2012 US Election -- Round 2

[Coito ergo sum]

Taking cues from Romney's latest ad in Florida which claims Castro and Chavez are supporting Obama?

Eau de Desperation. That fragrance only smells good to the one who is wearing it.

That's right, we can't take their word for it.... eh?

"How can we help President Obama?" - Fidel Castro.

"I'd Vote for Obama." - Hugo Chavez.

What do you think they like about him? Is it that he shares their outlook? Or, is it that they think they will have it easier if Obama is elected?

[Wumbologist]

That's right, we can't take their word for it.... eh?

"How can we help President Obama?" - Fidel Castro.

"I'd Vote for Obama." - Hugo Chavez.

What do you think they like about him? Is it that he shares their outlook? Or, is it that they think they will have it easier if Obama is elected?

I'm not sure why it should be a bad thing if Castro or Chavez "like" Obama. Are we supposed to want other nations to be our enemies, now?

[Ian]

Oy vey. This subject just isn't worth the discussion.

[Coito ergo sum]

Oy vey. This subject just isn't worth the discussion.

Of course. It totally is "worth the discussion" that JP Morgan employees and Citigroup employees favor Romney over Obama (this year....in 2008, JP Morgan and Citigroup employees favored Obama over McCain -- but, of course, zero fucks were given about it by Democrats then -- back then, it was a good thing). But it totally "isn't worth discussion" to mention that some of the scummiest leaders in the world want us to pick Obama as our Quarterback. News flash, you don't really want the opposing team to be comfortable with your pick for Quarterback.

[Wumbologist]

Non-partisan study contradicts Republican economic myths, Republicans try to kill study:

http://www.commondreams.org/further/2012/11/01-4

[Coito ergo sum]

Non-partisan study contradicts Republican economic myths, Republicans try to kill study:

http://www.commondreams.org/further/2012/11/01-4

This shit is just embarrassing for you dolts.

Look - the claim is not that "tax cuts for the rich" helps everyone else. That's the bogus mischaracterization by Democrats.

The claim is very simple. Raising marginal tax rates increases revenue to the federal government, but as the marginal rates go up, the returns diminish until at a certain point, higher tax rates actually reduce revenue collected by stifling growth and encouraging tax avoidance and evasion. This is a principle of economics. So, the idea is that it MAY be revenue positive to lower marginal tax rates. However, that is not limited to "the rich."

Also, the idea that lower taxes is better for economic growth is not seriously disputed by anyone, including Barack Obama who stated explicitely "the last thing you want to do is raise taxes during a recession."

Why do you think that is the last thing you want to do? Because taxes are a cost, and if you raise taxes it makes things on which the taxes are applied more expensive and as the price of something goes up, downward pressure is put on demand. This is not controversial. If you raise taxes on a business, for example, then it's more expensive for that business to do business. The higher the taxes, the harder it is for that business to stay in business. There is also less money in private hands to save, spend or invest.

I've never heard a Republican -- EVER -- say "tax cuts for the rich." That's a Democrat thing. FFS. Bush, for example, did not just "lower taxes on the rich." He raised the bottom of the tax brackets -- I.e. he raised the amount of income someone needs to make in order to pay zero percent taxes, thereby exempting more people from paying any federal income tax at all. He lowered ALL tax brackts for everyone paying any taxes whether they made $25,000, $30,000, $40,000 or $50,000 or more.

You can't debunk the Republican "myth" that "tax cuts for the rich" are super awesome, because that isn't the Republican position. The Republican position is that lowering tax rates may result in an increase in revenues collected by the government because it helps increase the tax base from which taxes are drawn -- it's like having a 50% tax rate on 10 people making $100,000 per year and collecting $500,000 a year -- or lowering the rate to 25% but thereby helping expand the tax base to 25 people making $100,000 per year and taking in $625,000.

And, it is not a myth that lower taxes is better for people who pay taxes. What the fuck, folks?

[Ian]

Oy vey. This subject just isn't worth the discussion.

Of course. It totally is "worth the discussion" that JP Morgan employees and Citigroup employees favor Romney over Obama (this year....in 2008, JP Morgan and Citigroup employees favored Obama over McCain -- but, of course, zero fucks were given about it by Democrats then -- back then, it was a good thing). But it totally "isn't worth discussion" to mention that some of the scummiest leaders in the world want us to pick Obama as our Quarterback. News flash, you don't really want the opposing team to be comfortable with your pick for Quarterback.

How about this: maybe guys like Chavez, Castro, etc. are interested above all in self-preservation, and they think their situations will be precariously worse with Romney as commander-in-chief than with Obama. Sure, you're absolutely right that the foreign Bad Guys are more worried about Republicans. Now, does that mean they like Obama, or do they think that he's made things easy for them? Neither, really, and certainly not the first one. Example: it's hard to say how Obama could be tougher on Iran short of actually bombing them, and the Romney campaign hasn't come up with any specific ideas on how they'd alter policy towards Iran.

Well, I'm perfectly okay with there being a general impression around the world that Democratic Presidents are less likely to stumble into a reckless war than are Republicans. I wonder how the world could have gotten that impression? Any ideas?

Besides - how accurate is your "list"? How much polling do you think has really been done on Iranian mullahs?

[Coito ergo sum]

And although the Congressional Research Service is supposed to be nonpartisan, there have been issues with it taking partisan positions in the past.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_cr ... 20106.html

http://www.ipvalue-site.com/index.php/2 ... -npe-bias/

Apparently, the top officials at CRS had an issue with it too: http://news.yahoo.com/u-agency-withdraw ... 57131.html

Senate Republican aides said they had protested both the tone of the report and its findings. Aides to Mr. McConnell presented a bill of particulars to the research service that included objections to the use of the term “Bush tax cuts” and the report’s reference to “tax cuts for the rich,” which Republicans contended was politically freighted.

They also protested on economic grounds, saying that the author, Thomas L. Hungerford, was looking for a macroeconomic response to tax cuts within the first year of the policy change without sufficiently taking into account the time lag of economic policies. Further, they complained that his analysis had not taken into account other policies affecting growth, such as the Federal Reserve’s decisions on interest rates.

“There were a lot of problems with the report from a real, legitimate economic analysis perspective,” said Antonia Ferrier, a spokeswoman for the Senate Finance Committee’s Republicans. “We relayed them to C.R.S. It was a good discussion. We have a good, constructive relationship with them. Then it was pulled.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/busin ... iness&_r=0

[Kristie]

And you thought we were cheerleaders for Obama!

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/10/ba ... great.html

"What can be said without equivocation is that Obama has proven himself morally, intellectually, temperamentally, and strategically. In my lifetime, or my parents’, he is easily the best president. On his own terms, and not merely as a contrast to an unacceptable alternative, he overwhelmingly deserves reelection."

[Drewish]

When people disagree with on principle, it can be an honest disagreement. When people suddenly say their principle's don't matter to support a figure or symbol, then you know their just tribal liars. I can see that within my lifetime we will shift from right liars to left wing liars dominating the political landscape. Oh well. Same sheep, different team. Bring on more "Hope and Change."

[Kristie]

When people disagree with on principle, it can be an honest disagreement. When people suddenly say their principle's don't matter to support a figure or symbol, then you know their just tribal liars. I can see that within my lifetime we will shift from right liars to left wing liars dominating the political landscape. Oh well. Same sheep, different team. Bring on more "Hope and Change."

[Coito ergo sum]

When people disagree with on principle, it can be an honest disagreement. When people suddenly say their principle's don't matter to support a figure or symbol, then you know their just tribal liars. I can see that within my lifetime we will shift from right liars to left wing liars dominating the political landscape. Oh well. Same sheep, different team. Bring on more "Hope and Change."

I can't stand candidates who run on "change" -- fucking bullshit. Like everyone's cheering of Obama for "change" or a "fundamental change."

Simple question: WHAT fundamental change? [answer: crickets] or [answer: racist!!!!]

It's like, "Ugh...pizza good. Beer good. Change good." What the fuck, people/

And, now "Forward." Forward to where, exactly?

Do Obama supporters even know or care?

And, don't get me started on "hope." Second only to prayer as among the most useless things a person with a problem can do...

[Ian]

So then you're equally exasperated about Romney constantly talking about "REAL change".

I would be. I for one never liked "change" as a slogan, going back to Clinton in 1992. "Hope" in 2008 was a bit more understandable after eight years of the Bush administration, even if it was just exploiting a vague sentiment, but I digress.

"Forward" works fine, especially for an incumbent coming off a rough four years. No, it's not a specific policy, but that's not what we're talking abouty here any more than "Country First" alluded to a specific policy. "Forward" means not returning to the ways of the Bush years; tragically, a very large part of Obama's presidency to date has been repairing the damage left over from the last guy, which Obama's campaign knows is obvious enough to make Forward a viable slogan.

Anyway, screw slogans. They are the lowest common denominator in a campaign.

[Drewish]

Coito, are you a Romney supporter?

[Coito ergo sum]

So then you're equally exasperated about Romney constantly talking about "REAL change".

Yes, but it's not a fucking slogan. But, yes, if he calls for change and doesn't specify "to what" then it fricking burns my ass.

I would be. I for one never liked "change" as a slogan, going back to Clinton in 1992. "Hope" in 2008 was a bit more understandable after eight years of the Bush administration, even if it was just exploiting a vague sentiment, but I digress.

"Forward" works fine, especially for an incumbent coming off a rough four years. No, it's not a specific policy, but that's not what we're talking abouty here any more than "Country First" alluded to a specific policy. "Forward" means not returning to the ways of the Bush years; tragically, a very large part of Obama's presidency to date has been repairing the damage left over from the last guy, which Obama's campaign knows is obvious enough to make Forward a viable slogan.

Anyway, screw slogans. They are the lowest common denominator in a campaign.

I fucking hate them. And, Forward is repulsive.

Literally, I want to know what his vision of 'Merka is... anyone know what "fundamental change" he wants to move "Forward" to?