Will a Romney/Ryan win save us?

[Moontanman]

Better the devil you know is, I believe, how the saying goes.

 

 

Indeed, at this point that is exactly how i see it...

[iNow]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/06/the-massive-policy-gap-between-obama-and-romney/

 

The policy gap, put simply, is this: Obama has proposed policies. Mitt Romney hasn’t.

It is important to say that this exists separately from any judgments about the quality of either man’s policies. You can believe every idea Obama has proposed is a socialist horror inspired by Kenyan revenge fantasies. This would, I think, be a strange judgment to reach about plans to invest in infrastructure, temporarily double the size of the payroll tax cuts and raise the marginal tax rate on income over $250,000 by 4.5 percentage points. Nevertheless, Obama’s policy proposals are sufficiently detailed that they can be fully assessed and conclusions — even odd ones — confidently drawn. Romney’s policies are not.

 

Romney’s offerings are more like simulacra of policy proposals. They look, from far away, like policy proposals. They exist on his Web site, under the heading of “Issues,” with subheads like “Tax” and “Health care.” But read closely, they are not policy proposals. They do not include the details necessary to judge Romney’s policy ideas. In many cases, they don’t contain any details at all.

Take taxes. Romney has promised a “permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates,” alongside a grab bag of other goodies, like the end of “the death tax.” Glenn Hubbard, his top economic adviser, has promised that the plan will “broaden the tax base to ensure that tax reform is revenue-neutral.”

 

It is in the distance between “cut in marginal rates” and “revenue-neutral” that all the policy happens. That is where Romney must choose which deductions to cap or close. It’s where we learn what his plan means for the mortgage-interest deduction, and the tax-free status of employer health plans and the Child Tax Credit. It is where we learn, in other words, what his plan means for people like you and me. And it is empty. Romney does not name even one deduction that he would cap or close. He even admitted, in an interview with CNBC, that his plan “can’t be scored because those details have to be worked out.”

 

Compare that to Obama’s tax plan, which you can read on pages 37 through 40 of his 2013 budget proposal (though not, it should be said, on his campaign Web site, which is even less detailed than Romney’s). In these pages, Obama tells you exactly how he would like to raise taxes on the rich. He proposes allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for income over $250,000, capping itemized deductions for wealthy Americans at 28 percent, taxing carried interest as ordinary income and more. The total tax increase, compared to current policy, is $1.5 trillion.

 

Whether you think it’s a good idea or a bad idea to raise taxes on the rich, Obama has told you exactly what he wants to do. Conversely, whether you think it’s a good idea or a bad idea to cut marginal tax rates by broadening the base, Romney hasn’t actually told you what he wants to do.

The same is true in other policy areas. In health care, for instance,

[JohnStu]

Nope, they will not save you guys. USA was a warmonger, leechy government since Lincoon.

 

 

USA has bases everywhere, their purpose is to war, war, war. They treat the country like a country in a computer game.

 

I think a better question than will a Romney/Ryan win save us would be "Will I keep voting for the same group of people and keep paying my heavy taxes"

[toastywombel]

As others have stated, Save us from what?

 

Of course there are many issues facing our nation Rigney, but I suppose it might just boil down to what a voter prioritizes.

 

National Debt, civil liberties, taxes, scientific advancement, climate change, healthcare, jobs , the economy, and many other issues come to mind. What issues matter most to you?

 

Only after answering that question can the topic be properly established.

 

Personally I believe the United States seems to be on the decline, and in many ways humanity as a whole. Not to say we aren't going to survive, or that humanity isn't exploring new possibilities currently. However, the next 100 years will present us with some of the most difficult and large-scale problems possibly ever.

 

But Rigney my guess is that we would disagree on what exactly the problems are.

Edited August 15, 2012 by toastywombel

[rigney]

As others have stated, Save us from what?

 

Of course there are many issues facing our nation Rigney, but I suppose it might just boil down to what a voter prioritizes.

 

National Debt, civil liberties, taxes, scientific advancement, climate change, healthcare, jobs , the economy, and many other issues come to mind. What issues matter most to you?

 

Only after answering that question can the topic be properly established.

 

Personally I believe the United States seems to be on the decline, and in many ways humanity as a whole. Not to say we aren't going to survive, or that humanity isn't exploring new possibilities currently. However, the next 100 years will present us with some of the most difficult and large-scale problems possibly ever.

 

But Rigney my guess is that we would disagree on what exactly the problems are.

Likely, since I disagree to some extent on almost any issue. Not being a politician and little more than a remedial thinker, I usually find myself in a defensive position each time I open my mouth. But when I became aware of Biden's blatherings yesterday about Republicans unchaining wall street to continue raping the middle class while putting blacks back in chains again, I found the statement sad and morbidly humorous. Only then did I realized there was still hope for me as a politician. Seems you don't have to be smart, articulate or an intellectual. Just pretend you know what's going on and you can find ways of fooling the people into voting for you. Well, I suppose my gut feeling will just have to wait until after the elections in November.

 

I'll start with the fact that I am not eligible to vote in the US election, so don't have a dog in the fight, so to speak, but:

 

You can believe a ladder is bucket all you like, but it doesn't make the ladder a bucket.

 

communism has a definition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

http://dictionary.re...rowse/communism

"a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state."

 

As does socialism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

http://dictionary.re...rowse/socialism

"a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."

 

The policies of the United States Democratic Party are not describable as either communist or socialist under standard definitions of those political ideologies. You can say that you disagree with their policies for reasons x, y and z, but to simply state you don't like the healthcare bill or the taxation policy simply because it is "socialistic" or "communistic" is incorrect, and to do so after repeated correction does make you appear ignorant. It would be more conducive to discussion to point out actual differences in policies between the two parties and explain why you prefer one to the other, or even point out why both are inadequate...

 

E.g. http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Democratic_Party_Health_Care.htm

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/republican_party_health_care.htm

 

point out what you like and don't like about each, perhaps?

Wish I could point a finger(s) at my disappointments with the democratic party this time around. But then, I didn't vote for Goldwater, Nixon or Johnson either.

Edited August 15, 2012 by rigney

[CaptainPanic]

Likely, since I disagree to some extent on almost any issue. Not being a politician and little more than a remedial thinker, I usually find myself in a defensive position each time I open my mouth. But when I became aware of Biden's blatherings yesterday about Republicans unchaining wall street to continue raping the middle class while putting blacks back in chains again, I found the statement sad and morbidly humorous. Only then did I realized there was still hope for me as a politician. Seems you don't have to be smart, articulate or an intellectual. Just pretend you know what's going on and you can find ways of fooling the people into voting for you. Well, I suppose my gut feeling will just have to wait until after the elections in November.

 

You disagree with Biden, based on what?

It was Gingrich - a Republican - who deregulated Wall Street! And look at the mess the financial world is in now.

 

(Even Gingrich himself admits it was a mistake!)

[rigney]

You disagree with Biden, based on what?

It was Gingrich - a Republican - who deregulated Wall Street! And look at the mess the financial world is in now.

 

(Even Gingrich himself admits it was a mistake!)

Only his tactics. I'm not questioning Gingrich's screw up. The full length of the video of his trip to Danville, Va. was almost an hour long and rhetorically boring. This is a much shorter version, but gets right to his duplicitous and distasteful point. And someone

questions the Republican scare tactics?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/14/biden-romneys-wall-street-will-put-yall-back-in-chains/

Edited August 15, 2012 by rigney

[CaptainPanic]

Only his tactics. I'm not questioning Gingrich's screw up. The full length of the video of his trip to Danville, Va. was almost an hour long and rhetorically boring. This is a much shorter version, but gets right to the duplitious point.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/14/biden-romneys-wall-street-will-put-yall-back-in-chains/

Ok. So, you agree with Biden, but you disagree with his choice of words. Do I understand you correct?

[rigney]

Ok. So, you agree with Biden, but you disagree with his choice of words. Do I understand you correct?

I thought his bleeding heart dissertation went over just fine to a mesmerized group of listeners. But agreeing or disagreeing with the overall speech is a question you will have to answer for yourself.

[CaptainPanic]

I thought his bleeding heart dissertation went over just fine to a mesmerized group of listeners. But agreeing or disagreeing with the overall speech is a question you will have to answer for yourself.

I don't understand you.

 

English is only my 2nd language, and you sometimes choose a some particular words that I don't get. In this case, I'm lost. Could you repeat it with different words, please?

[rigney]

I don't understand you.

 

English is only my 2nd language, and you sometimes choose a some particular words that I don't get. In this case, I'm lost. Could you repeat it with different words, please?

You're not lost, but perhaps might think that I am. I probably should have expressed him as a gas bag expelling a warm breeze. I've listened to Biden make speeches for years and all very tactfully given. Only problem is, they have always been total BS. Heck. I thought he might be prepping for his doctorate again. He does have one, doesn't he? Edited August 15, 2012 by rigney

[Phi for All]

To me, it comes down to what works and what doesn't. We all (I hope) can agree that the US has been doing some fundamentally wrong things for quite a while. We've made some errors that are piling up on us and it needs to stop. So why vote in the guys who want to keep doing things the same way?

 

The most frustrating part of this discussion to me is that we're obviously in the throes of capitalism gone amok. We all know that our democracy is like a set of scales that needs balance to benefit the country as a whole. Repealing regulations like the Glass-Steagall Act, enacting laws that favor corporations too much have tipped the scales. We now see ultra-wealthy companies that don't hire Americans yet expect us to have the money to buy their products. They don't want to pay their share of taxes but want us to maintain the infrastructure they gain the most from. And to top it all off, there are way too many people like rigney in this country that have the colossally intransigent opinion that, in this time of the most capitalistic political system the US has ever spawned, we are somehow, in some indefinably impossible and illogical way, bordering on f***ing Communism.

 

Let.

 

That.

 

Sink.

 

In.

 

 

 

 

We had eight years of Bush horribleness that trashed the balanced budget and took us from some of the greatest surpluses we've ever seen to some of the worst deficit spending we've ever seen. Obama has only had four years to try to fix that. I say we give him another four years before we even think about handing things back over to the party that seems to like it when we're all messed up.

[ecoli]

I don't understand you.

 

understanding isn't Rigney's goal, unfortunately.

 

To me, it comes down to what works and what doesn't. We all (I hope) can agree that the US has been doing some fundamentally wrong things for quite a while. We've made some errors that are piling up on us and it needs to stop. So why vote in the guys who want to keep doing things the same way?

Is there anyone running who really wants fundamental change? (Obama platitudes aside). If there were, they'd surely get squashed by the political-industrial complex before they reached high office.

 

The most frustrating part of this discussion to me is that we're obviously in the throes of capitalism gone amok.

calling Mercantilism Capitalism doesn't make it Capitalism... but I digress.

[Phi for All]

Is there anyone running who really wants fundamental change? (Obama platitudes aside). If there were, they'd surely get squashed by the political-industrial complex before they reached high office.

Going back to the kind of tax structures and governmental goals we had when we considered ourselves prosperous (in the main) would probably be considered a fundamental change, but I'd be willing to bet a majority of Americans would like to see that kind of prosperity again. You know, back when companies and corporations made good profits, workers made good wages and the scales were in better balance.

 

calling Mercantilism Capitalism doesn't make it Capitalism... but I digress.

Mercantilism, that's over there near Neomercantilism, on the border of Communism, right?

[rigney]

Posted Today, 10:30 AM

CaptainPanic, on 15 August 2012 - 09:44 AM, said:

I don't understand you.

Ecoli: understanding isn't Rigney's goal, unfortunately.

 

You're right and simply have to call a spade a spade of which I am one. I just don't know enough to do anything about it. Each of us know that we are being used by both political parties and don't have a grasp on either. Sheeple! I believe is the word used to define us. We definitly need a champion for the good of America, but unless a way is found to contain politicians to a single term in office, this ka-ka will go on forever and the champ will always wind up being a chump. Man or woman, when people get drunk on power, it's one hell of a tug trying to get that power back from them. Right now I'm looking at Republicans as the lesser of two evils

Edited August 15, 2012 by ecoli
fixed quote tag

[Moontanman]

Posted Today, 10:30 AM

CaptainPanic, on 15 August 2012 - 09:44 AM, said:

I don't understand you.

Ecoli: understanding isn't Rigney's goal, unfortunately.

You're right and simply have to call a spade a spade of which I am one. I just don't know enough to do anything about it. Each of us know that we are being used by both political parties and don't have a grasp on either. Sheeple! I believe is the word used to define us. We definitly need a champion for the good of America, but unless a way is found to contain politicians to a single term in office, this ka-ka will go on forever and the champ will always wind up being a chump. Man or woman, when people get drunk on power, it's one hell of a tug trying to get that power back from them. Right now I'm looking at Republicans as the lesser of two evils.

 

 

So a political party that supports candidates that have to either lie or be stupid is preferable to everyone else? A political party that is supported by and actively panders to people who promote the taking away of the rights of it's citizens can be trusted? A political party that is the author of our woes, supports and even promotes religious division and persecution of people whose beliefs are different is the lesser of two evils? Democrats must barbecue children at fund raisers... no wait, they are communist? Horse feathers...

 

Oh wait I forgot, a political party that is anti science, denies reality in favor of political and financial gain as well... it would be a funny plot for a b science fiction movie if it weren't a nightmare we can't wake from...

Edited August 15, 2012 by Moontanman

[iNow]

CaptainPanic - The context of rigney's comments is that Biden gave a speech yesterday where he said that Romney/Ryan simply wants to "unshackle" Wall Street by removing regulations so business would grow and we'd all magically become prosperous... As if the current incredibly minor, practically non-existent regulations on Wall Street is what's holding back a full and forceful economic recovery.

 

Getting caught in the moment, Biden continued this rhetorical momentum and after saying that Romney/Ryan want to unshackle Wall Street he followed up an "off the cuff" comment that, "They're going to put y'all back in chains."

 

This was then put through the manufactured hysteria mill on all of the right-wing conservative networks all day where outrage and anger were stoked and the easily manipulated in our country were once again spoon fed anger and vitriol through spin and propaganda in a self-reinforcing loop.

 

 

http://www.cnbc.com/id/48668668

 

Vice President Joe Biden triggered outrage from Mitt Romney on Tuesday by saying the Republican would put people "in chains" if elected president as the U.S. presidential campaign took an ugly turn.

 

"Mr. President, take your campaign of division and anger and hate back to Chicago and let us get about rebuilding and reuniting America," Romney told a large crowd in the battleground state of Ohio.

 

The election campaign between Democratic President Barack Obama and Romney has been dominated by negative tactics on both sides, but still Biden's comment was jarring and one that Republicans felt brought up racial overtones.

 

The gaffe-prone Biden appeared to be talking about Romney's complaints about banking regulations that the Republican says are limiting credit for small businesses. Biden told a rally in Danville, Virginia, that if elected Romney would cut regulations on banks to the detriment of consumers.

 

"They're going to put y'all back in chains," Biden told the crowd, a comment that for some people could evoke memories of slavery in America.

 

When Republicans responded with outrage, Biden tried to put the statement in context in Wytheville, Virginia, saying Republican lawmakers themselves have talked about attempts to pursue limited government to "unshackle our economy."

 

"The last time these guys unshackled the economy, to use their term, they put the middle class in shackles. That's how we got where we are," said Biden.

 

The Romney campaign, eager to portray the Obama team as willing to say anything to get elected, quickly inserted a reaction to Biden into Romney's remarks in Chillicothe, making clear he blamed Obama.

 

"His campaign and his surrogates have made wild and reckless accusations that disgrace the office of the presidency. Another outrageous charge just came a few hours ago in Virginia. And the White House sinks a little bit lower," Romney said.

 

 

Perhaps that helps clarify. It's not because English is not your native tongue. You didn't understand because US political discourse if fucking crazy town right now and doesn't even manage to raise above a toddler's level of maturity.

[Phi for All]

Ah, so the Republicans get to say they're going to take the Democrat shackles off business owners and that's OK, but the Democrats don't get to say the Republicans are going to put workers in chains because "chains" evoke slavery while "shackles" don't. Got it.

 

I think the Republican efforts to destroy public education have been working rather well, and this just proves it.

[iNow]

It's particularly awesome how they continually blame the other side for doing the exact same things they are doing themselves. "How dare you continue to divide the country." Uhuh... Pot kettle black. Can we talk about substance now, or will we forever be bombarded with playground level insults and invective?

[John Cuthber]

CaptainPanic - The context of rigney's comments is that Biden gave a speech yesterday where he said that Romney/Ryan simply wants to "unshackle" Wall Street by removing regulations so business would grow and we'd all magically become prosperous...

 

 

I thought that they tried that and the result was lots of sub-prime lending followed by a massive crash in the world economy.

So it would seem that, while Romney + Ryan might save us from a world where your chances of getting illness treated depend on whether or not you have a credit card, it won't save us from a messed up economy.

[ecoli]

It's particularly awesome how they continually blame the other side for doing the exact same things they are doing themselves. "How dare you continue to divide the country." Uhuh... Pot kettle black. Can we talk about substance now, or will we forever be bombarded with playground level insults and invective?

 

+1 though figuring out which side does this more would be a fool's errand, IMO.

 

I thought that they tried that and the result was lots of sub-prime lending followed by a massive crash in the world economy.

well the problem is that its obvious that businesses growing, hiring more people, etc is beneficial to the economy. Regulations which stifle business growth is obviously bad. However, the question is whether regulations (or repeal thereof) are designed to actually grow the economy or line the pocket of wall street traders and CEOs (which seems to have marginal benefit to economic growth).

 

Now if Romney/Ryan supported the passage (or repeal) of regulations that contributed to actual business growth (rather than the latter) that would be something I could get behind.

[Phi for All]

It's particularly awesome how they continually blame the other side for doing the exact same things they are doing themselves. "How dare you continue to divide the country." Uhuh... Pot kettle black. Can we talk about substance now, or will we forever be bombarded with playground level insults and invective?

That's been a particularly effective arrow in the Republican quiver for quite some time now. In fact, you can usually determine exactly what the Republicans are guilty of by listening to what they accuse the Democrats of. They're now accusing Obama of sending tax dollars to foreign countries during the stimulus to cover up their stripping of Obama's "Buy American" provision from that same package.

 

Better watch out, the Republicans have been accusing the Obama of running the dirtiest campaign ever, so if they run true to form it's going to get even worse than it already is. I'm sure by November Obama is going to be a gay intellectual Nazi abortion doctor who supports science. * GASP *

[ecoli]

Phi - you had me in Obama's camp until you revealed him as a science supporter. *gasp*!

[Phi for All]

Phi - you had me in Obama's camp until you revealed him as a science supporter. *gasp*!

Don't forget he's an intellectual, too. Almost as bad as that Rhodes scholar Clinton!

[rigney]

+1 though figuring out which side does this more would be a fool's errand, IMO.

Alas! Poor Byden "oops" Yorick, I knew him well Horatio, long before he discovered playground insults and the invictive antics of politics that has brought him to this bitter and unglorious end. A jesters calling without a frivolus world to perform in, what a waste. Edited August 15, 2012 by rigney