2012 Candidate Tickets

[pettyfog]

Think it's all set now? Dont be too sure..
I have a feeling Mitt picking Ryan just sent Biden on the road to "Happy Village retirement home for political hacks".
Also dropped Mitt's chances of election a few points..
Mitt Goes 'All-In' with Ryan

___________________________________________________________________________________

And BTW: If you're worried about not having enough fuel to make your campaigning rounds, you'll be happy to know that no matter the corn supply due to drought, there will be no shortage of ethanol to pump into your car's tank.

You old timers know I have been railing about this despicable atrocity since there was room on here to do it. But since this seems to be a bi-partisan political scandal, NOTHING gets done about it.
Almost Everyone -Green or carbon burner- says it's outrageous.. where is your outrage on topic of world food price connections. It STARTED the Arab Spring, after all. Is that the point? Let all the heathen starve?
Wouldnt it be great if both campaigns said 'ENOUGH!" ???
I grew up on a corn growing farm. I have cousins who grow corn. I know my automotive physics. Corn Ethanol for fuel is BULLSHIT.. both as an energy source and enviromentally.

[HatterDon]

I think picking Ryan is a stroke of genius for Romney. If he gets elected, Ryan won't be in the House formulating tax and general economic policy. While Ryan is busy going to funerals for four years, Romney can pursue his own moderate-to-liberal policies. If he gets defeated, Ryan will be there to cause trouble for Obama.

And, as always, I agree with you about our national corn stupidity. If Iowa held their caucuses last instead of first, Ethanol would never have been mooted.

[VegasJustin]

The move to pick Ryan probably hurt Romney. He will win the debates against Biden, but his Medicare plan is unpopular and it lost the Republicans a seat in NY that hasn't went to the Democrats in modern history.

The economic conservatives are going to get an election that provides a choice between Rand type ideas and moderate ideas and I don't think their going to like who Americans choose.

[HatterDon]

Of course, if they are successful in widespread disenfranchisement of American citizens, they just might pull it off. At least one state legislator in PA is on record as saying that their "voter fraud" law guarantees Pennsylvania for Romney.

[pettyfog]

I could probably be mean and point out various blog posts reminding that you have to show picture ID to get into the orgs pushing against voting id.
I COULD probably be mean and point out those who say Ryan is trying to dismantle the safety net, to his on-record congressional speechifying where he says - and validly makes the point- he is trying to SAVE the safety nets.
- His plans wont even come close to solving the debt problems we've incurred.. they are just a start. But better than crashing and burning.

I could be mean and point out the 500 actual + 200 deferred billions pulled FROM Medicare by Obamacare is -according to spinners- 'serving the same people'. Which it is definitely NOT.
While we see Europe crumbling as it demonstrates the 'Progressive' social construct is unsustainable. Which is why all banks and finance houses are and have been preparing 'Crash Plans' .. it's not 'IF' it's only a matter of 'WHEN'.

Look at the municipal bankruptcies popping up in California.
There is no free lunch. You cant just print the money .. you cant even sustain this spending by borrowing 1/3 of the budget even if you confiscate ALL wealth.
Because then there would be no one to pay taxes.. Period! Except the corrupt executives running those corrupt corporations would now be federal employees running the SAME entities and answering to only... who? The fourth estate? Meaning the popular press?

The only reason the global debt crisis shit hasnt hit the fan, yet, is because almost everyone is worse off than we are.

I'm tired of trying to reason with people who continue to defend their world view without FACTS as it crumbles around them.
Well, never mind.. keep reading Soros Media and watching MSNBC, then pretend to be surprised.

I'm surprised that I have to point out that, at my age, I depend as much on the largesse of the 'government' as anyone else and that it would be far easier for me to just jump on the social bandwagon. Wonder why I even bother.

[HatterDon]

I'm surprised that I have to point out, at my age, that I don't read Soros Media [whatever that is] or watch MSNBC, but there you go.

[pettyfog]

What difference does it make if you spout the same tired old lines?
For instance, point out to us exactly WHICH voting demographic is going to be cowed into disenfranchisement by some grayhair poll worker demanding ID?
It's been pointed out numerous times in news orgs and blogs, you dont watch or read either, that for the typical MSM commentator or newsreader, 'Talking Points Memo' is just that.
As per:
Soledad O'Brien
- Instructive as to perceptions, is that not?
Bottom line is that Ryan's invocation of 'bi-partisan' was faulty. Most times bi-partisan only works up till the time of the vote.

nside the piece was the very quote from Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Or.) that O'Brien read to her guest:

“I did not ‘co-lead a piece of legislation.’ I wrote a policy paper on options for Medicare. Several months after the paper came out I spoke and voted against the Medicare provisions in the Ryan budget. Governor Romney needs to learn you don’t protect seniors by makings things up, and his comments sure won’t help promote real bipartisanship.”

It would be real interesting to actually see Wyden's policy paper, so we could understand how Romney got fooled.
Oh.. wait. Buried inRollCall's blurb, it's explained. They always include the real truth hoping you wont get that far..

Ryan and Wyden did work together in December 2011 to develop a paper outlining ways to provide for Medicare solvency, including a "premium support" model. Under premium support, Medicare would allow a menu of competing plans to offer coverage with government payments. Wyden, however, never signed on to support the House-adopted budget resolution written by Ryan that included plans for a premium support approach.

Not too hard to find the Pres speaking about the Ryan plan in more favorable terms, either. But I'm thinking you'll see enough of that clip in future.

[HatterDon]

Headline from this morning:

Republicans give New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie keynote slot at Tampa, Fla., convention

RNC to Tampa convention site: "We're going to need a bigger stage."

[pettyfog]

Headline from this morning:

Republicans give New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie keynote slot at Tampa, Fla., convention

RNC to Tampa convention site: "We're going to need a bigger stage."

[AggieMatt]

While we see Europe crumbling as it demonstrates the 'Progressive' social construct is unsustainable. Which is why all banks and finance houses are and have been preparing 'Crash Plans' .. it's not 'IF' it's only a matter of 'WHEN'.

Look at the municipal bankruptcies popping up in California.
There is no free lunch. You cant just print the money .. you cant even sustain this spending by borrowing 1/3 of the budget even if you confiscate ALL wealth.
Because then there would be no one to pay taxes.. Period! Except the corrupt executives running those corrupt corporations would now be federal employees running the SAME entities and answering to only... who? The fourth estate? Meaning the popular press?

The only reason the global debt crisis shit hasnt hit the fan, yet, is because almost everyone is worse off than we are.

I'm tired of trying to reason with people who continue to defend their world view without FACTS as it crumbles around them.

How can you post the above, which is almost devoid of factual content and followed by a preposterous strawman scenario, and then complain about people having world view's that you deem without fact? As for being tired of it, you do realize that you originate just about every political thread on this football site, right?

I'm surprised that I have to point out that, at my age, I depend as much on the largesse of the 'government' as anyone else and that it would be far easier for me to just jump on the social bandwagon. Wonder why I even bother.

That one's probably worthy of a bit more introspection.

[pettyfog]

Which statement is 'Opinion' as opposed to fact? Near as I can parse it is: The only reason the global debt crisis shit hasnt hit the fan, yet, is because almost everyone is worse off than we are.

I can post plenty of factual content.. it's available everywhere except where you go to avoid it. Question IS.. would you accept it or keep your head in the sand? I USED to link to 'real fact'.. then I was told 'no one follows those links, anyway'. And it didnt seem to matter where I sourced. So.. would you follow links if I did support it?
If you dont agree with what I say, or if there's no factual basis, why dont you refute it?
- The Euro Union is in deep trouble, yes or no? Continuous bailout of Greece then Spain, yes or no? The only really productive economy is Germany.. who, after frittering away billions of Euros on 'Green Energy', is finally sobering up. Yes or No?
- We are borrowing over 1/3 of the annual federal budget, yes or no? The aggregated federal debt is over 14 Trillion, yes or no?

I dont pretend I know how to fix that.. neither can I point to anyone who CAN fix it for sure. But is the real answer to double down on debt?

In this election, we are offered a choice between weak tea and kool-aid. Note that some people are excited just by the idea that someone SEES the real problem: A dependency class, held in thrall by ability to survive wholly based on government disbursement.

As to why I care.. perhaps I'd like to think the problems CAN be resolved if enough people just look reality in the face.
Really hard times are coming.. it may be too late to stop it but I DO care how my kids and grandkids are affected.


ROMNEY by JohnnyShop, on Flickr

They already owe $50,000, each, yes or no?

Now ... let's think about why this bothers YOU and why you dont like reading it. Easy enough to avoid ANY thread started by me, isnt it?

_______________________________________________________________________________

Well.. to leaven this a little...
Women wearing Vagina Costumes carrying signs saying: "Congress -RESPECT WOMEN"

[AggieMatt]

Fair enough.

Now ... let's think about why this bothers YOU and why you dont like reading it. Easy enough to avoid ANY thread started by me, isnt it?

I have no problem with you posting political threads and I usually do choose to just observe and stay out of the fray. I get that you and Don have your little thing and that most often the vitriol is reserved for him, not all of us reading the posts. It's when you bully your way around with "I could be mean" and go into that ranting tone of yours, especially when you couple it with driveby gop or tea party talking points that are factually incorrect, that my sensibilities are offended and I feel the need to reply.

Going back to what I originally called incorrect.

While we see Europe crumbling as it demonstrates the 'Progressive' social construct is unsustainable.

It shows no such thing. Some govt's are crumbling but their construct isn't the root of the problem. Ireland and some of the other economically weaker countries have gone into decline since the introduction of the Euro. There were some assumptions about lifting the economies of poorer countries up by that move and that hasn't panned out. It's been the opposite in fact. The weak have gotten weaker and the strong have gotten stronger.

Greece & Spain have been done in more by corruption. Greece in particular have fallen apart b/c those who hold the majority of the wealth have been able to get away with not paying any taxes and moving that wealth out of country. Now, a less socialist govt would lessen that impact, but if the same thing happened here, we'd be screwed too.

If the model is doomed, how do you explain Germany, Switz, the Nordic countries, etc who are doing just fine? Depending on how you choose to measure economic factors, some of them are outperforming us, while giving their people better health care (Switz for ex) than we receive. The obvious difference is defense spending which far outweighs things like socialized medicine and entitlement programs, but that's another debate.

Which is why all banks and finance houses are and have been preparing 'Crash Plans' .. it's not 'IF' it's only a matter of 'WHEN'.

No. Crash Plans have been prepared b/c the banks and financial houses (which are all tied together at this point) continue to have dangerous debt ratios and they learned something about cash reserves and perception from the last meltdown (that they caused). They're still speculating so it is inevitable that we'll go through another bubble, but if they can keep confidence higher by having stronger reserves, the hit to the market shouldn't be as severe. That's the hope anyway.

You cant just print the money

Actually you can and we have on countless occassions. Just depends on the economic circumstances you are trying to affect.

you cant even sustain this spending by borrowing 1/3 of the budget even if you confiscate ALL wealth.
Because then there would be no one to pay taxes.. Period! Except the corrupt executives running those corrupt corporations would now be federal employees running the SAME entities and answering to only... who? The fourth estate? Meaning the popular press?

That's ridiculous and would never happen. True, our spending is a problem, but I think we disagree on where the spending problem really lies.

The only reason the global debt crisis shit hasnt hit the fan, yet, is because almost everyone is worse off than we are.

False. We have the largest economy in the world still and everyone should be worse off than we are. For large stretches of the last century they were. The reason the global debt crisis hasn't hit the fan is b/c none of the major players have failed. If that happens it'll be dominoes. But so far, while we've had scares here, in Europe and elsewhere around the world, we all "weathered the storm" (that's for you DCH ) for the most part. Your statement is right in that it has helped in the recovery that we have seen. Other countries/economies taking hits has aided in the recovery of the strength of the dollar and our markets.

- The Euro Union is in deep trouble, yes or no? Continuous bailout of Greece then Spain, yes or no? The only really productive economy is Germany.. who, after frittering away billions of Euros on 'Green Energy', is finally sobering up. Yes or No?
- We are borrowing over 1/3 of the annual federal budget, yes or no? The aggregated federal debt is over 14 Trillion, yes or no?

The answer to every question you asked above is yes except for the third (Germany) one. Where we differ is on why and the context in which you sometimes put these facts. Debt for example. If you borrow at a lower rate than you earn back when you reinvest that money, debt is a good thing. Debt in the short term can even benefit with unfavorable terms. What we're doing isn't sustainable long term, no. But then again, things are likely to change as well (Iraq/Afghanistan for example).

In this election, we are offered a choice between weak tea and kool-aid. Note that some people are excited just by the idea that someone SEES the real problem: A dependency class, held in thrall by ability to survive wholly based on government disbursement.

That's every election for the most part. I don't believe there's evidence that social programs perpetuate a dependency class. There are numerous "socialist" countries who provide their citizens with more than we do that have lower unemployment than we do. Ironically, that bottom x% hasn't hurt you nearly as much as the top x% who you staunchly defend.

As to why I care.. perhaps I'd like to think the problems CAN be resolved if enough people just look reality in the face.
Really hard times are coming.. it may be too late to stop it but I DO care how my kids and grandkids are affected.

I don't think you or I can fix them nor do I think they need that much fixing. We've run with the same disfunctionality for over 200 years now. We can survive that. For me, one of the bigger problems is the parties at present. This divisive tact that prevents them from working together is causing us more problems and prevents us from fixing the ones that we actually can fix. In my mind, you perpetuate that problem with your approach to politics. Too often, imo, you attack and you go after irrelevant piddling things. Like this "dependant class". We have money problems, so if you want to fix them follow the money. Social benefits or entitlements or whatever you want to call them aren't the largest slice of the pie. Or second. Or, as many offer as criticism of Ryan's plan, enough to make a difference. That's not to say there isn't waste there and that we should ignore it. But I don't think those programs are a problem and nor do I think we're unable to afford them or even do them well. I accept that we'll probably have to agree to disagree on that front.

Really hard times are always coming. There is very little you can do for your kids and grandkids future. That's life, what happens will happen and their generation with deal with/take care of it. Just like mine, yours and those before us did.

I don't have a problem with you or these posts and enjoy reading them sometimes. Sometimes not. I wish you'd refrain from the trolling tactics, it just doesn't fit the tone of the rest of the board..but then I'm no moderator either, so it's just a request. But your track record isn't such that I'd just write your contributions off entirely. You post more humans dressed as vaginas and I may change my stance on that.

[pettyfog]

Very good retort!

But I can answer most of your posits with my post on Keynesian Economics. I referenced it in some other thread on here but cant readily locate it
Keynes Addiction
The bottom line is Keynesian tactics always push the problem out. The ultimate answer is in Free Markets as this French Optimist points out but the clanger is that markets arent really free.. OR.. safeguards against corruption in those markets are not implemented or utilized. And again, the crooks in the finance houses only crashed the economy because they were encouraged to play hot potato with mortgage risk instruments. And we all know WHO did that.. just have to look. And then look who hired many of them.
Also.. do you understand that many people are paying to have their assets stored? Not just gold and silver.. dollar accounts.The interest rate is too low to be sustainable.
I'd also point out that energy costs in Germany have skyrocketed to the point where some industry is leaving and as many as 800,000 citizens cant pay their utility bill. That is ancillary to this argument but is germane {sic} to the health of the European economy.

On the domestic front, you cannot build an economy on a Health Care program. Romney's own program in Massachusetts would point that out. Is it true or not that half the state budget will be on the health care program?

Finally... do you seriously contend that social and economic programs are not weighted toward their beneficiaries, rather than those paying for them? And those who promote them dont automatically get the votes of the recipients?

[AggieMatt]

In a sense, Keynesian Economics tie in nicely with election cycles. We're a short term, soundbite society and surprisingly (to me at any rate) you see that a lot in business as well. Almost every aspect of our world rewards short term performance and punishes short term failure. The long term is an afterthought. From govt, to the markets, to jobs...to football...it's everywhere.

Wall St may have been encouraged, but their unmitigated greed took them well beyond that point. The financial sector has been paying politicians to deregulate the industry for several decades now. The housing crisis was just one incident.

Who is saying they want to build an economy on a healthcare program? Healthcare has been provided in other places with success too many times for me to believe it's impossible. We'd have to change the way we spend in other areas, but if countries with lesser economies can pull it off, I don't see how we can't with the largest economy in the world.

Which goes to your last question of why would we want to. In a roundabout way, yes, I seriously contend that the programs are weighted toward everyone. Directly, no. And I won't say the weighting is equal, it varies. While the transition to a global economy complicates this infinitely, I believe every member of our society plays a role in our economy. No govt, business or even individual operates in a vacuum. In a business, you need every component from the owner or CEO to the minimum wage worker. Then you need consumers, suppliers, roads and infrastructure, and on and on. If you take any of those pieces out of the equation the business will suffer and/or fail. Every part of that chain varies in it's importance, but they are all necessary. Yet the overwhelming majority of the wealth settles at the top. And I'm not saying it shouldn't. However I do believe in the phrase "to whom much is given (or earned if you prefer in this case), much is expected." Most businesses benefit when our economy is strong. Investing in the welfare of that society, imo benefits those businesses, etc. It cycles back around. Healthier, better educated, etc Americans benefit the top of the pyramid more than a society in decline b/c they are the backbone for a stronger economy. I'm being overly simplistic in my explanation obviously, but you get the point of where I'm coming from in my thinking. We've required the top earners to "re-invest" in America at higher rates in the past and we've usually had stronger economies when we did.

Maybe both sides should promote social and economic programs then. Sure, they get the votes of many of those beneficiaries, but then wouldn't they get little to no financial backing from those paying for them? Without the financial backing from the rich, you never get far enough down the line for anyone to vote for you. Unless enough of the wealthy agree with my thinking, that is. Guys like Gates, Buffett, Cuban, they're not stupid but they've all come out and said they aren't taxed enough and can contribute more. But someone like yourself wants to argue that they're taxed too much? I don't get that.

[HatterDon]

ROMNEY by JohnnyShop, on Flickr

I missed this thread somehow, or I'd have asked this question sooner. Is Mitt talking to the baby or is the baby talking to Mitt?