2012 Presidential Election (87 days and counting...)

[SV Fan]

Definitely possible, but I see Ohio going red. They are such a wishy-washy state. They will jump ship at the drop of a dime. The only reasons that Sherrod Brown is going to hold his senate seat is that his opponent is weak and Brown has a tremendous on the ground operation in Ohio. But aside from Brown....I think they'll go red. Hard to say with certainty, but I tend to think that they are going red this time. If they re-elected Strickland I may be sold on them going blue....but they didn't.

I just think the way Obama is attacking Bain Capital was tailor made for a state like Ohio(I think it will have minimal effect in a state say like Florida though,where Obama's best attack plan is to go after the Ryan budget(which Romney endorses) and how it effects Medicare). Ohio is smart, as you say they are so wishy washy that Politicans have to pander to them because they such a key state. Think of all the revenue they get every 4 years due to the political circus(while states like NY and Texas are treated like afterthoughts)

 

[Marvolo]

Romney's foreign policy, that is to say lack of one, scares me. Anyone else worried about that?

 

[SV Fan]

Romney's foreign policy, that is to say lack of one, scares me. Anyone else worried about that?

Romney being all gung ho about attacking Iran is scary, add to the fact he hired a bunch of Bush foreign policy advisers doesn't help. That being said both sides scare me when it comes to foreign policy and it seems like a less of 2 evils scenario. I just wish there was a candidate that said hey I want to cut the military budget for a change.

My disdain for the Republican party in general lies mainly on there foreign policy record more then any other issue(I find it sad we hear about them wanting to cut the deficit using spending cuts but not one peep about military spending)

 

[Marvolo]

Romney being all gung ho about attacking Iran is scary, add to the fact he hired a bunch of Bush foreign policy advisers doesn't help. That being said both sides scare me when it comes to foreign policy and it seems like a less of 2 evils scenario. I just wish there was a candidate that said hey I want to cut the military budget for a change.

My disdain for the Republican party in general lies mainly on there foreign policy record more then any other issue(I find it sad we hear about them wanting to cut the deficit using spending cuts but not one peep about military spending)

I did not know that. OMG, how can those ass-hats even get work in Washington anymore?

 

[Matt]

I just think the way Obama is attacking Bain Capital was tailor made for a state like Ohio(I think it will have minimal effect in a state say like Florida though,where Obama's best attack plan is to go after the Ryan budget(which Romney endorses) and how it effects Medicare). Ohio is smart, as you say they are so wishy washy that Politicans have to pander to them because they such a key state. Think of all the revenue they get every 4 years due to the political circus(while states like NY and Texas are treated like afterthoughts)

But strangely, Ohians don't tend to vote with their wallets. Look at 2004. They took a harder hit in the 2001-2004 recession than any other state in the Union with the possible exception of Michigan. They went red despite Kerry telling them EVERYTHING that they wanted to hear. Ohio is just a very hard state to call. Their voters seem to lack any rational behind their votes and that makes me skeptical of how well Bain attack ads will work.

 

[LegendaryCaleb]

I vote NOTA. None of the above.

im with this guy.

 

[Hobgoblin]

I think its just way too close at the moment to tell. A lot can happen in the next six months.

 

[Paradoxium]

Yes, the debt ceiling fight will be comical. And Europe is ******ing the end of a loaded shotgun. Some people are pointing to mid June Greek exit.

I predict Mitt Romney and Barack Obama will age a year each month, due to the uncontrollable variables that can push and pull in their favor drastically t:

 

[Matt]

Both Rasmussen and Gallup have released polls today that have Obama and Romney tied.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Both Obama and Romney have released their fundraising totals for May with Romney and the GOP raising $76 million while Obama and the Democrats have raised $60 million.

This is turning out to be nothing but a horrible month for Obama so far.

 

[thechangingman]

Romney's foreign policy, that is to say lack of one, scares me. Anyone else worried about that?

His domestic economic policies are vastly more worrisome to me.
Tim Pawlenty was interviewed on NPR yesterday and repeated the Neo-conservative gospel of less regulation and lower taxes for the wealthy.
8 years of it not working under Bush wasn't enough for people to realize
that this doesn't work, and the potential economic repercussions are far
more frightening to me, because they'll lead to nativist, jingoistic policy discussion that always ends up in some armed conflict or another.

 

[Kelly]

Does Bush need to be blamed for many of the economic problems, of course, but you also had a Democratic run legislature for a good portion of his last term.


SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, if we are going to blame the Republicans now for what they are doing int he legislature, I think we need to blame the Democrats in the legislature for much of what they did from about 2006 on to 2010.

Dodd should be horse whipped for the ******** he did in those years....

 

[thechangingman]

The principles of supply side economics have been proven as failures by the frequent boom-bust cycle.
To try and put equal blame on Democrats is misguided in my view, as they have been unable to implement any of the Progressive measures they hoped for.
Even the stimulus plan was undersized, as attested to by some economists. There is a very strong argument to be made on the side of conservative economic policy and the free market, but the Republican party has so far advocated a simple oligarchy, a corrupt system that favors the rich and ONLY the rich.
Unfettered free markets don't work, even Milton Friedman thought so. Romney is simply feeding the old line of supply side, but unlike Reagan, Romney has to deal with the Tea Party and Grover Norquist who are very much the creationists of Economic and Domestic policy. Despite what many people would have you believe, there are still marked differences between the parties, especially now.

 

[Kelly]

The principles of supply side economics have been proven as failures by the frequent boom-bust cycle.
To try and put equal blame on Democrats is misguided in my view, as they have been unable to implement any of the Progressive measures they hoped for.
Even the stimulus plan was undersized, as attested to by some economists. There is a very strong argument to be made on the side of conservative economic policy and the free market, but the Republican party has so far advocated a simple oligarchy, a corrupt system that favors the rich and ONLY the rich.
Unfettered free markets don't work, even Milton Friedman thought so. Romney is simply feeding the old line of supply side, but unlike Reagan, Romney has to deal with the Tea Party and Grover Norquist who are very much the creationists of Economic and Domestic policy. Despite what many people would have you believe, there are still marked differences between the parties, especially now.

Keynesian Economics ain't doin' to hot either.....

 

[thechangingman]

Keynesian Economics ain't doin' to hot either.....

That's because Keynesian economics haven't been in place. I would hardly call a tax break for the wealthy and continued de-regulation together with government sponsored union busting a shining a example of Keynesian economics.
Again, the middle road is the best, neither purely Keynesian nor unfettered Free Market, to his credit, Obama has tried to implement such an approach, but the radical wing of the Republican party, not to mention the Tea Party has been either blocking or trying to block any attempt at counterbalance.
This will lead to a widening of the income gap and the loss of upward economic mobility, which in turn lead to Job loss and a declining national economy, if the middle and lower class has no money to spend on goods adn services, what possible growth can the US hope for?

 

[Kelly]

The only reason they aren't is because of the House....and Obama hasn't tried to implement a thing. Where is his budget?

And I really wasn't talking about the US, as far as Keynesian economics not working, I was speaking more of Europe.

But, it looks like that the new French President is going to try it one more time, and I know he and Obama (if Obama gets another 4 years) will be best bros......

 

[Paradoxium]

Obama would be disappointed in Hollande's millionaire 75% income tax, which ignores the effective tax rates to top it off. Too low for him.

And Europe is doing pretty well from their stimulus from 4 years ago, aren't they.

Do enlighten me, as to why new debt exceeds the economic output. In other words, why every dollar spent returns less than a dollar in economic output? Where is the REALITY to the theory? So regardless if they spent half or double the amount, the ratio seems to not jive with the theory.

 

[thechangingman]

The only reason they aren't is because of the House....and Obama hasn't tried to implement a thing. Where is his budget?

And I really wasn't talking about the US, as far as Keynesian economics not working, I was speaking more of Europe.

But, it looks like that the new French President is going to try it one more time, and I know he and Obama (if Obama gets another 4 years) will be best bros......

Obama has submitted a budget annually since the start of his presidency.
In my answer bellow you'll see my thoughts on Europe.

Obama would be disappointed in Hollande's millionaire 75% income tax, which ignores the effective tax rates to top it off. Too low for him.

And Europe is doing pretty well from their stimulus from 4 years ago, aren't they.

Do enlighten me, as to why new debt exceeds the economic output. In other words, why every dollar spent returns less than a dollar in economic output? Where is the REALITY to the theory? So regardless if they spent half or double the amount, the ratio seems to not jive with the theory.

I'm more interested in to where you got your figures for what Obama wants the top marginal tax rate to be. I just advocated a balance between the Keynesian and the Free market tendencies, a 75% Top marginal tax rate is not a balance. However,the Buffet rule was asking for a minimum 30%, thinking that 75% would be "too low for him" is just pure fantasy.

The Buffet rule is also low compared to the 46% Finland uses, that still manages to put them above the US in upward social mobility.
Or Germany's 45% Top tax rate, Germany easily outgrew the U.S. last year, as far as the economy is concerned. The German economy currently ranked 4th in the world overall, and that manages to have a great economy, strong unions and lower unemployment than the U.S. currently.

 

[SV Fan]

I personally don't get "trickle down" economics. Do they honest believe if tax cuts saves a business tons of money they are going to use that extra cash to hire more people for the sake of hiring people? If a company makes 1.1B instead of 1B due to tax cuts, the only place that extra 100M is going to trickle down to is investors off shore banks.

Nothing annoys me more then the term "Job Creators" as if these big business people are somehow demigods that care about the common man and we just need to enable them to help us. I think the term for Big Business people should be more in line with Wealth Creators which I believe is a more fair assessment what they try to do.

 

[Handsome Rob]

I personally don't get "trickle down" economics. Do they honest believe if tax cuts saves a business tons of money they are going to use that extra cash to hire more people for the sake of hiring people? If a company makes 1.1B instead of 1B due to tax cuts, the only place that extra 100M is going to trickle down to is investors off shore banks.

Nothing annoys me more then the term "Job Creators" as if these big business people are somehow demigods that care about the common man and we just need to enable them to help us. I think the term for Big Business people should be more in line with Wealth Creators which I believe is a more fair assessment what they try to do.

No. A business won't hire unless it feels the additional employee will contribute a net positive to the company's bottom line. People enter into business to make money. When they make money, they want to try and make more of it. They expand, and with expansion typically comes additional hiring. Those jobs exist because they will bring more income with them, not because a business wants to create a job just to hire someone to fill it.

The question you should be asking is, "Who's inherently a better allocator of capital--the private sector or the government?" That's what collected money is: capital. Is the wisdom of the federal government greater than the collective wisdom of private enterprise in matters of how to best put capital resources to work?

Then, you should ask yourself why businesses aren't willing to put more of their capital to work here (including the repatriation of their earnings from overseas). If you ask businesses, demand will definitely be a factor. But so will government--there's a lot of uncertainty regarding future tax laws and rates as well as interpretation of current regs like Dodd-Frank and the future potential for additional regulations.

And, of course, there's foreign earnings. Why should a company that earned $100 million in France and paid income taxes on those earnings to France repatriate the money to the United States, only to see it taxed again by the U.S. government? Imagine if it worked that way in the states. Your business operates in Illinois and New York. You make half your money in the state of New York. New York taxes you for it. Then, when you transfer the money you earned in NY to your bank account in Chicago, Illinois taxes you for it as well. What possible motivation would you have to move your money to Illinois? Just keep it in NY.

I believe that the private sector is a far better allocator of capital than the federal government, and the federal government should only work to create the best environment possible for businesses to operate--to put their capital to work in a way that will benefit all of us.

 

[Kelly]

Actually the job creators are predominantly small businesses, and taxing them more will hurt job creation.

The main thing for me is that the government realizes and understands that the government DOES NOT create jobs....

 

[SV Fan]

The main thing for me is that the government realizes and understands that the government DOES NOT create jobs....

Yes because we should expect private business to go out and hire teachers, police officers, fire fighters and fix the roads for the hell of it. It always makes me laugh when a politician complains about public sector jobs, do they realize who is paying their paycheck. The idea that government doesn't create jobs is a simplistic look that most government employees are somehow in a cubical doing absolutely nothing. Somebody has to teach kids, somebody has to protect the streets and somebody has to build infrastructure, and it isn't the private sector that is going to do it.

All I know is if the government doesn't hire anybody(ie government employees) to do stuff, the country will fall apart pretty fast. The US at one time was the best place in the world for infrastructure, now it's falling behind many countries in that regard(but hey at least we have less government employees sucking on the government's tit right)

I believe that the private sector is a far better allocator of capital than the federal government, and the federal government should only work to create the best environment possible for businesses to operate--to put their capital to work in a way that will benefit all of us.

I don't think anybody will deny that the private sector is way better at creating capital the the government, it doesn't mean that they instantly are better creating jobs(see all the one I listed above that need filling). You basically are comparing apples and oranges when it comes to the purpose of each. If we have more teachers, police officers, fire fighters and people working construction on government projects, that is more people who have expendable capital to buy stuff. All that being said we need money to pay those people somehow.

In order for business to grow(employee wise) they need more demand, which means there has to be more people working other jobs to buy their products. Companies look at the short term(like 3 month to 1 year intervals) how they manage things. It's not a case they will say if we hire 100 people the economy will be much better 10 years from now if everybody else joins in with us creating a class of people who spend money. Somebody has to make sure that there is a class of people who are willing to spend money and it isn't the private sector, they just do the best with what they got to make as much profit year by year.

The key to a good economy is having a large amount of middle class people who will spend most of there paychecks and I don't think you will get that letting the private sector be the people who try and keeps as much money as possible in the hands of those middle class people.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

Actually the job creators are predominantly small businesses, and taxing them more will hurt job creation.

The main thing for me is that the government realizes and understands that the government DOES NOT create jobs....

I think a lot of politicians forget this rule when making trying to pass bills.

 

[Paradoxium]

Obama has submitted a budget annually since the start of his presidency.
In my answer bellow you'll see my thoughts on Europe.



I'm more interested in to where you got your figures for what Obama wants the top marginal tax rate to be. I just advocated a balance between the Keynesian and the Free market tendencies, a 75% Top marginal tax rate is not a balance. However,the Buffet rule was asking for a minimum 30%, thinking that 75% would be "too low for him" is just pure fantasy.

The Buffet rule is also low compared to the 46% Finland uses, that still manages to put them above the US in upward social mobility.
Or Germany's 45% Top tax rate, Germany easily outgrew the U.S. last year, as far as the economy is concerned. The German economy currently ranked 4th in the world overall, and that manages to have a great economy, strong unions and lower unemployment than the U.S. currently.

It's called a joke bro. You are engaging in moot convo.

The government thinks stimulus money grants 1.57x for every dollar they spend, and the high priest of Keynes thinks it is 1.4x (Krugman)

Guess what? Normative and reality don't jive. I will give you a hint, it was under a dollar for every dollar spent. Look it up yourself.

If new debt exceeds economic output, we got ourselves a negative. To ignore debt and focus on output - we call this ********. The theory calls for you to grow out of debt, thus the multiplier, but we have a NEGATIVE multiplier.

But hey the government you trust lives on this BS. Afterall how is it possible that unemployment rate is higher in 2009 compared to now, yet in 2012, there are less people employed than in 2009.

So what does this mean?

Who gives a **** what you tax on income. Whether it is 1% or 50% or 75%, you are still wasting money and not even produce legit economic output, you are destroying good money. And you're trying to justify how much is fair and just, while missing the bigger problem.

 

[Kelly]

Um, SV.....my job is paid for by property taxes....property taxes paid by...wait for it...private businesses in my district. Also, property taxes of those that most are employed by...wait for it...private businesses. So, who really created my job? Let me give you a clue...NOT OBAMA....