What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

  • Thread starter Thread starter Priceless
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

ScoobyDoo said:
Nope. We can't increase taxes.

This certainly explains why current intake is at about 15% GDP and outtake is about 25% GDP. We can start wars, we can placate baby boomers, we can nationalize education, we can destroy our credit rating. We cannot pass a law that ends on a certain date. Can't be done.
Click to expand...

ummm. sorry about my rant. It turns out we're not even on the same subject. My quibble was with Priceless over the definition of the word "increase".
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

ScoobyDoo said:
Under that logic you can never pass a temporary tax cut as stimulus during an economic downturn cause we've now decided as a country that any tax cut must be permanent cause any tax cut that expires is an increase and increases are not allowed.
Click to expand...

now you are just being petulant. there is a very big difference between "targeted and temporary" (e.g. the one-year payroll tax cut) and "long-term with sunset." it is only because the 2001 Congress operated under fairytale accounting rules that the sunset was even required in the first place. the goal was to make those tax rates so popular that Congress wouldn't dare raise them again, and that goal has pretty much succeeded. Those tax cuts were for every taxpayer; the rate for the lowest bracket was reduced from 15% to 10%. Tax rates were cut for every bracket across the board.

Now, everyone wants all of the cuts for all but one of the brackets to remain in place, and that is a different kind of fantasy land. the argument isn't now and has never been to restore ALL of the tax rates to pre-2001 level, the argument is limited to whether only the top bracket should be restored to pre-2001 levels while all other brackets remain at post-2003 levels (the difference in years being due to the acceleration of the phase in).

I disagree with both parties here. we need to increase taxes across the board.

for two reasons.
> for national unity. this "rich vs everyone else" is unhealthy and destructive. we are all in this together; we should behave that way. Republicans trashing all things Democratic, Democrats trashing all things Republican.....is it any wonder that the average person says "a plague on both their houses" when that is all they hear, all day, every day??? :mad:
> for practical reasons. the "rich" don't have enough income on their own to finance the revenue needed, even if you taxed them at 100%. You have to go down to about the $50,000 income level to raise enough revenue to begin to address the problems in a realistic manner, and even that requires substantial reductions in the rate of spending growth. We need to reduce the baseline and then have future spending increases limited to growth in the GDP, so that spending is fixed at a % of GDP (on a rolling average basis to smooth out the economic cycle).
 
Last edited:
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

LOL.

I know the rich don't have enough. What I find glaringly obtuse is the fact that that's the argument every time we want to raise taxes on them. Raising taxes on the rich isn't about balancing the budget. It's about fundamental fairness, then its about revenue.

But the argument is your side always has to go first. So, for the Republicans we need entitlement reform first. For the Democrats we need to tax the rich and cut defense spending first. Thus, nothing will ever get done cause no one is going to go first. Why? Cause they're too incompetent to do both at the same time. That, and every Republican has signed his life away to Grover so they can NEVER agree with the Democrats. NEVER.
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

St. Clown said:
Take some time to look at criticism of Pres. Bush's execution of the "war on terror", and look at Pres. Obama's. During the Bush years, you had Dems denouncing his tactics and denouncing the man meanwhile the Repubs were holding up his actions as The Way. Now that Pres. Obama is in office, he's excoriated by Repubs and held by Dems as the shining light of truth. What policies have changed between the two administrations in terms of executing this war? Why have the detractors and supporters switched roles?
Click to expand...

Who on the Left is holding him up as the 'shining light' when it comes to the "war on terror"? Most people on the left are p!$$ed that he hasn't closed Gitmo. We're happy that he left Iraq, are leaving Afghanistan and aren't going to be bombing Iran but an awful lot of people wanted (unrealistically I think) us to leave Afghanistan much faster. He also declared that he would target suspected terrorist - including American citizens - for assassination. These are just a few examples. I'll challenge you to show some proof that people on the left are that thrilled with the president concerning the GWOT. It certainly isn't my experience.
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

ScoobyDoo said:
But the argument is your side always has to go first. So, for the Republicans we need entitlement reform first. For the Democrats we need to tax the rich and cut defense spending first. Thus, nothing will ever get done cause no one is going to go first. Why? Cause they're too incompetent to do both at the same time.
Click to expand...

How about that, we said basically the same thing.....:)
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

This message is from an Obama supporter:

The astonishing enthusiasm for Obama in 2008 rested heavily on his promise to change Washington and unify the country. You can argue about whose fault it is that Washington is even more paralyzed by tribal fighting than before--in my view, it's mostly (though not entirely) the GOP's fault. For whatever reason, Obama failed to bring the change he promised. That would be forgivable, so long as he was determined to keep trying. But he isn't determined to keep trying. His campaign message so far boils down to this: You just can't work with these people. I tried, they're not interested, so it's war. If they want bitter partisan politics, they can have it.

My instinct tells me this is a losing strategy

The tacit message of the campaign is veering towards saying that traditional Old Democratic policies are the way to go. . . . Just give us the votes, and the era of big government is back. That's crazy.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

This message from a Romney supporter:

Backed by a conservative billionaire, a cadre of top Republican strategists is considering a hardline attack on President Obama timed to disrupt the Democratic convention. The strategists wrote that they are preparing to “do exactly what John McCain would not let us do”—which includes a blitz of television ads linking Obama to the incendiary comments of his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The $10 million project, known as the Ricketts Plan, calls for hiring an “extremely literate conservative African-American” to accuse Obama of lying in presenting himself as a “metrosexual, black Abe Lincoln” rather than a radical supporter of “black liberation theology.”
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Rover said:
This message from a Romney supporter:

Backed by a conservative billionaire, a cadre of top Republican strategists is considering a hardline attack on President Obama timed to disrupt the Democratic convention. The strategists wrote that they are preparing to “do exactly what John McCain would not let us do”—which includes a blitz of television ads linking Obama to the incendiary comments of his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The $10 million project, known as the Ricketts Plan, calls for hiring an “extremely literate conservative African-American” to accuse Obama of lying in presenting himself as a “metrosexual, black Abe Lincoln” rather than a radical supporter of “black liberation theology.”
Click to expand...

I hope they don't go through with that plan. they'd be better served to hold that in reserve only as a counter-attack but not to launch it as a pre-emptive strike. it would backfire badly on them if they did.
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Rover said:
This message from a Romney supporter:

Backed by a conservative billionaire, a cadre of top Republican strategists is considering a hardline attack on President Obama timed to disrupt the Democratic convention. The strategists wrote that they are preparing to “do exactly what John McCain would not let us do”—which includes a blitz of television ads linking Obama to the incendiary comments of his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The $10 million project, known as the Ricketts Plan, calls for hiring an “extremely literate conservative African-American” to accuse Obama of lying in presenting himself as a “metrosexual, black Abe Lincoln” rather than a radical supporter of “black liberation theology.”
Click to expand...

A Romney ad blitz timed to step on and drown out the touchy-feely messaging from the convention in gay loving Charlotte is not a bad idea in the abstract. But this claim "from a Romney" supporter is bull sh*t.
 
Last edited:
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

FreshFish said:
I hope they don't go through with that plan. they'd be better served to hold that in reserve only as a counter-attack but not to launch it as a pre-emptive strike. it would backfire badly on them if they did.
Click to expand...

It's as phony as a 3 dollar bill. A lib wet dream.
 
Last edited:
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Old Pio said:
this claim "from a Romney" supporter is bull sh*t.
Click to expand...

um, sad to say, no it's not. a group that runs "independent advocacy ads" (one of the fruits of Citizens United) actually is considering exactly such an ad. While our Good Buddy in Banter neglected to post the link, I did see that text he copied word for word in a news story somewhere earlier in the day.
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

FreshFish said:
um, sad to say, no it's not. a group that runs "independent advocacy ads" (one of the fruits of Citizens United) actually is considering exactly such an ad. While our Good Buddy in Banter neglected to post the link, I did see that text he copied word for word in a news story somewhere earlier in the day.
Click to expand...

The quote is probably accurate. What's BS is anybody taking this thing seriously. How about we provide the name of this group, just so we can check their bona fides. People can talk about anything. Doesn't mean they're seriousy planning to do it. Besides, the "report" indicated a price tag of 10 million, hardly national "blitz" spending. There are lots of goofy people who support either campaign, who will propose and suggest goofy things. When the spots are cut and the time purchased, then come see me. Until then it's just BS in my humble opinion. Not to mention a horrible, counter productive idea. That's why I'm skeptical about the accuracy of this "report."

I posted the other day about a popular campaign trick: calling a news conference to unveil a hard hitting commercial the campaign has no plans to air. Instead, they're hoping for earned media reporting to get it out there without actually paying for it. And it sometimes works.

Anyway, you'd go after Wright on radio while the campaign stayed on message on TV. Radio is the favorite medium for the low blow.
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

mookie1995 said:
so now romney thinks that women can't cook?!?!?! what IS his problem?!?!?!
Click to expand...

Men generally make better chefs. But I'm guessing Fauxcahontas' recipe for corn pudding is a killer. Somebody suggested if she wanted social interractions with Cherokees (as she claimed as her reason for calling herself a minority) why didn't she go where the Cherokees are. You won't find too many of 'em in the faculty dining room at Harvard.

What does Romney have to do with Crockajawea's lying anyway?
 
Last edited:
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Here's a story from the Tribune about this "plan" to bombard His Panderness with Rev. Wright spots during the DNC. Evidently a pitch was made to do just exactly that (by Strategic Perceptions, Inc). But there's apparantly no indication the Ricketts family (owners of the Cubs) took the matter seriously or did anything to further or execute the plan. It's all pretty circumstantial. As I say, a pretty stupid non productive idea. BTW, sister Laura Ricketts is a big Obama supporter and fund raiser.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...-be-insult-to-nation-20120517,0,1128323.story

Besides, nobody watches conventions anymore. What little is actually broadcast is more in the nature of an infomercial than anything else. If you were going to advertise just before and just after his speech the point would be to offer contrast to his blather, no to resurrect Rev. Wright.
 
Last edited:
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

This quote from Romney makes me giggle:

"I'm not familiar, precisely, with exactly what I said, but I stand by what I said, whatever it was," Romney said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top