut based on the Buffet Rule bits is what, 200 - 300 billion MAYBE? Still $1.3 trillion in deficit. But I'm making an educated guess, I don't know what it really is.

Recession or no recession, you can't be running deficits of 40+% in a year.

But getting out of a recession is a huge boost to revenues. It's far more important than any cuts. I personally think flattening the tax rates would be great. Wealthier people should pay the same rate as the middle class. The Buffet Rule does this to an extent, but it's more gimmicky.

The country is going to have to make a decision at some point about whether they want to cut the budget dramatically or raise taxes for most everyone. I think it's a mix of both although I think cuts to Medicare and SS are silly. I'd rather see reforms or new ways to fund them.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Only partly joking but in some cases (as evident in reality), some states would do much better, some would do worse an any given non-federal legislations (assuming no unfunded federal mandates). There are many examples of states (and counties/cities) doing very well on some aspects of public programs, even within a balanced budget too! One of the problems states have is that they don't know or can't scale back when population and tax revenues decline. But there many things the cities/counties/states can do better in comparison to the federal government but we end up paying both to do the same thing ineffectively. A stronger division of responsibilities (with a transition period), as stated in the Bill of Rights, is needed. You may talk about a "level playing field" but after so much money being expended, the feds have not acheived that in many respect (not all). So why continue to throw so much money at something that does not get results? The feds should handle domestic and international defense, as stated in the Constitution, but they shouldn't treat that as unending pool of money and influence.

The Feds handle a lot of things because it's easier to have one well-funded FDA than 50 little ones of varying quality. Or when someone flies from New York to California, they don't have to deal with the policies of 10-15 different FAAs.

I get how certain things can be handled better on a local level, but having 50 versions of everything seems wildly inefficient in many areas.

[Buccaneer]

Are we seeing any huge boosts in tax revenues? And I would still argue that a 20% tax rate increase across the board would not mean a 20% boost in revenues - it would something significantly less than that.

But seeing reforms (including tax overhaul) and new ways to fund programs...being tons smarter about every program - no sacred cows no manner how much money lobbyists funnel into your re-election campaign - would do the most to help reduce the deficit in the short-term.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The Feds handle a lot of things because it's easier to have one well-funded FDA than 50 little ones of varying quality. Or when someone flies from New York to California, they don't have to deal with the policies of 10-15 different FAAs.

I get how certain things can be handled better on a local level, but having 50 versions of everything seems wildly inefficient in many areas.

There are some programs that would be better and some would be worse - just have to be smart about it. States do complain about unfunded federal mandates and that does affect the viability and effectiveness of state budgets - perhaps with marginal or little added benefits compared to costs.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

If we were back at Clinton tax rates, what would the income tax revenue have been last year? Are there numbers on this? My gut based on the Buffet Rule bits is what, 200 - 300 billion MAYBE? Still $1.3 trillion in deficit. But I'm making an educated guess, I don't know what it really is.

Recession or no recession, you can't be running deficits of 40+% in a year.

I don't care about the percentage of deficit if it's short term and if the country is in recession. The problem is the structural deficit, that not related to economic downturn. First, we have to get the economy growing, if we don't large cuts will take us down the path of England. After the economy gets going we probably have 500 or so in structural deficit in the short term. We can fix that with a mix of tax increases and spending cuts.

The long term challenge is medical costs, and that's a much tougher nut to crack. Either people will get less access to medical care or providers will get less in reimbursements, neither of which is easy politically.

[tarcone]

I would like to see a 3rd party candidate pick up like 15 to 20 percent of the vote one year. Would that scare the establishment? Would that open up the debates? Because I would have liked to see these debates with Johnson in them.

[Izulde]

Perot got 19% back in 1992. That didn't scare the establishment or open up the debates.

[Galaxy]

I think third parties need to focus on congressional and senate races, where they can focus more on the local districts, and where they can slowly build up a voice in Washington and build up the party's reputation that way.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I think third parties need to focus on congressional and senate races, where they can focus more on the local districts, and where they can slowly build up a voice in Washington and build up the party's reputation that way.

Considering that all legislation comes from Congress (and the devilish details), that would be all that's needed to affect change. That and having the President stop submitting budgets that spends $1t more than what's taken in.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

$3.8 trillion times 0.43 = $1.634 trillion, coincidentally the amount of borrowed spending in the last budget. Basically, he wants to spend what we take in.

Where are we supposed to get the money to pay for all this spending? I pointed it out elsewhere, but if you doubled income tax revenue right now, you're still around $200 billion in the hole. Do you think repealing the Bush tax cuts and implementing the Buffet rule will more than double income tax revenues? The Buffet rule is estimated at $50 billion / year, where are you getting the other $1.55 trillion from to pay for all these programs we can't touch?

I'm going to point this out again, because it actually bears repeating; debt is not a bad thing. This gross simplification that a deficit is the end of times is silly; the capital markets are basically telling the US to borrow, and borrow some more at today's interest rates.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I think third parties need to focus on congressional and senate races, where they can focus more on the local districts, and where they can slowly build up a voice in Washington and build up the party's reputation that way.

The asburdities of the various (current) third parties aren't likely to be embraced in meaningful numbers at the district level either. They're third parties (or 4th/5th/6th tier parties) for some pretty basic reasons.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

I'm going to point this out again, because it actually bears repeating; debt is not a bad thing. This gross simplification that a deficit is the end of times is silly; the capital markets are basically telling the US to borrow, and borrow some more at today's interest rates.

Debt that is 6 times your annual revenue can be pretty bad if you are making no effort to pay it down. It's got to be paid back sometime.

[Buccaneer]

The focus on the debt over that past 6+ years was intended to get people talking about cuts, which had been done from Obama on down to people that never had paid attention to it. We cannot continue the cycle of perpetual growth when revenues are relatively flat. Many people (of all persuasions) are talking about waste, corruption and how we can spend money better (including tax reform, military complex and wars, and 'fixing' social programs). Those are all good things.

[JPhillips]

Wow. The new Linda McMahon ad hits Murphy for voting for spending cuts that will cost jobs.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Debt that is 6 times your annual revenue can be pretty bad if you are making no effort to pay it down. It's got to be paid back sometime.

I ask this question a lot...why does it have to be paid back? Who is going to come and take their money through force? We will take a massive credit hit but ultimately the country is too big to fail and these other countries who rely on us will be forced to bail us out or forgive us otherwise they go down with us. Ultimately, it's a reset button for a couple of miserable years and then the country claws back.

The money isn't even real at this point. It's just numbers on a page.

[JPhillips]

We wouldn't even have that. As long as you can pay the debt service there is no crisis.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by rowech

I ask this question a lot...why does it have to be paid back? Who is going to come and take their money through force? We will take a massive credit hit but ultimately the country is too big to fail and these other countries who rely on us will be forced to bail us out or forgive us otherwise they go down with us. Ultimately, it's a reset button for a couple of miserable years and then the country claws back.

The money isn't even real at this point. It's just numbers on a page.

ask Greece how that's going

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Chubby

ask Greece how that's going

The world economy doesn't need Greece like they need the US.

[stevew]

That unskewed site is all kinds of fail. I wonder if that guy is bubba wheels. He's such a fucking moron.