2012 Election Thread

[aphineday]

aphineday - hey, if that's what you believe, ok. I couldn't help but notice you didn't name one of the many programs being slashed or any of the many Rs you respect/agree with:
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare
Orrin Hatch, Arlen Specter, Dick Lugar, Mike Bloomberg  just off the top of my head.
There are many more.

[runawayjimbo]

Apologies in advance if this comes off as kinda dickish. My disdain is with politicians and partisans, not you, aphineday.

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare

Medicare cuts are tricky (like most arcane budgetary shit). The budgets are projected over 10 years and of course, Ryan's plan changes absolutely nothing for the next 10 years (anyone 55 or older sees no difference in the program). After that the funding mechanisms diverge, but over the 10 yr budget (which, as RJ points out, even those numbers don't mean shit), there are no substantive cuts to Medicare. However, Ryan's plan does extend the $700B in cuts implemented in ObamaCare. This is why many on the left are rightly calling shenanigans when Romney/Ryan promise to "restore Obama's cuts" while also reducing deficit. They can either keep the cuts and use it to reduce the shortfall (unlike Obama who is double counting by using the cuts to pay for ObamaCare AND shore up Medicare's solvency) or they can restore the $700B and reduce Medicare's projected insolvency date by about a decade. It's complete and utter bullshit to say they can do both, but it is an important distinction that Ryan is simply piggybacking off the cuts implemented by the ACA.

Medicaid would be cut to the tune of $77B a year in the hopes that block granting back to the states would reduce inefficiency and allow the states to determine what would be best for it's residents (as the needs of PA are completely different than those in IA). I assume you don't agree this would work, but, as we've discussed ad nauseum, until Obama tells me how he'd reduce federal health spending, I can't really make a determination which plan is better.

Welfare is a pretty broad stroke, but if you are talking about income security programs for the poor you're right their are some cuts, about 16%. That may be too severe for Dems, but when you are running a trillion dollar deficit, I don't believe that is tantamount to turning your back on the poor in a system that is widely acknowledged to contain massive fraud and waste. But you're right there are cuts, I just think "slashed" is a touch on the dramatic side.

As for SS, there is absolutely no change to the program. Well, that's not entirely true; here is what Ryan calls for re SS:

In a shared call for leadership, this budget calls for action on Social Security by requiring both the President and the Congress to put forward specific ideas and legislation to ensure the sustainable solvency of this critical program. Both parties must work together to chart a path forward on common-sense reforms, and this budget provides the nation's leaders with the tools to get there.

So the drastic changes to SS amount to creating a commission to fix it. That's it. Spending does not change meaning the second largest budget item after Medicare goes through this savagely austere budget unscathed. Now, I don't blame you, aphineday, for saying SS was cut because the left has been beating the drums on it but it is simply not true and any pundit who suggests otherwise should be ashamed of themselves.

Orrin Hatch, Arlen Specter, Dick Lugar, Mike Bloomberg  just off the top of my head.

Arlen Specter was a R his entire career before he switched to D when it became clear he was going to lose in the primary to Pat Toomey. He then lost in the Dem primary to Joe Sestak (who subsequently lost to Pat Toomey). I guess he counts as an R, but the fact that tucked tail and ran at the first sight of a difficult primary just reaks of political expediency and contempt of his constituents to me (disclaimer: I voted for Sestak).

Bloomberg was D until 2001. But when he wanted to run for mayor he couldn't be bothered running in a competitive Democratic primary he might not win so he suddenly decided he was an R. He spent $73M of his own money to buy the election. He bought his way to a second term too. But he wasn't done. Because even though he had reached NYC's 2 term mayoral limit, he felt the people of NY couldn't get along without him so he had his allies on the City Council extend the term limit to 3 terms. In response to this astounding usurping of power, the city put forth a referendum to return the term limits to 2 terms which, of all fucking people, Bloomberg supported (it passed 3-1). I forgot to mention he became an Independent somewhere along the way. Clearly, he is not a R and, IMO, he is one of the worst symbols of a broken system.

Dick Lugar (who is a lame duck after losing the IN primary) and Hatch are both Rs so I guess they fit the bill but I'd be remiss if I didn't point out they have virtually the same voting record as Paul Ryan (i.e., for anything Bush proposes, against anything Obama wants). Both supported some of the more vile of the Republican positions including the wars, a Federal Marriage Amendment banning same-sex marriages (and both voted against repealing DADT), TARP and the Patriot Act.

[runawayjimbo]

Seriously
 
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/rtd-opinion/2012/aug/19/tdopin02-the-wrong-side-absolutely-must-not-win-ar-2138869/
 

The wrong side absolutely must not win

The past several weeks have made one thing crystal-clear: Our country faces unmitigated disaster if the Other Side wins.

No reasonably intelligent person can deny this. All you have to do is look at the way the Other Side has been running its campaign. Instead of focusing on the big issues that are important to the American People, it has fired a relentlessly negative barrage of distortions, misrepresentations and flat-out lies.

Just look at the Other Side's latest commercial, which take a perfectly reasonable statement by the candidate for My Side completely out of context to make it seem as if he is saying something nefarious. This just shows you how desperate the Other Side is and how willing it is to mislead the American People.

The Other Side also has been hammering away at My Side to release certain documents that have nothing to do with anything, and making all sorts of outrageous accusations about what might be in them. Meanwhile, the Other Side has stonewalled perfectly reasonable requests to release its own documents that would expose some very embarrassing details if anybody ever found out what was in them. This just shows you what a bunch of hypocrites they are.

Naturally, the media won't report any of this. Major newspapers and cable networks jump all over anything they think will make My Side Look bad. Yet they completely ignore critically important and incredibly relevant information that would be devastating to The Other Side if it could ever be verified.

I will admit the candidates for My Side do make occasional blunders. These usually happen at the end of exhausting 19-hour days and are perfectly understandable. Our leaders are only human, after all. Nevertheless, the Other Side inevitably makes a big fat deal out of these trivial gaffes, while completely ignoring its own candidates' incredibly thoughtless and stupid remarks — remarks that reveal the Other Side's true nature, which is genuinely frightening.

My Side has produced a visionary program that will get the economy moving, put the American People back to work, strengthen national security, return fiscal integrity to Washington, and restore our standing in the international community. What does the Other Side have to offer? Nothing but the same old disproven, discredited policies that got us into our current mess in the first place.

Don't take my word for it, though. I recently read about an analysis by an independent, nonpartisan organization that supports My Side. It proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that everything I have been saying about the Other Side was true all along. Of course, the Other Side refuses to acknowledge any of this. It is too busy cranking out so-called studies by so-called experts who are actually nothing but partisan hacks. This just shows you that the Other Side lives in its own little echo chamber and refuses to listen to anyone who has not already drunk its Kool-Aid.

Let's face it: The Other Side is held hostage by a radical, failed ideology. I have been doing some research on the Internet, and I have learned this ideology was developed by a very obscure but nonetheless profoundly influential writer with a strange-sounding name who enjoyed brief celebrity several decades ago. If you look carefully, you can trace nearly all the Other Side's policies for the past half-century back to the writings of this one person.

To be sure, the Other Side also has been influenced by its powerful supporters. These include a reclusive billionaire who has funded a number of organizations far outside the political mainstream; several politicians who have said outrageous things over the years; and an alarmingly large number of completely clueless ordinary Americans who are being used as tools and don't even know it.

These people are really pathetic, too. The other day I saw a YouTube video in which My Side sent an investigator and a cameraman to a rally being held by the Other Side, where the investigator proceeded to ask some real zingers. It was hilarious! First off, the people at the rally wore T-shirts with all kinds of lame messages that they actually thought were really clever. Plus, many of the people who were interviewed were overweight, sweaty, flushed and generally not very attractive. But what was really funny was how stupid they were. There is no way anyone could watch that video and not come away convinced the people on My Side are smarter, and that My Side is therefore right about everything.

Besides, it's clear that the people on the Other Side are driven by mindless anger — unlike My Side, which is filled with passionate idealism and righteous indignation. That indignation, I hasten to add, is entirely justified. I have read several articles in publications that support My Side that expose what a truly dangerous group the Other Side is, and how thoroughly committed it is to imposing its radical, failed agenda on the rest of us.

That is why I believe 2012 is, without a doubt, the defining election of our lifetime. The difference between My Side and the Other Side could not be greater. That is why it absolutely must win on November 6.

[emay]

Dude makes some good points.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/08/25/charlie-crist-former-republican-governor-of-florida-endorses-president-obama/

In a special editorial to the Sunday, 8/26/12, Tampa Bay Times, Charlie Crist, former Republican Governor of Florida, spells out why he is backing Barack Obama for President.

Crist states:

I've studied, admired and gotten to know a lot of leaders in my life. Across Florida, in Washington and around the country, I've watched the failure of those who favor extreme rhetoric over sensible compromise, and I've seen how those who never lose sight of solutions sow the greatest successes.

As America prepares to pick our president for the next four years — and as Florida prepares once again to play a decisive role — I'm confident that President Barack Obama is the right leader for our state and the nation. I applaud and share his vision of a future built by a strong and confident middle class in an economy that gives us the opportunity to reap prosperity through hard work and personal responsibility. It is a vision of the future proven right by our history.

We often remind ourselves to learn the lessons of the past, lest we risk repeating its mistakes. Yet nearly as often, our short-term memory fails us. Many have already forgotten how deep and daunting our shared crisis was in the winter of 2009, as President Obama was inaugurated. It was no ordinary challenge, and the president served as the nation's calm through a historically turbulent storm.


The president's response was swift, smart and farsighted. He kept his compass pointed due north and relentlessly focused on saving jobs, creating more and helping the many who felt trapped beneath the house of cards that had collapsed upon them.

He knew we had to get people back to work as quickly as possible — but he also knew that the value of a recovery lies in its durability. Short-term healing had to be paired with an economy that would stay healthy over the long run. And he knew that happens best by investing in the right places.

President Obama invested in our children's schools because he believes a good education is a necessity, not a luxury, if we're going to create an economy built to last. He supported more than 400,000 K-12 teachers' jobs, and he is making college more affordable and making student loans, like the ones he took out, easier to pay back.

He invested in our runways, railways and roads. President Obama knows a reliable infrastructure that helps move people to work and helps businesses move goods to market is a foundation of growth.

And the president invested in our retirement security by strengthening Medicare. The $716 billion in savings his opponents decry today extended the life of the program by nearly a decade and are making sure taxpayer dollars aren't wasted in excessive payments to insurance companies or fraud and abuse. His opponents would end the Medicare guarantee by creating a voucher that would raise seniors' costs by thousands of dollars and bankrupt the program.

We have more work to do, more investments to make and more waste to cut. But only one candidate in this race has proven a willingness to navigate a realistic path to prosperity.

As Republicans gather in Tampa to nominate Mitt Romney, Americans can expect to hear tales of how President Obama has failed to work with their party or turn the economy around.

But an element of their party has pitched so far to the extreme right on issues important to women, immigrants, seniors and students that they've proven incapable of governing for the people. Look no further than the inclusion of the Akin amendment in the Republican Party platform, which bans abortion, even for rape victims.

The truth is that the party has failed to demonstrate the kind of leadership or seriousness voters deserve.

Pundits looking to reduce something as big as a statewide election to a single photograph have blamed the result of my 2010 campaign for U.S. Senate on my greeting of President Obama. I didn't stand with our president because of what it could mean politically; I did it because uniting to recover from the worst financial crisis of our lifetimes was more important than party affiliation. I stood with our nation's leader because it was right for my state.

President Obama has a strong record of doing what is best for America and Florida, and he built it by spending more time worrying about what his decisions would mean for the people than for his political fortunes. That's what makes him the right leader for our times, and that's why I'm proud to stand with him today.

I see quite a few hungover Republicans in Tampa opening their morning paper and choking on their coffee.

Live loud, love fierce, and suffer no fools. Katherine Manaan

[rowjimmy]

Impressive.

[runawayjimbo]

I think Crist probably had an axe to grind toward the party after he passed on an easy second term at Governor to run for Seante but lost to Rubio by 20pts. He was likely an Obama supporter a long time ago. Either way, I'm not sure his support means more in FL than who wins the Medicare argument.

As for his points:

I've studied, admired and gotten to know a lot of leaders in my life. Across Florida, in Washington and around the country, I've watched the failure of those who favor extreme rhetoric over sensible compromise, and I've seen how those who never lose sight of solutions sow the greatest successes.

Ahem: "Do you believe the people of Florida got tired of status quo politicians like myself and voted for a fire-breathing Latino? I mean, how desperate can they be to get rid of the person who's been dicking them around (*allegedly*) for so long for Marco fucking Rubio?"

We often remind ourselves to learn the lessons of the past, lest we risk repeating its mistakes. Yet nearly as often, our short-term memory fails us. Many have already forgotten how deep and daunting our shared crisis was in the winter of 2009, as President Obama was inaugurated. It was no ordinary challenge, and the president served as the nation's calm through a historically turbulent storm.

Crist may be the only Obama surrogate reminding voters that we're in the longest period of unemployment over 8% in...ever. Need MOAR Todd Akin.

President Obama invested in our children's schools because he believes a good education is a necessity, not a luxury, if we're going to create an economy built to last. He supported more than 400,000 K-12 teachers' jobs, and he is making college more affordable and making student loans, like the ones he took out, easier to pay back.

He invested in our runways, railways and roads. President Obama knows a reliable infrastructure that helps move people to work and helps businesses move goods to market is a foundation of growth.

I swear, I'm not saying those investments aren't necessary, but all I heard was "Unions, unions, union buddies, and, ah let's see here...unions."

Also, college is not more affordable now. All they've done is manipulate the interest rate so that it feels more affordable. But Obama's done nothing to address the $1 trillion in student loan debt so to me it looks like a not-so-implicit line of credit to the banks.

This is the whole problem with Keynesian/monetary stimulus: it doesn't address the root causes, it's just a goddamned slight of hand. Just because the S&P is at 1400 and people's 401(k) looks pretty good doesn't mean they should go out and finance that yacht they always wanted. But central planners believe people will feel richer so they're more likely to go out and spend money they may or may not actually have. And the craziest part is, as the Fed-induced housing bubble showed, they were right! But at some point all that leverage has to come down (terrifying sidenote: there is $28 TRILLION in gov't, corporate, and private debt maturing in the next 4 yrs) and that means the banks will eventually have to take a loss - and the Fed will do everything in their power to prevent that from happening.

And the president invested in our retirement security by strengthening Medicare. The $716 billion in savings his opponents decry today extended the life of the program by nearly a decade and are making sure taxpayer dollars aren't wasted in excessive payments to insurance companies or fraud and abuse.

Not sure if we've talked about the double counting issue, but that's totally double counting.

But I take more issue with this line that the $716B is only going to curb payments to those dickbag insurance companies but providers will be unaffected. Because I just cannot believe that you can cut - fuck, I keep saying cut - you can reduce the rate of growth of Medicare spending by $71.6B a year without having one doctor say, "You know what, it's just not worth it anymore." (sls, I'd love to hear your insight on this) And if providers aren't affected, why stop at $716B? Is that the exact equilibrium where you can remove corporate profits from insurance companies without reducing seniors' benefits? Why not $1.4T? Wouldn't 2.1T be 3x as gooder?

If Obama was the leader Crist proclaims him to be, he should be saying, "Look, it's true we are reducing the rate of growth of spending on seniors' benefits but we are doing it to provide healthcare to all Americans because we think it is good public policy and we are hopeful it will bring down costs in the long run." And then explain why. Instead what we get is "We're only taking it from greedy insurance companies and it actually extends the life of the trust fund and, seriously, the other guy would be much, much worse." That just doesn't feel all Hope & Change-y to me.

Look no further than the inclusion of the Akin amendment

568 words before a mention of Akin? Crist clearly wasn't on the WH talking points distribution list. Awkward.

[rowjimmy]

The blind will not be led into the light

[runawayjimbo]

The blind will not be led into the light

Are you quoting Scripture?

Mind = blown

[rowjimmy]

The blind will not be led into the light

Are you quoting Scripture?

Mind = blown

No.

Although I have read the texts of several major religions.

[Hicks]

Pretty sure unemployment was over 8% for longer than 5 years during the depression.

[runawayjimbo]

Pretty sure unemployment was over 8% for longer than 5 years during the depression.

Sorry, that was unintentionally misleading; I meant recorded history. The BLS has only tracked unemployment since 1948 and since then employment has been above 8% only 3 times: Jan-Dec 1975 (12 months), Nov 1981-Dec 1983 (21 months), and Feb 2009-now (42 months and counting).
 
You're right unemployment was higher than 8% during the Depression but that's only because the methodology for calculating it was drastically different; it included the underemployed (i.e., part-time workers who want to be full-time) or people who had given up looking for work (this is closer to the U-6 measure, currently 15%, which is often cited by Republican as the real unemployment rate since it makes Obama looks worse). Comparing unemployment measures would be like comparing a 1.0 Melt to a 3.0 version; it's really not the same ballgame.
 
So let's just say we're both right.

[Poster Nutbag]

I didn't expect Obama to be able to bring that number down almost until his first term was up anyways. My perspective on what Obama inherited, is something that was just in the beginnings of what was going to be a very long and dragged out recession of the magnitude that you see being played out. The fact that about 4 million houses went into foreclosure almost by the time his first year in office was up, then close to another 3 million houses were eventually foreclosed upon, and that about 16 million more homeowners found themselves in a home that lost approximately  35% - 40% of it's value, should be a major indicator of just how bad the debacle that the Republican led House (05'-07'), the Republican led Senate (05'-07'), and the Republican President (01'-09'), really handed off to Obama. Job loses from the beginning of 2008 until the spring of 2009 already had past the 5 million mark. The TARP bailout didn't stop a thing, except a possible catastrophic market crash. It's beyond ridiculous to think that any President was going to take office, and then proceed to pull a magic wand out of his ass, and bring the economy back in less than 4 years. The republicans are always asking for Obama to take responsibility, but as far as I am concerned, this is still mostly their responsibility. 

[Poster Nutbag]

The 16 trillion dollar deficit this country has racked up, started about 32 years ago under the Reagan administration, who just about doubled the deficit in his 8 years in office. The deficit in relation to the U.S. GDP was 120% after WW 2, which steadily declined until 1980, to where it reached a low point of 30% of the GDP, after the Reagan/ Bush years it was 62%, Clinton brought it down slightly to about 58%, and then George W. Bush brought it up to about 88%, and this was without putting either of the two wars on the books.

Our country experienced great growth with a very high tax rate through the 50's & 60's, and at the same time the country had some of the strongest regulations in place. The lazy-fare policies that led to the Great Depression were crushed by FDR, and kept this country free from market bubbles and major banking disasters, like the one that got us into the huge mess that we are in today. The deregulation assault, which started under the Reagan administration, and continued until Clinton signed the Gramm(R)-Leach(R)-Bliley(R) Act of 1999, which overturned the Glass-Stegall of 1932, brought us right back to ruins. But yet the Republicans are still touting that regulations are the problem, without ever offering up any type of other hardcore reforms, such as ending the Federal Reserve, while at the same time instilling other regulations, to bring down the size of these banks, so that if they invest badly again, we can let them fail, without being threatened by a huge maket crash, wiping out the entire economy and a ton of retirement funds.

[Poster Nutbag]

At runawayjimbo... Somewhere back in this thread, I mentioned something about inflation, and you threw up some link to a page, in dispute of the fact that I feel a large amount of inflation has taken place.

Gas in 2000: average - $1.54g / today it's 3.74g.. at a 20 mile commute/weekday in a car that gets 25 miles/gal.  1.54/g = 53.50 and  3.74/g = 129.50/month, that is an increase of 2.4 times / 140%, and of course you know that this raises the cost of everything period, I mean it even costs more money to sleep in many places...   

Phish tickets in 2000 - $27.50, today $60.00, that is an increase of 2.1 times / or a 110%

Health insurance costs.. up about 113% since 2000.. at a rate of 2.1% of an average workers pay, according to kaiser foundation data, but this says wages have increased 34% since 2000, and really the average median wage has remained stagnant... http://www.kff.org/insurance/092311nr.cfm

average cost of tuition for a 4 year college in 2000: - $13,000, today it's 21,000..   that's a 61.5% increase, but the link says it is a 37% increase after calculating in the inflation, meaning the average value of the dollar has decreased by 24.5% since 2000... http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=76

the average median income has dropped approximately 7%... after adjusting for inflation.. according to a survey done by the census bureau, it's probably pretty close, but stagnant is probably closer.. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-09-13/census-household-income/50383882/1


All of this adds up big time to families, and every average working stiff across America. It is getting harder and harder for a lot of people to be able to afford enough on their own, so that they do not become dependent on tax dollars, is one form or another.

I mean at $35,000/year..
$673/week - $583, after taxes = $2524.39/month

$625/month - rent
$80/month - utilities
$75/month - internet/TV... 
$250/month - car payment
$65/month - car insurance
$200/month - gas
$450/month - food... on a diet
$100/month - phone
$160/month - health ins.
$200/month - entertainment/misc.

  $2524.39 income
- $2155.00 bills
  $369/month for all savings and retirement, and these are your average bills if your single without kids...

And the other question I want to raise when you look at this is, when you are out and about hanging with your friends at bars or even at Phish shows. If you were to survey 20 people, how many do you think would say they earn more or less than 35,000/year... My estimation is probably less than 10 earn that much or more..

[Hicks]

What state do I have to move to net $583 on $673 gross?

Tell me and I'll move there.