2012 US Presidential Election

[Nikkoru]

Romney's economic plan makes no logical sense -- Obama's does.  That's really all that matters.

[jaybug]

Romney's economic plan makes no logical sense -- Obama's does.  That's really all that matters.

Say what? You been smoking that good B.C. Bud or what? If Obama's plan is so good, why do we still have 8% unemployment? Obama's plan is as good as Jimmy Carter's plan was. "There you go again."

[Nikkoru]

Romney's economic plan makes no logical sense -- Obama's does.  That's really all that matters.

Say what? You been smoking that good B.C. Bud or what? If Obama's plan is so good, why do we still have 8% unemployment? Obama's plan is as good as Jimmy Carter's plan was. "There you go again."

Obama, like Carter, was tested by economic forces over which he has limited control, an economic depression, an abysmal congress, and the Jaybugs of the world to boot. Looking at economic growth during the Carter years, it was quite strong. In fact, the average growth in real GNP of 3.1 percent, which is consider healthy economic conditions -- he was beleaguered by the 79' energy crisis and increased inflation, both of which peaked in and were declining by the end of his presidency and both he had little to combat with. His energy and health platforms were far thinking, and would've resolved many contemporary issues, but he lacked the political support to implement them.

Obama's platform makes perfect sense, the illusion is that that alone -- or any government action -- will create instant meaningful changes in what is an inherently flawed and tumultuous economy based on short-sighted profiteering. 

The fact that Romney claims he's going to create 12 million new jobs, cut the deficit while reducing taxes substantially and maintaining inordinately expensive military, social programs like education, and a Obamacare-like health care system, is beyond belief -- filled with such wishful thinking and fuzzy specifics as to seem only possible if you look at it from a distance and in a very dark room. Mostly likely what you'll see is impoverished states having to take on more pressure and increase their own taxes to deal with the dramatic cut in services from the federal government, an increase in the deficit, and more political confusion in Washington if that's at all possible.  Obama's plan should raise taxes or cut more than he's claimed, but invests in the two aspects governments can still accomplish and are necessary for real growth -- education and infrastructure. Its Keynesian economics for a post-industrial society, and it's reasonable but inadequate to address the combined weight of globalization, economic inequality, and modernization on the working class.

[pantywraith]

While Obama's plan might not be the best, it is a far sight better than Romney's

Romney's consists of cut taxes 20%
......
Profit.

He has refused to say what his plan is, how it balances the budget, or give any real detail other than it is not Obama's plan. In fact that seems to be the only thing he is running on, that he is not Obama!

If trickle down economics worked, why has the middle class worse off now than back when carter was in office?

[Ixarku]

If trickle down economics worked, why has the middle class worse off now than back when carter was in office?

Because it's the Democrats fault.  Every Republican knows that, duh.

[megido-rev.M]

He has refused to say what his plan is, how it balances the budget, or give any real detail other than it is not Obama's plan. In fact that seems to be the only thing he is running on, that he is not Obama!

All the while claiming his own plan would make a phantom 3M jobs. Plain ludicrous.

[jaybug]

I always love your revisionist history lessons Nikk. Too bad you didn't live through the Carter years. Quick go put on another sweater. Between death taxes and the Democrats killing the old GI bill, I didn't have a chance at getting a college education when I graduated high school back in 1982.

The whole of the 70s sucked. Richard Nixon's ill advised "Price Freezes", Vietnam, two, count them Oil Shortages, where my parents had to wait for hours to buy gas on an odd numbered day, because that's how the numbers came up on their car's license plates.

It took Reagan to make it all better. And yes, trickle down works. It works better for Americans if you stop buying Made in China. Because if trickle down doesn't work, how did China get to be such an economic powerhouse?

Obama's plan has been to have a stimulus plan that would pump in billions of dollars into the economy, just in time for things to start looking up for the next elections. So how did that work for you in 2010? (Republican landslide in the House) I see lots of signs on roadways that indicate the money came from the stimulus plan, but as an example, highway 126 from Florence, Oregon to Eugene, Oregon used stimulus money, great, it needed it, but they cut corners with the paint. It was a dark and drizzly night Friday night, but the only way to tell where the painted lines were was that they were shiny black, instead of the matte black of the asphalt. (which is not Obama's fault, but if you are going to borrow and spend billions, do it right, not so that it leaves a dangerous road through mountains)

Also, Clinton's labor secretary Robert Reich, (of whom I am a fan, and he autographed his book for me, which I still have), said that back during Clinton's presidency, America needed 250,000 new jobs per month just to keep up with current growth. Assuming the growth rate is the same, we are a larger nation, so 250,000 will slowly cause the unemployment rate to increase. Has Obama done better than 180,000 new jobs in a month?

Why would anyone say what they will do, when congress has a say in any plan proposed by any president? Would Romney want to say something that will offend the GOP base now, so that they will stay home in droves and forget about the election? 

So far Obama has been better friends to the 1% than to Joe and Jane Citizen. The 5 biggest banks now account for something like 23% of GDP. TBTF. Say it loud and proud you lefties you. Too Big To Fail! Borrowed money goes to fund crappy banks at taxpayer expense, and a lousy bureaucracy, and does little to help the everyman.

[zherok]

Why would anyone say what they will do, when congress has a say in any plan proposed by any president? Would Romney want to say something that will offend the GOP base now, so that they will stay home in droves and forget about the election?

He's been running for almost eight years. He's spent his entire campaign this last four running as a zero-calorie alternative to Obama; absolutely no substance, but hey, he's not Obama! The numbers he throws out are often arbitrary (his tax rate cut, his deduction amount, the jobs he'll create merely by being President, the growth of the economy for likewise.) They're incredibly ambitious, and in many cases, mathematically impossible.

I don't really care how badly he wants to be President. No one doubts he really feels he's put in the time enough to get this feather in his cap. But that doesn't make you presidential material.

The issue is about what he intends to if he wins. And so far all he's offered is he'll be not Obama, but manage to keep everything positive about what Obama intends to do, while simultaneously slashing revenue across the board, saving medicare, increasing the military budget (just in case Russia collapses back into the USSR and we suddenly find ourselves in another Cold War), massively creating jobs merely by the aura of confidence radiating from his being, and doing something different than Obama would with Syria (as per the VP debate, this appears to be mostly the same thing but with more dick swinging.)

And what does he stand for? Contrast this guy with the one running now. Is he for immigration rights, or the guy who thought self-deportation was a great idea? These are things that matter, and I don't think his investment banker background suddenly gives him a pass on solidifying what he actually intends to do on social issues.

[AceHigh]

And yes, trickle down works. It works better for Americans if you stop buying Made in China. Because if trickle down doesn't work, how did China get to be such an economic powerhouse?

Because China did the right thing and has control over it's currency. The government, not private banks. With such control the can keep their currency artificially low making China always more competitive. Then you add some other factors like horrible working conditions and salary and you get the Chinese business model.

Trickle economy is a scam that will not work, because nothing trickles down, just ends up in Swiss bank accounts.

[vicious796]

Ryan explained the economic plan better than Romney did - force Congress' hand, something the current administration has failed to do, repeatedly, even when their party had control of Congress. The general idea is to do pretty much what Reagan did in the 80s - say, flatly, we're dropping taxes by x, make up for it with cuts and the closure of loopholes. Everything is on the table except for military spending, apparently, which means there's a large pie to pick from.

Then again, the only place they're going to get any real money from is social security and medicare, but apparently they're kind've-sort've-off the table. The Republican ticket can't possibly revoke benefits to those already seeing them so, in essence, they can only remove benefits for people under 50-ish.

The "goal" with the tax cut is to promote small businesses who regularly make 250k or more in a year of profit. For fear of the massive corporate taxes in America, these people elect to claim it all as personal income, instead. The problem is that this plan doesn't actually address the problem - the corporate tax rates - and the only people who were talking about it before were Jon Huntsman, who was quickly neutered, and Rick Santorum, who was bat-shit crazy.

The tax cuts are really benefiting venture capitalists, which is good, and the extreme wealthy, which is not so good. You want venture capitalists to have more money to invest in more small businesses to make more money. You don't really want Paris Hilton to have more money, but it's a side effect of the drug. Whether or not the side effect is worse than the illness is up for debate. Personally, I'd rather most VCs have money and Paris buy a new bag than Paris buying that bag while the VCs buckle down.

Obama's plan has not, will not, and can not work in America. The federal government can not provide long-lasting jobs en masse. Most of his favorable job statistics come from temporary work, specifically in construction, that lasted less than 6 months. The whole notion that the fed can come in, buy up businesses, and put them back on their feet is a little off. The only American car manufacturer that is doing very well right now is Ford - and they didn't want the money in the first place. Remember, Ford was forced to take the loan.

GM is still not "out of the water" and though their sales have increased slightly, that's more to do with the plans they had before the bailout actually working now. The licensing of Fiat, the rerelease of the Camaro, bringing back the Challenger and the Dart, etc. All of these things are things that the car community has known about for years - the Camaro and Challenger, respectively, for at least a decade.

What about the other companies? More busts than not. Let's not even talk about the green jobs he was going to create with the fed that died out.

Basically, they're both wrong for different reasons and, IMHO, Obama is more wrong than Romney - just not by much. If you want jobs created, you have to let the people with the money to create them see profit in it. The only way the government can honestly promote permanent job growth is through tax cuts - they're just planning on cutting the wrong taxes.

[Burkingam]

The problem with cutting taxes isn't that billionaires will become even richer. That I don't mind. Good for them if rich people are rich. The problem is that then we don't have any money to help those people who need it a heck of a lot more than the riches.

[jaybug]

Q: How many hundreds of thousands of government bureaucrats does it take to cut checks to those who desperately need the help? Seems that as of now it's almost on a 1:1 ratio. And does every cabinet department need to do what every other department is doing?

Obama can't do it because his party would never allow it. And he does not fight his own party. I think that with all that the conservatives have been trying to remove Romney, that he will probably be able to fight his own party for the betterment of America. yeah right sure.

But I have always believed that it takes a maverick Republican to accomplish the most for the American people. Lincoln, feed the slaves. T. Roosevelt created the national park system, and broke the trusts that were monopolizing all the commodities people used, and brokered peace between Russia and Japan. Former Oregon governor Tom McCall got us the bottle bill, which many states have since adopted, we return cans and bottles for cash money instead of throwing them away on the roads. He also took one of the dirtiest rivers in America, and turned it into one of the cleanest large rivers in the world.

What have democrats done in this time? Grown government beyond our ability to pay for it. yippee.

[vicious796]

The problem with cutting taxes isn't that billionaires will become even richer. That I don't mind. Good for them if rich people are rich. The problem is that then we don't have any money to help those people who need it a heck of a lot more than the riches.

I just don't see that as the government's problem - that's a community and state-level problem, not a federal one. Why are homeless people in New York City a financial responsibility of the citizens of New Mexico? There's over 2,000 miles between them!

There are issues that are a federal concern - but 95% of social issues aren't. Those are things that should be controlled on the small scale with loose federal oversight and guidelines - at the most.

[Burkingam]

I just don't see that as the government's problem - that's a community and state-level problem, not a federal one. Why are homeless people in New York City a financial responsibility of the citizens of New Mexico? There's over 2,000 miles between them!

There are issues that are a federal concern - but 95% of social issues aren't. Those are things that should be controlled on the small scale with loose federal oversight and guidelines - at the most.

You ask why we should do something about it, for the same reason that you should can an ambulance if you see someone being hit by a car even if you don't know him and that it costs you minutes on you cellphone package and the same reason that if you see a little girl you don't know drowning in a pound you should jump and try to save her even if it means ruining your 500$ shoes. Alleviating suffering is the responsibility of anybody who has the power to do so. This includes members of the communities, rich people, the state, the feds and in fact the responsibility isn't even limited to people of their country. Being ethical means doing the choice which will have the better consequences on everybody affected. Inaction is also a choice with consequences.

[vicious796]

I just don't see that as the government's problem - that's a community and state-level problem, not a federal one. Why are homeless people in New York City a financial responsibility of the citizens of New Mexico? There's over 2,000 miles between them!

There are issues that are a federal concern - but 95% of social issues aren't. Those are things that should be controlled on the small scale with loose federal oversight and guidelines - at the most.

You ask why we should do something about it, for the same reason that you should can an ambulance if you see someone being hit by a car even if you don't know him and that it costs you minutes on you cellphone package and the same reason that if you see a little girl you don't know drowning in a pound you should jump and try to save her even if it means ruining your 500$ shoes. Alleviating suffering is the responsibility of anybody who has the power to do anything about it. This includes members of the communities, rich people, the state, the feds and in fact the responsibility isn't even limited to people of their country. Being ethical means doing the choice which will have the better consequences on everybody affected. Inaction is also a choice with consequences.

I never said not to do anything about it - but I'm not on my phone all day calling ambulances for people across the country. I'm not getting in my car and driving to Oregon, stopping at every lake and watching out for drowning children.

My point is now, has been, and will continue to be that our federal government is too large. When put practically, it's obvious. Most federal branches have state-level equivalents in every single state. There's nothing wrong with having oversight but there is something wrong with being redundant. How many people does it take to set state minimums for education and environmental issues? It certainly doesn't require the hundreds and thousands of jobs they currently have under employ. Jobs that have excellent benefits and a guaranteed 3.5% raise every year. Jobs that are nearly impossible to be fired from.

The size and power of the fed is enormous. It wouldn't be a problem if the entire US all thought, acted, and lived the same - but we don't. It's the same reason I support a universal healthcare system but only on a state level with federally mandated minimums.

[AceHigh]

Different people make opinions based on different perceptions and since I don't feel like trolling this month, I will try to put out not just arguments, but comparison of our perceptions so that we see why our opinions are so different.

So Burks opinions are governed by a strong sense of ethics and solidarity. I would say that me and Vic are on the same side here and our opinions are guided by the sense of fairness.

Now let's try this on individual level:
You have been working hard your whole life and you managed to financially secure yourself as well as earning that extra to afford luxuries. Another man was lazy during his first period of life and as a result lost the meritocratic race in the job arena as well as making obviously bad choices like crime or drugs resulting him in becoming homeless.
Is it ethically to help a fellow man that has it much worse than you? People with strong sense of solidarity would say that it is you duty to help those less fortunate. People like me and I assume Vic too would ask the question "why should the hard working man be penalized for doing the right choices in life while the losers be rewarded?" as the sense of fairness dictates me to feel.

That was a simple example, because it was on an individual level, but it stays the same no matter how far we go to the macro level.

Some local communities, states and countries became wealthy thanks to their effort, good policies and practical economy models. What grave crimes have they committed, that they should be forced to give away a portion of their wealth to maintain failing communities, states or countries?

The way I see it both arguments are logical, but are seen from different perception and different moral values. The only thing left is agree to disagree.

[vicious796]

The common counter is "what about people who did nothing to deserve what they've got?" The men who worked real jobs at manufacturing plants that saw their jobs go overseas and the like. Once again, though, I say communities and local organizations can help those people - not people from across the country.

I also don't believe it's so much as "agree to disagree" as it is "agree to disagree until more experience is had". Nothing against Burk or anyone else who argues against me on this topic, but I honestly don't know anyone who has worked for more than a few years to pay their bills that differs from my opinion. The vast majority of people I know who are pro-federal takeover and social programs are the young (as in less than 5 years out of school) who have not quite felt the sting of income taxes and the feeling of not being able to get whatever you want because you have a family to consider and limited income.

At least, that's the feel I get from Americans. I don't take what Europeans say on the topic very seriously (no offense, Ace) because they simply can not relate to the scale. For some reason, folks don't understand what they're asking out of the US is exactly what they don't want from the EU.

[occasional]

Why are homeless people in New York City a financial responsibility of the citizens of New Mexico?

Because they are American. Unless each states becomes a country, everyone is responsible for everyone.

[AceHigh]

No no, I do get it. You always say that I should not compare my country to yours due to the difference in size. At the same time you advocate to decentralize the government to the point of autonomous regions, so they can function on the same scale as the small countries. In fact I never disagreed on that fact, but it was fun to point out the incompetence of US leaders of failing to establish that, in fact the go in the opposite direction where the government is more centralized. Well, at least USA started out as "united states" and slowly turning into a huge unitary country with the negative effects following. EU on other hands started as "failed attempt of a union" and on that poor implementation slide even further in one huge clusterfuck.

Why are homeless people in New York City a financial responsibility of the citizens of New Mexico?

Because they are American. Unless each state becomes a country, everyone is responsible for everyone.

Look up on the difference between a union of states, a federation and a unitary country. Those are different for a reason. Sure they evolve from one for to another, like for example "United Kingdoms" is in fact a unitary state now, but was not always so. As far as I know USA started out as a loose union of sovereign states and is in a slow transition to a unitary country. I don't have a problem of people wanting one or another, but at the present time the particular union in question doesn't qualify for your statement.

Remove the states, make them nothing more than regions, have identical law everywhere and only then can you claim that everyone is responsible for everyone.

[jaybug]

And the red states are already forking over big bucks to the blue states, so they can run their social welfare programs. California, the 7th largest economy, takes in more federal dollars than they give back. So the people in Wyoming have to pay for California's extravagance. You can look it up for your self, I will not hold your hand for you, which states are net providers, and which are net takers.

Too many homeless in Eugene are drug addicted, and or mentally unstable at best, and should be committed to a psychiatric hospital. They stand on the corner at every busy intersection waiting for hand outs from drivers passing by. They are there in good times and in bad. I'd tell you about the bunch of them in one place who were taking turns using a wheel chair to get more money from people, but you wouldn't care.

NYC has the highest taxes I know of in America, why isn't there enough money for them to take care of their homeless? Why do they need money from New Mexico, don't they get to try to take care of their own homeless problem?