2012 Election Thread

[nab]

Found this while reading comments on the Ryan selection.  I lol'ed

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
― John Rogers

[PIE-GUY]

Ryan scares me. His budget ideas are so far to the right Boehner has shunned them.

I hear this a lot, but I've never heard why. I mean, the Ryan budget doesn't balance until 2040. That doesn't seem very extreme to me. The Medicare vouchers is the only "radical" difference and while it may not be perfect, it's the only attempt at changing a system that everyone readily admits is bankrupting us. But no one on the left is willing to put forth a credible plan to fix it. Like Tim Geithner to Ryan a couple months ago: "We're not coming before you to tell you we have a long term solution to fix the debt. What we are saying is we don't like yours."

The first "Ryan Budget" back in 2008 that all the right wingers loved so much and that is credited with his rise to political stardom called for the elimination of both Medicare and Medicaid plus the privatization of 1/3 of Social Security funds (a step back for the 50% he had been advocating for years... Let's not forget he was the biggest proponent of SS privatization back in W's second term).

Not only did he want to kill both Medicare and medicaid, but he wanted to kill the tax break for corporations who provide healthcare to their employees. He wanted to replace all this with $2500 "vouchers" for people to use to buy their own insurance... Because $2500 will always be enough even in the 20 years down the road plan.

How a person advocating for killing both Medicare and Medicaid doesn't scare you, I don't know. But it scares the shit outta me.

Look, I fully admit to being a liberal. I believe the inalianable rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" mean we cannot let people die because they can't afford healthcare. I believe it to my core.

Ryan believes Ayn Rand had it right. Selfishness is his core value. That scares the shit outta me.

As for the liberal solutions to the deficit, I hate to say it, but we need to TAX THE FUCKING RICH!!!  Seriously.  Stop letting corporations and mega-rich people hide their profits overseas and return the cap-gains tax and highest tax brackets to sane levels.

[gah]

Ryan scares me. His budget ideas are so far to the right Boehner has shunned them.

I hear this a lot, but I've never heard why. I mean, the Ryan budget doesn't balance until 2040. That doesn't seem very extreme to me. The Medicare vouchers is the only "radical" difference and while it may not be perfect, it's the only attempt at changing a system that everyone readily admits is bankrupting us. But no one on the left is willing to put forth a credible plan to fix it. Like Tim Geithner to Ryan a couple months ago: "We're not coming before you to tell you we have a long term solution to fix the debt. What we are saying is we don't like yours."

The first "Ryan Budget" back in 2008 that all the right wingers loved so much and that is credited with his rise to political stardom called for the elimination of both Medicare and Medicaid plus the privatization of 1/3 of Social Security funds (a step back for the 50% he had been advocating for years... Let's not forget he was the biggest proponent of SS privatization back in W's second term).

Not only did he want to kill both Medicare and medicaid, but he wanted to kill the tax break for corporations who provide healthcare to their employees. He wanted to replace all this with $2500 "vouchers" for people to use to buy their own insurance... Because $2500 will always be enough even in the 20 years down the road plan.

How a person advocating for killing both Medicare and Medicaid doesn't scare you, I don't know. But it scares the shit outta me.

Look, I fully admit to being a liberal. I believe the inalianable rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" mean we cannot let people die because they can't afford healthcare. I believe it to my core.

Ryan believes Ayn Rand had it right. Selfishness is his core value. That scares the shit outta me.

As for the liberal solutions to the deficit, I hate to say it, but we need to TAX THE FUCKING RICH!!!  Seriously.  Stop letting corporations and mega-rich people hide their profits overseas and return the cap-gains tax and highest tax brackets to sane levels.

But then how will it ever trickle down to me  :|

[birdman]

The poor can have my money when they pry it from my cold dead fingers. That's my motto.

[kellerb]

The poor can have my money when they pry it from my cold dead fingers. That's my motto.

That's also at least 50% of the poor's motto

[runawayjimbo]

Let me first say I am not now nor will I ever be voting for Romney, and the selection of Ryan as VP does absolutely nothing to change that. However (and this may be hard for some of you to believe), I do have a few comments on today's discussion:

yea, this is Romney's way of reinforcing "It's the economy, Stupid"
personally, I thought that Romney had the folks who liked Ryan anyway.

As of yesterday, RCP had WI leaning Obama, giving him 247 likely electoral votes, which means Obama would win simply by winning FL (29). As of today, WI is now a tossup, meaning Obama needs to win FL and VA (still a likely outcome). The math definitely favors Obama, but I do think this will put PA in play and help Romney in the other swing states more than hurt.

But, as you and I have agreed before, all that matters is the economy, and by that, of course, I mean the stock market. Because jobs number and GDP have been shitty all year and future GDP and earnings forecasts have all been revised down time after time. But as long as the S&P is at 1400 and people see their 401(k)s looking ok, Obama will win. If Europe blows up and we see a 20% drop in the stock market, it's anybody's ballgame.

The first "Ryan Budget" back in 2008 that all the right wingers loved so much and that is credited with his rise to political stardom called for the elimination of both Medicare and Medicaid plus the privatization of 1/3 of Social Security funds (a step back for the 50% he had been advocating for years... Let's not forget he was the biggest proponent of SS privatization back in W's second term).

I don't remember the 2008 budget, but I have a tough time believing he advocated for the elimination of Medicare. I'm not saying you're lying and if you have a link, I'd love to read it, but that sounds like it has just a touch of left leaning bent to it.

As for privatization of SS, I guess I wonder if that's not the answer, than what's the alternative? Look, it's not that I don't believe we shouldn't provide retirement security for seniors, it's that I don't believe it's possible for federal gov'ts to provide it (as evidenced by the overly generous welfare state in Europe that we are currently watching the downfall of). The problem is that the politicians will never have the stones to make unpopular changes to an unsustainable program, and I don't know of anyone who would argue that they are not unsustainable in their current forms.

Not only did he want to kill both Medicare and medicaid, but he wanted to kill the tax break for corporations who provide healthcare to their employees. He wanted to replace all this with $2500 "vouchers" for people to use to buy their own insurance... Because $2500 will always be enough even in the 20 years down the road plan.

He wanted to remove the tax breaks for healthcare because he wanted to sever healthcare from employment, something that many people (both free market oriented and not) believe is necessary. It's not like he was saying "If you offer healthcare to your employees you're a dick." He simply wanted to cut the tie of employment and healthcare, something that would make health insurance more portable and, in all likelihood, more affordable. And if you want to talk fairness, ask the people who buy individual coverage (about 15% of people with health insurance) if they think it's fair that most people get tax free healthcare while they pay on their own from whatever's left over after Uncle Sam gets his cut.

Like I said above, the voucher plan may not be perfect, but it's better than no Medicare which is the inevitable future if we stick to the status quo. So as soon as the Dems put forth a credible alternative, I'll be happy to entertain a debate between the two approaches. Unfortunately we can't have that now because they can't/won't.

Look, I fully admit to being a liberal. I believe the inalianable rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" mean we cannot let people die because they can't afford healthcare. I believe it to my core.

Ryan believes Ayn Rand had it right. Selfishness is his core value. That scares the shit outta me.

I really think the perversion of Ayn Rand's beliefs has been one of the stranger turns over the past couple years. She didn't preach selfishness, at least not in the sense that your decisions have no effect on what other people do so you should try to get yours before they try to take it from you. The underlying message was that when millions of individuals do what is in their own best interest (which, oftentimes includes helping your fellow man) everyone prospers. It was much morre a message of the dangers of centralized planning (something she witnessed firsthand in mother Russia) and that free people making their own decisions leads to better outcomes for all than a concentrated few making decisions for everyone.

People like Krugman and Robert Reich and Jared Bernstein and Larry Summers scare me much more than some dead Russian immigrant. Those are the guys calling the shots now, and in spite of their brilliance (or perhaps because of), they fail to grasp what Hayek called the Fatal Conceit: that central planners will never be able to control the trillions of interconnected decisions that make up the economy on a daily basis. The resurgence of Keynesian economics scares the shit out of me, because now people believe it is established fact that gov'ts can simply spend their way out of recessions when we've seen that no matter what you do you cannot influence how people will react to your policy decisions and thus there is no real way to stimulate aggregate demand. As hard as it is for these guys to believe, people may not actually go out and spend their $600 tax rebates or states may use money they receive from the federal gov't to pay down debts rather than hire new people. The simple fact is that people already make most of their decisions based on their own self-interest and the ability of central planners to influences these decision is limited at best.

As for the liberal solutions to the deficit, I hate to say it, but we need to TAX THE FUCKING RICH!!!  Seriously.  Stop letting corporations and mega-rich people hide their profits overseas and return the cap-gains tax and highest tax brackets to sane levels.

You do know that's not gonna come close to closing the unfunded trillions in Medicare/aid/SS liabilities, right? So while that may sound good in a campaign, it does very little to solve the problem. Surely there's other reforms we can agree on? Means testing is a no brainer. Raising the retirement age is another easy one. But, back to my earlier point, do you have confidence that elected officials who depend on their constituents' (read, old people's) votes will be likely to enact these two very simple changes that would drastically alter the funded status of the programs? Because I don't.

So it's not that I don't agree with you that we shouldn't provide these things, Pie Guy. It's that I don't believe it's possible so I'm open to alternatives, that's all.

The poor can have my money when they pry it from my cold dead fingers. That's my motto.

That's also at least 50% of the poor's motto

Which is exactly why we need more central planners to make decisions for us. Because clearly these stupid poor people don't know what's good for them.

:roll:

[Poster Nutbag]

I agree with you guys that born-agains don't trust Romney, but I'm not convinced they'll matter much since most of the states where Evangelicals make a difference are already solidly red (OH, FL, IA and VA notwithstanding). Turnout is definitely the key in a low enthusiasm election, and that usually favors the incumbent.

the bottom line, imo, is how the economy is doing, or how people think the economy is doing.
the first thing that happens to a losing team is the coach gets fired.

Agreed. If they can kick the status quo can for a couple of months, it's Obama's to lose. But it could turn around very quickly (and quite plausibly, IMO) if a things start breaking against him, beginning next week with the Supreme Court decision on the ACA, followed by a Eurozone/financial crisis, the "fiscal cliff" brouhaha, and another debt ceiling circus (i.e., continued Congressional dooshbaggery).

Also, my Libertarian guru, Nick Gillespe, is on Bill Maher tomorrow night. It was an appearance of his on the show last year that converted me from a frustrated in Obama but still Democratic-minded moderate into the right-wing, liberty obsessed, free market worshipper I am today. I can't wait to watch him smash Maddow.

First of all, aside from Ron Paul,  Right Wing-Liberty Obsessed completely embodies the full length of the spectrum of an oxymoron..  And Ron Paul's projected ideals on free trade, in my opinion, will not bring us to a world that will not lead to the continued sucking sound of middle class jobs leaving this country. Although, I couldn't agree with him more on the issue of ending the FED, and of course, his conceptual  drug policies.

And free market worship, is something I have some strong questions about, because due to the total lack of many needed regulations within the financial market is what directly resulted in the financial crisis that has cost the U.S. taxpayers more money than will or can even be calculated. Being the fact that 8 million houses went into foreclosure, close to 20 million home owners who pay their mortgage on time, lost between 1/3 to 1/2 of their equity in their home's value, which will take years to get back, if ever. About 1 trillion in bail out money, plus the ungodly amount shoveled to the banks by Feds, leading to major inflation. A loss of nearly 9 million jobs, led to a huge amount of tax revenue loss, plus the ongoing unemployment checks the government has mailed out. The fact that many of these people who lost their jobs, also lost their health care, costing both the system, and the cost of higher premiums past on to people paying for health care. In other words, where do the calculations bringing us to a real figure actually begin and end. But the biggest problem I have with someone who touts free market worship, is looking at Wall street as it operates today, without any regulations, is not a free market, that police's itself, in fact it is just the opposite of that, and for a free market to exist, that will not create another large financial crisis, or bogus bubble, after bogus bubble, will completely need to be changed in ways that in today's world, with the leaders we have today, are beyond realistic, and painfully laughable to think they would ever actually come about. 

[rowjimmy]

Romney is really trying to energize that left-wing base...

[runawayjimbo]

First of all, nice callback, Poster.

First of all, aside from Ron Paul,  Right Wing-Liberty Obsessed completely embodies the full length of the spectrum of an oxymoron.. And Ron Paul's projected ideals on free trade, in my opinion, will not bring us to a world that will not lead…

Wait, what?

...to the continued sucking sound of middle class jobs leaving this country. Although, I couldn't agree with him more on the issue of ending the FED, and of course, his conceptual  drug policies.

I'm kinda confused. You don't like his views on "free trade", but you agree with him on ending the Fed? That IS his view on free trade.

Be honest: it's the free drugs, isn't it?

And free market worship, is something I have some strong questions about, because due to the total lack of many needed regulations within the financial market is what directly resulted in the financial crisis that has cost the U.S. taxpayers more money than will or can even be calculated.

HOLD THE PHONE......free market means NO regulation?!? Well, fuck this shit.

About 1 trillion in bail out money, plus the ungodly amount shoveled to the banks by Feds, leading to major inflation.

Nuh uh. Krugman and the BLS tell me CPI is below the Fed's mandate of 2%.

The fact that many of these people who lost their jobs, also lost their health care, costing both the system, and the cost of higher premiums past on to people paying for health care.

If only there was a way that wasn't radical where people could take their healthcare with them if they lost their jobs. What could it be?? Think, jimbo, THINK DAMN YOU!!!

In other words, where do the calculations bringing us to a real figure actually begin and end. But the biggest problem I have with someone who touts free market worship, is looking at Wall street as it operates today, without any regulations, is not a free market, that police's itself, in fact it is just the opposite of that, and for a free market to exist, that will not create another large financial crisis, or bogus bubble, after bogus bubble, will completely need to be changed in ways that in today's world, with the leaders we have today, are beyond realistic, and painfully laughable to think they would ever actually come about.

Wall St doesn't operate "without any regulation", Wall St controls the regulations. The regulators work for the benefit of Wall St not least of all because they may not make shit as a regulator, but they'll be set once they go over to Morgan or Goldman or some hedge fund you've never heard of once their term is up. And politicians know how to put on a good show, but take a look at Chuck Schumer's donors and you tell me who he works for. (ETA: MUCH better donor list)

So, I really have no idea what to make of your post. I think you're saying Ron Paul-ism is crazy and yet everything you say sounds like a Ron Paul supporter (like, oh I don't know, me). I'd imagine you'd agree with Ron Paul that Obama has been atrocious for his persecution of law abiding, tax revenue generating, people employing small businesses, right? So how is he so crazy (which, I think is what you were getting at but I'm still not 100% sure)? Or are you like a Nader Democrat which is why we see eye-to-eye on the issue but not the solution; whereas you'd say it demonstrates the need for more gov't, I'd say it suggests we need less?

Anyway, I had forgotten about that so thanks for reminding me. Obama's 1-for-1 so far on my list of downside risks, with 3 more to come so there's still a lot that could go wrong for Obama. And I've seen the Romney Super PAC ad with the debt clock and Obama saying "one term proposition" at least 100 times over the course of the Olympics in a very important county for Obama in PA.

Romney is really trying to energize that left-wing base...

He sure as shit can't energize the right.

But I do think Ryan will impress people. He could even overshine Romney which, admittedly, will not be hard. Nate Silver thinks the most likely 2016 matchup if Obama wins would be Hillary v. Paul Ryan.

[sls.stormyrider]

But I do think Ryan will impress people. He could even overshine Romney which, admittedly, will not be hard. Nate Silver thinks the most likely 2016 matchup if Obama wins would be Hillary v. Paul Ryan.

that would be an interesting match up

and, I agree, Romney still needs to energize the right (as if Obama hasn't done that enough). Ryan will help that.
disagree about OH, though. we'll see

[Poster Nutbag]

Ok, I'm on my way out, so I just want to quickly clear a few things up. The first is, that I really do support most of what Ron Paul stands for, just not his views on free trade or his views on pro-life, and yes I know he wants to give the power of pro-life vs. pro-choice to the states. Secondly, maybe identifying yourself as a right-wing supporter in today's climate, could really be misleading, to put it mildly. Putting right-winged-liberty obsessed together, taking into consideration the ideals that the GOP are representing and looking to thwart upon the diversity of people living in this country, is absolutely an oxymoron. A true conservative-libertarian is something that maybe better received or respected, in my opinion.

[runawayjimbo]

But I do think Ryan will impress people. He could even overshine Romney which, admittedly, will not be hard. Nate Silver thinks the most likely 2016 matchup if Obama wins would be Hillary v. Paul Ryan.

that would be an interesting match up

and, I agree, Romney still needs to energize the right (as if Obama hasn't done that enough). Ryan will help that.
disagree about OH, though. we'll see

I just looked at the RCP map and I agree there's not a lof of ways to a Romney victory. If he does end up losing FL because of Paul Ryan, he HAS to win PA and run the table with the other tossups other than VA and NH (stupidly long link below).

Ok, I'm on my way out, so I just want to quickly clear a few things up. The first is, that I really do support most of what Ron Paul stands for, just not his views on free trade or his views on pro-life, and yes I know he wants to give the power of pro-life vs. pro-choice to the states. Secondly, maybe identifying yourself as a right-wing supporter in today's climate, could really be misleading, to put it mildly. Putting right-winged-liberty obsessed together, taking into consideration the ideals that the GOP are representing and looking to thwart upon the diversity of people living in this country, is absolutely an oxymoron.

Holy shit is that what got you all worked up? Check your sarcasm filter. :wink:

A true conservative-libertarian is something that maybe better received or respected, in my opinion.

Thanks, I'll give that a shot.

(again, kidding...Libertarians are a bunch of dreamers)


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/obama_vs_romney_create_your_own_electoral_college_map.html?map=HI_1,AK_5,FL_2,NH_3,MI_3,VT_1,ME_2,RI_1,NY_1,PA_7,NJ_2,DE_1,MD_1,VA_3,WV_5,OH_7,IN_6,IL_1,CT_2,WI_7,NC_6,DC_1,MA_1,TN_6,AR_5,MO_6,GA_6,SC_6,KY_5,AL_5,LA_5,MS_5,IA_6,MN_3,OK_5,TX_6,NM_3,KS_5,NE_5,SD_6,ND_6,WY_5,MT_6,CO_7,ID_5,UT_5,AZ_7,NV_7,OR_3,WA_2,CA_1

[PIE-GUY]

A long and well researched article on Ryan:

http://nyr.kr/Qn9uDp

[rowjimmy]

Friday: Romney attacks Reid for suggesting that he paid zero in taxes
Saturday: Romney selects a running mate whose budget plan would have him pay zero in taxes.

[VDB]

Here's a more cynical take on the Ryan pick.

Wasn't Mitt himself supposed to provide all the economic bona fides his candidacy needed? Remember that whole "private industry experience" argument? Except maybe now Mitt's finding that case isn't sticking. Maybe Bain is turning into as much a liability as an asset. Oops. So now he has to double down on the economy with his Ryan pick, as opposed to being able to round out the ticket with some foreign-policy credentials, like with a Coni Rice (if she had bee interested, anyway).

I'm not saying this is definitely what the Romney campaign's calculus was, but... it's one theory at least.