2012 Presidential Campaign

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm pretty sure the definition of "forward" here is pretty critical.

What I'd call "forward", most libs consider regression. And vice versa. And it's beyond lunacy to help someone move backwards (when you're certain they're going the wrong direction).

but see your response now is not anything. It's just saying "Well it's because they are wrong so I'm not going to side with it." when that isn't actually saying anything. When you are talking about a filibuster you are talking about "NOT TALKING ABOUT THINGS". NOt "Let's work this out and give our side of things or understand the other side of things." but rather "We are not going to let ANYONE talk about this."

So not allowing anyone to talk about anything is really not even doing your job. It's more akin to a toddler having a pouty temper tantrum and not listening when his mother tells him it's time to go to bed.
or covering your ears and going "LALALALA"

So saying "Well the republicans have to stop the democrats". well that is indeed acknowledging what I'm saying. That mindset is not good.

[kcchief19]

Doing his ever-loving best to torpedo not just himself but Republicans both statewide and across America, Todd Akin has inserted his foot in his mouth back into the race once again.

Todd Akin compares Claire McCaskill to a dog

Now if Akin hadn't already belittled women and McCaskill repeatedly, this metaphor probably wouldn't gather much steam. But Akin hasn't realized that he has zero latitude in this area. I fully expect before election day we're going to get an open-mike gaffe where Akin calls McCaskill something much worse. It's like you can see it coming.

[SirFozzie]

This is bullshit. The GOP cries about voter fraud, but when its their side that commits it, won't do anything about it.

Attorney general won’t investigate worker arrested for dumping voter registrations | MyFOX8.com – Greensboro, High-Point, Winston-Salem News & weather from WGHP Television FOX8

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

That mindset is not good.

The mindset is, is simplest terms, prevent (further) harm/damage by every means at our disposal. Of which, a filibuster is one of the calmer ones. Legal and, in some cases, effective.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

This is bullshit. The GOP cries about voter fraud, but when its their side that commits it, won't do anything about it.

Attorney general won’t investigate worker arrested for dumping voter registrations | MyFOX8.com – Greensboro, High-Point, Winston-Salem News & weather from WGHP Television FOX8

Seems like one of those things where the Federal govt./an outside group ought to be able to bring a lawsuit to make that happen...

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by molson

Like most things in the federal government, defense could no doubt be much more effective AND cheaper if the money was spent less politically, more effectively, and with less corruption/less attention to the interests of defense contractors, but I don't quite understand why the impact on the economy is sometimes portrayed by some liberals as a throw-away concern when it comes to defense, but a serious consideration when it comes to any other kind of cut. When it comes to defense, a lot of liberals suddenly turn into Gary Johnson (and when it comes to defense, a lot of conservatives suddenly turn into Francois Hollande for some reason).

You can flip that around, though. Why the hue and cry over job losses as the result of a reduction in federal subsidies while at the same time demanding that government jobs at the state and federal level get cut because OMG BIG GOVERNMENT? Why are some jobs which result from excess federal spending bad while others are DON'T YOU DARE TOUCH THAT?

Military spending is a massive part of our yearly budget, and much of it is political boondogglery that happens because some Congressman or another would rather have military pork than face the voters at home over job losses when the Pentagon says "we don't need this" and Congress says "Okay."

The idea that waste in discretionary spending should be tackled before we look at "Okay, 24% of our expenditures go to the military; what are we spending on that the military says 'you know, we're not going to use this' is more than mildly disturbing. All discretionary spending combined is less than what we spend on the military, which is the single largest part of our budget. It seems like it would also have the single greatest potential to find new efficiencies, also.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm pretty sure their strategy is a bit different than ours. One of the advantages of excess population.

Irrelevant. Population differences really only matter in a ground war or a protracted war of attrition, which means there are three possibilities.

1) China is only a threat in, say, a nuclear war. All the conventional forces in the world won't do much against that.
2) China poses a military threat to the US in terms of conventional forces despite spending 20% of what we do, which means they're getting 500% the spending efficiency we are. If that's so, refusing to address that until the social programs you hate have been slashed to the bone amounts to treason, IMO. It's deliberately ignoring a military weakness to the benefit of the enemy (perceived or actual).
3) China doesn't pose a significant military threat either tactically or conventionally, but do economically - in which case, why are we outspending them 5-1 on the military while not addressing fundamental domestic things like infrastructure? Why aren't we engaging in a WPA-style upgrade of domestic infrastructure to put people back to work and put the US on a solid foundation to compete in a 21st century global economy? We're fighting the last war in that case, and while that may not be treasonous, it's military-grade stupid.

I think my positioning of certain phrases may have caused some confusion. Torches & pitchforks were for any & all who vote for any tax increase, not so much about any potential cuts to even the defense budget.

No, I'm perfectly aware of what you meant. My point is, you refuse to look at defense at all until something else is cut, but defense is 24% of the pie. The entire discretionary portion of the budget is, like, 22%, and the rest is Medicare, Social Security, education and contractually obligated stuff like federal pensions. Education amounts to 4%, btw. So your choices are military, Medicare and Social Security spending if you want to make any serious dent in the deficit without a change in revenue.

There is NO current scenario where "revenue increases" via taxation under the current tax structure is acceptable in any manner, way, shape or form. None. Nada. Zip. Zero. Not another fucking penny. Nor is any change to the tax structure that doesn't serve to flatten the rate. Those aren't issues for compromise, they're issues for revolution if necessary.

Hint: you don't have a choice. You can compromise and get something out of it, or the tax cuts passed under the Bush Administration, which were never permanent, expire, and the rates go back to Clinton-era rates without the Democrats having to do a damn thing.

Is that your grounds for revolution? That an economic measure taken ten years ago wasn't a permanent one?

Can we hypothetically create some scenario where I'd back an increase? Sure. I'm confident that I have a vivid enough imagination where I could come up with something. But that's strictly hypothetical, we're far too inside out & upside down as a nation for me to think they're going to happen before another tax matter hits the Congressional floor. And the torches & pitchforks are what should await every single damned soul that grabs another penny from those who've already had far too much taken from them at gunpoint.

But that's the point you're missing out on, Jon. I don't know if it's because you're being willfully obstinate, or you really are that fucking stupid. Er, pardon my French, but that's the situation.

Nobody's advocating an increase over the Clinton-era rates. What's been advocated is letting the Bush cuts expire for those making over $250,000 (family) or $200,000 (individual), and extending them for those under those income levels. And guess what? The only part of that Congress has to vote on is the extension of the tax cuts for brackets under $250,000/$200,000 (which the wealthy still get - they just wouldn't get an extension of the cuts for incomes above that amount).

To get the revenue increases the President wants, the Democrats do. not. have. to. do. shit. Comprende? That tax cut for the top bracket is going away regardless of your foot stamping and Internet-tough-guy calls for revolution, unless the Republicans sweep the House, Senate and Presidency next month. There will not be one single vote cast to "raise taxes on the rich." The entire discussion here is about doing something to extend the tax cuts for folks making below $250,000/$200,000 and what spending cuts should accompany that.

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Taxes are the lowest they've been in fifty years.

TO THE BARRICADES!!!!

[Solecismic]

There does seem to be an awful lot of straw-manning here. Or maybe I'm out of touch with both sides.

I think fiscal conservatives are saying, "we cannot support this level of government spending as a percentage of GDP. Cut spending first and then we can talk about using taxes to address the debt."

The Obama claim that taxes on the top 1% are at their lowest level in 50 years seems a fair one. Perhaps there was a year or two in there that was lower, but not much. Not being close to the top 1%, it's easy for me to say the rich should pay more, but they are paying a higher effective tax rate (except for the proverbial loopholes, which seem more urban legend than anything else, unless that's a backward way of saying capital gains taxes are too low). I have a hard time saying that the rich should finance everything. We already have a solidly progressive system, as we should.

Taxes on the middle class seem to be about what they have been for a long time, so, if the Bush cuts expire and then Obamacare hits, I can easily see, from the charts, that the tax burden on the middle class would be at its highest since WWII.

As for the military, yes, cut military spending. Please. We should not be the world's police force. We should especially avoid taking over other countries, or supporting revolution in other countries, or anything other than supporting our allies and maintaining a strong defense. Key word being defense.

It's been said Obamacare is revenue-neutral. The Republicans say it will cost an extra $2.6 trillion over its first ten years. Who to believe? Well, there are new taxes being levied on investment income and on Medicare. And there's the penalty for not having insurance, which some experts say as much as 20% of the population will pay (I know it's a no-brainer for me to pay the first couple of years). And I'll lose my insurance, because it's a plan that won't be legal in 2014 (high deductible). Of course, if something happens, I'll be able to purchase a "bronze-level" plan on the spot. It doesn't really address problems with the efficiency of health care, or rising costs due to all sorts of issues, including a lack of tort reform. I think I believe the Republicans on this one. It's not going to be anywhere close to revenue-neutral and less people will end up being insured than are insured today.

[CrimsonFox]

Ah the smell of voter fraud in the morning. Thanks, GOP, good game.

GOP registration worker charged with voter fraud - NBC Politics
OpEdNews - Tagg Romney Invested in Ohio Electronic Voting Machines

[stevew]

So...just so I'm understanding this. under Obamacare, If you get sick at any point you can just buy a health insurance plan and they cover you immediately? Seems really crazy.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

There does seem to be an awful lot of straw-manning here. Or maybe I'm out of touch with both sides.

I think fiscal conservatives are saying, "we cannot support this level of government spending as a percentage of GDP. Cut spending first and then we can talk about using taxes to address the debt."

That's what a traditional (and common sense) fiscal conservative would say. There are more as a percentage of the general population, but they are virtually extinct in Congress. The Grover Norquist pledge has completely driven that fiscal conservative out of Washington. A Congressional fiscal conservative demands tax cuts only and refuses to raise taxes.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The Obama claim that taxes on the top 1% are at their lowest level in 50 years seems a fair one. Perhaps there was a year or two in there that was lower, but not much. Not being close to the top 1%, it's easy for me to say the rich should pay more, but they are paying a higher effective tax rate (except for the proverbial loopholes, which seem more urban legend than anything else, unless that's a backward way of saying capital gains taxes are too low). I have a hard time saying that the rich should finance everything. We already have a solidly progressive system, as we should.

That's close to point that I've been trying to articulate for a while in my head. For all the debate we have for our progressive tax system and the levels of taxation, the reality is that our tax system has created the strongest, most durable, most reliable economy the world has ever known. Why should we want to make wholesale changes to this system? Tweaks to respond to financial changes, absolutely, and we need to better manage our debt and financial obligations. No other country in the world creates rich people like we do. If you were a billionaire in another country, your taxes would be off the charts.

The argument I've been trying to articulate is that the system works for everyone. If you're rich, you're going to pay more taxes, that's the way it works. But you benefit from the government more than almost anyone else. By and large, the government works for you.

Other than the fact tthat everyone's taxes are too high, I really don't see any reason to moan and complain about our tax system. We have made it as virtually fair as can be. It seems that all complaints about our tax system come from the individual good rather than the collective good.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by stevew

So...just so I'm understanding this. under Obamacare, If you get sick at any point you can just buy a health insurance plan and they cover you immediately? Seems really crazy.

Hence the reason for the individual mandate. You buy insurance or pay a penalty - so therefore you can't just buy a health insurance plan right after you get sick (or rather, if you do, you already somewhat paid for it due to the penalty).

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by stevew

So...just so I'm understanding this. under Obamacare, If you get sick at any point you can just buy a health insurance plan and they cover you immediately? Seems really crazy.

no not that simple. It means they can't deny you coverage.

What I myself have found is that that 20 page medical history form is no longer necessary. There were coverage options for previous illnesses and not. BUt you can't be denied coverage. I also found things to be a little cheaper than it was a couple years ago. Granted this is just short term policy shopping.

Still paying for coverage. And they still were saying that things gone wrong before I got it aren't covered.

I wish they had a public option plan already though. Tired of people claiming it will take away medicare and crap. FUnny that's something people were worried about as that's what they were told. Now Romney has point blank said he will dismantle medicare. Where are those signs now?

ANd what is this voucher system stuff he keeps talking about? Vouchers sound almost like foodstamps or numbers you get when you wait in line at the deli.

[CrimsonFox]

wow didn't know some of these...

Voter Suppression | FreakOutNation

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

There does seem to be an awful lot of straw-manning here. Or maybe I'm out of touch with both sides.

I think fiscal conservatives are saying, "we cannot support this level of government spending as a percentage of GDP. Cut spending first and then we can talk about using taxes to address the debt."

The Obama claim that taxes on the top 1% are at their lowest level in 50 years seems a fair one. Perhaps there was a year or two in there that was lower, but not much. Not being close to the top 1%, it's easy for me to say the rich should pay more, but they are paying a higher effective tax rate (except for the proverbial loopholes, which seem more urban legend than anything else, unless that's a backward way of saying capital gains taxes are too low). I have a hard time saying that the rich should finance everything. We already have a solidly progressive system, as we should.

I don't know about straw-manning, Jim.

My point is pretty simply that taxes are already set to go up. The Democrats don't have to lift a finger to achieve the revenue increases they're after.

So the question is pretty simply, if revenue increases are coming barring a Republican sweep, you can negotiate and get the best deal you can on spending cuts to accompany some portion of those revenue increases, or you can filibuster an extension of the middle class tax rates because you aren't going to get the upper class rates extended.

One of those ways gives you SOMETHING to take back to your base and the undecideds/independents.

The other way results in everybody paying higher taxes, but you don't even have the spending cuts to show for it.

It would be different if the rates were permanent and Democrats wanted to raise them. Then, at least, I could understand Jon's "not one penny" stance, regardless of whether or not I agreed with him.

But that's not the case. The Bush tax brackets expire at the end of this year. The question isn't "if" on revenue increases at this point. It's "which ones," and "what spending cuts, if any, will accompany them?"

And that's kind of the bottom line. There are four possible scenarios here.

1) Status quo. Democrats keep Senate, White House, Republicans keep the House. In that case, unless the Republicans show a willingness to negotiate, taxes go up on January 1st, and we're back to Clinton-era rates for everybody.

2) Obama wins re-election, Republicans take Senate, keep House. Unless they get a filibuster/veto-proof majority, they're not getting an extension of the top marginal rates to Obama's desk, never mind past his veto pen.

3) Romney wins re-election, Democrats retain Senate, Republicans keep House. Romney won't see, for at least two years, an extension of the top marginal rates without some kind of negotiation.

4) Republicans sweep the apparatus and either get 60+ in the Senate or exercise the "nuclear option." That's literally the only way they get the Bush tax cuts extended on all the brackets (never mind the further 20% cut Romney wants) without being willing to give something up.

And that's really what it comes down to. Republicans can say "cut spending first," but the spending they're willing to talk about is discretionary spending. They're willing to talk about a radical overhaul of SS and Medicare, but even the savings from those won't, realistically, get realized for 10+ years, since they keep also saying "folks over 55 won't see a change." Given that, you might see a decrease in outlay once those folks start to die off and the younger generation matriculates into whatever the new setup is, but until then? Any changes to Medicare or Social Security aren't going to fix the hole in the budget. So unless Republicans are willing to rack up another several trillion in debt over the next ten years (and they haven't shown me any reason since Clinton to believe that they have any real desire to avoid that unless a Democrat is in office), that means: address military spending or raise revenue. You can't get there on the back of discretionary spending. Even if you completely eliminated every penny, you're still looking at, like, a $700 billion shortfall.

So that's the thing. Up to this point, the Democrats have been willing to talk about, what was it, $2.50 in spending cuts for every $1 in additional revenue, to get something done. In three months, are the Republicans going to be able to get that $2.50/$1 ratio after taxes automatically revert to their Clinton-era rates? I tend to be skeptical.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I think fiscal conservatives are saying, "we cannot support this level of government spending as a percentage of GDP. Cut spending first and then we can talk about using taxes to address the debt."

The problem is that the only way you can cut spending in a meaningful manner is to cut defense, medicare, SS, or veteran benefits. Those are all incredibly unpopular positions, even among so-called fiscal conservatives.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The Obama claim that taxes on the top 1% are at their lowest level in 50 years seems a fair one. Perhaps there was a year or two in there that was lower, but not much. Not being close to the top 1%, it's easy for me to say the rich should pay more, but they are paying a higher effective tax rate (except for the proverbial loopholes, which seem more urban legend than anything else, unless that's a backward way of saying capital gains taxes are too low). I have a hard time saying that the rich should finance everything. We already have a solidly progressive system, as we should.

They aren't paying a higher effective tax rate. Practically everyone on this board pays a higher overall effective tax rate than Mitt Romney. Even minimum wage workers are paying close to 15% through the direct and indirect payroll taxes. Our tax system is progressive until you reach the upper middle class, then it becomes regressive.

I agree that the middle class is the ones getting screwed. They are the ones paying the highest tax rates.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

As for the military, yes, cut military spending. Please. We should not be the world's police force. We should especially avoid taking over other countries, or supporting revolution in other countries, or anything other than supporting our allies and maintaining a strong defense. Key word being defense.

The problem is that those who claim to want to cut spending are the ones who want to expand the defense budget. I guess my point is that there are few people in this country who actually want to cut spending and know what those cuts entail.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by stevew

So...just so I'm understanding this. under Obamacare, If you get sick at any point you can just buy a health insurance plan and they cover you immediately? Seems really crazy.

And under the old system, you could just walk into an ER to get treated and everyone else would pay for it through inflated prices. One way or the other, we're all paying for those who can't.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The problem is that the only way you can cut spending in a meaningful manner is to cut defense, medicare, SS, or veteran benefits. Those are all incredibly unpopular positions, even among so-called fiscal conservatives.



They aren't paying a higher effective tax rate. Practically everyone on this board pays a higher overall effective tax rate than Mitt Romney. Even minimum wage workers are paying close to 15% through the direct and indirect payroll taxes. Our tax system is progressive until you reach the upper middle class, then it becomes regressive.

I agree that the middle class is the ones getting screwed. They are the ones paying the highest tax rates.



The problem is that those who claim to want to cut spending are the ones who want to expand the defense budget. I guess my point is that there are few people in this country who actually want to cut spending and know what those cuts entail.

I would advocate cutting the military budget by reducing or eliminating foreign bases, ending this nation-building concept and ending interference in civil wars around the world.

We differentiate between money earned and capital gains. Without moral judgments. If you have an asset and it increases in value, the tax on that increase is lower than the tax on wages.

We can argue whether that makes good economic sense, but there are reasons for this tax code. The Romneys of the world pay less because what we consider income is an increase in the value of what they already own.

I don't consider that a "screwing." I consider it a byproduct of a system that also allows us to save for retirement more effectively, should we realize that Social Security will not exist in its current form even 20 years from now.

I'm sure a real fiscal conservative, if there is such an animal with any power, could find meaningful ways to cut the budget. Every dollar should count. When the debt is increasing by a billion dollars every few hours, this process has to start soon, right?

[JPhillips]

The population is aging. That means we'll either need to have a higher percentage of government spending/GDP or we'll need fairly severe cuts elsewhere. If we're going to guarantee SS/Medicare for the boomers there just isn't a realistic way to keep that spending at 20% of GDP.

Social Security is fine. Worst case scenario is that they will eventually be able to pay out 78% of promised benefits. The problem is medical costs.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The population is aging. That means we'll either need to have a higher percentage of government spending/GDP or we'll need fairly severe cuts elsewhere. If we're going to guarantee SS/Medicare for the boomers there just isn't a realistic way to keep that spending at 20% of GDP.

Social Security is fine. Worst case scenario is that they will eventually be able to pay out 78% of promised benefits. The problem is medical costs.

Well maybe we SHOULD start looking at other countries that seem to have a better grasp of this issue and borrow parts of how they do things.

[CrimsonFox]

Incidently, here's a petition to request an investigation of Tagg and his magic fraudboxes.

http://www.change.org/petitions/atto..._term=31870142

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

It doesn't really address problems with the efficiency of health care, or rising costs due to all sorts of issues, including a lack of tort reform. I think I believe the Republicans on this one. It's not going to be anywhere close to revenue-neutral and less people will end up being insured than are insured today.

MA disagrees with you. IIRC we have the lowest % of our population uninsured than any other state.

Thanks for playing though.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Thanks for playing though.

Just as an aside - this line is one of THE DICKIEST OF DICKISH things to drop in an internet argument. It's a great way to make people think "yep - that guy's a raging dickhead" and to steel them against whatever it is you may be arguing/advocating.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Just as an aside - this line is one of THE DICKIEST OF DICKISH things to drop in an internet argument. It's a great way to make people think "yep - that guy's a raging dickhead" and to steel them against whatever it is you may be arguing/advocating.

I dunno about that. Facts are facts is all.

The same basic plan on a state level has resulted in a massive decrease in the number of uninsured. How is the same plan on a national level going to result in a massive increase in the number of uninsured. It's an illogical argument (to be kind), and deserves to be called out as such.

And frankly I'm irritated at the OP for revealing himself to be significantly more of a right-wing Randian than I thought, and yes, that probably increased the dickishness of my response. I'll man up and admit that.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

And that's kind of the bottom line. There are four possible scenarios here.

1) Status quo. Democrats keep Senate, White House, Republicans keep the House. In that case, unless the Republicans show a willingness to negotiate, taxes go up on January 1st, and we're back to Clinton-era rates for everybody.

2) Obama wins re-election, Republicans take Senate, keep House. Unless they get a filibuster/veto-proof majority, they're not getting an extension of the top marginal rates to Obama's desk, never mind past his veto pen.

3) Romney wins re-election, Democrats retain Senate, Republicans keep House. Romney won't see, for at least two years, an extension of the top marginal rates without some kind of negotiation.

4) Republicans sweep the apparatus and either get 60+ in the Senate or exercise the "nuclear option." That's literally the only way they get the Bush tax cuts extended on all the brackets (never mind the further 20% cut Romney wants) without being willing to give something up.

Hah! You forgot about this one:

5) Extension gets extended in lame duck session. GOP threatens something like "we'll defund the puppies and kittens orphanage", never mind that they'll never do it, don't have the votes to do it, and no one will remember the threat because it's so absurd. Democrats cave and give GOP everything they want because, well, Will Rogers was right. But they'll come back talking about how they saved the puppies and kittens orphanage and even got John Boehner to agree to another payroll holiday for the middle class (this gutting SS funding further).

SI

[JPhillips]

According to the topics for tonight's debate foreign policy only concerns the Middle East and China. How can Shieffer not talk about the Eurozone when that easily is the most likely crisis?

[sterlingice]

ANGER! MODERATOR FAVORING REPUBLICANS!! MSNBC SAYS TAKE TO THE STREETS AND TWITTER AND PROTEST!1!!

SI

[JPhillips]

I don't think it's biased, I just think it's a very narrow view of foreign policy. It's like they opened an internet poll and took the top responses.

Well, they dropped the one about marijuana.

[bronconick]

Because Americans are too stupid to understand economics as foreign policy? We only understand bombing brown people and communists.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by bronconick

Because Americans are too stupid to understand economics as foreign policy? We only understand bombing brown people and communists.

SI

[larrymcg421]

Time for Democrats to start panicking? Four national polls out today all have Romney ahead from between 2 to 6 points. Even Obama's swing state advantage looks sketchy now as Rasmussen has Romney up by 4 in Colorado, tied in Iowa, and Suffolk has him tied in Ohio.

[Jas_lov]

No. Cbs poll had him up 5 in Ohio. Obama just has to win either Ohio or Florida and he wins. Romney still has to have too many tossups go his way. Plus, Obama should be able to beat Romney in a foreign policy debate.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Time for Democrats to start panicking? Four national polls out today all have Romney ahead from between 2 to 6 points. Even Obama's swing state advantage looks sketchy now as Rasmussen has Romney up by 4 in Colorado, tied in Iowa, and Suffolk has him tied in Ohio.

Fivethirtyeight.com's post today spend a lot of time discussing the methodology behind their estimates and some of the polling trends. It was a pretty clear indication that, while they still believe Obama is ahead from an electoral college perspective, they see a lot of things that provide a great deal of uncertainty in what may happen.

[sterlingice]

Currently the 538 forecast is 67.6% That means there's a 2 in 3 chance Obama wins while a 1 in 3 chance Romney wins. This isn't some 90-10 model, it's 2-1 so there's still a lot of scenarios that Romney wins. There just happen to be more than Obama wins currently. However, that can also change between now and election day, too.

SI

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Hah! You forgot about this one:

5) Extension gets extended in lame duck session. GOP threatens something like "we'll defund the puppies and kittens orphanage", never mind that they'll never do it, don't have the votes to do it, and no one will remember the threat because it's so absurd. Democrats cave and give GOP everything they want because, well, Will Rogers was right. But they'll come back talking about how they saved the puppies and kittens orphanage and even got John Boehner to agree to another payroll holiday for the middle class (this gutting SS funding further).

SI

I left that one out because I don't see it happening at this point. If Obama wins re-election, he isn't going to have as much incentive to negotiate with the Republicans on an extension for the tax breaks for the wealthy as he did a year or two ago (where getting something was better than getting nothing). He won't have a third term to lay the groundwork for, so he can play chicken with the Republicans if he has to.

If Romney wins, I'd bet the Democrats go into Operation Payback mode and try to politically hamstring the Republicans similar to the way the Republicans operated from 2008-10.

I really don't see a scenario where there's any negotiation on the revenue-to-cuts formula after the November elections. If the Republicans won't negotiate now, the reversion happens, and then they can negotiate on cuts later, but they won't have anything to bargain with.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

No. Cbs poll had him up 5 in Ohio. Obama just has to win either Ohio or Florida and he wins. Romney still has to have too many tossups go his way. Plus, Obama should be able to beat Romney in a foreign policy debate.

I think a lot of polls are going to be proven wrong on election day. I see Democrats being about as thrilled as Republicans in 2008. So the sampling data they are using is flawed, I expect close to parity in the actual voter turnouts between D and R. That means that the poll data we're seeing now is very bad news for Obama.

I think the key in tonight's debate is Romney's performance. Regardless of Obama's performance, his numbers will be fairly static, we know what we're getting with him. If Romney looks halfway competent, regardless of who "wins" the debate, Romney's numbers will move up.

That said, this is all conjecture and based upon people I work with across the country. There does not seem to be any energy from the Democrats, whereas the Republicans are very energized.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

So the sampling data they are using is flawed, I expect close to parity in the actual voter turnouts between D and R. That means that the poll data we're seeing now is very bad news for Obama.

You should talk to MBBF.

[stevew]

empirical evidence is pretty scientific and I'm sure was adequately sampled.

[stevew]

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I dunno about that. Facts are facts is all.

The same basic plan on a state level has resulted in a massive decrease in the number of uninsured. How is the same plan on a national level going to result in a massive increase in the number of uninsured. It's an illogical argument (to be kind), and deserves to be called out as such.

And frankly I'm irritated at the OP for revealing himself to be significantly more of a right-wing Randian than I thought, and yes, that probably increased the dickishness of my response. I'll man up and admit that.

If you really think I'm right-wing, you haven't been reading anything I've written over the years.

I know I shouldn't get into these "discussions." No one ever changes anyone's mind. We can argue whether Romneycare is working in Massachusetts. There were signs of coming disaster last year with respect to talk about a mandate that doctors must agree to support certain plans, but I don't know where that is today. This plan (Obamacare/Romneycare/subtleties separating the two basically immaterial to this discussion) can't work, long-term, without making doctors employees of the state.

But I know it's just barking in cyberspace. Who cares, really?

I think it is a dick move what you and JP do in these discussions, though, ridiculing the opposition and calling names. Both sides have a point. When you do this, I just nod and realize why Washington is the partisan mess it is today.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

If you really think I'm right-wing, you haven't been reading anything I've written over the years.

Quite possibly the truest words ever spoken on the FOFC.

(serious as a heart attack about that, but intended in good humor nevertheless)

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I think it is a dick move what you and JP do in these discussions, though, ridiculing the opposition and calling names. Both sides have a point. When you do this, I just nod and realize why Washington is the partisan mess it is today.

Punish them by releasing another FOF! That will teach 'em!

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

If you really think I'm right-wing, you haven't been reading anything I've written over the years.

I know I shouldn't get into these "discussions." No one ever changes anyone's mind. We can argue whether Romneycare is working in Massachusetts. There were signs of coming disaster last year with respect to talk about a mandate that doctors must agree to support certain plans, but I don't know where that is today. This plan (Obamacare/Romneycare/subtleties separating the two basically immaterial to this discussion) can't work, long-term, without making doctors employees of the state.

But I know it's just barking in cyberspace. Who cares, really?

I think it is a dick move what you and JP do in these discussions, though, ridiculing the opposition and calling names. Both sides have a point. When you do this, I just nod and realize why Washington is the partisan mess it is today.

You came out not like...5 pages ago in this thread talking about Rand in positive terms. For sure you're on the right. And you're embrace of that particular subset puts you on the right-of-the-right.

Re: Healthcare
I agree with you that long-term it can't work. Fuck - I'm not even for this plan. Longterm I'm for single-payer (Medicare for all if you want to call it that). This plan fucking sucks to me. But that being said - you can't sit there and say there are more uninsured today in MA then there were before the plan went into effect. You can't sit there and lie and not expect to be called on it because of "internet civility."

Small Percentage Still Uninsured in Massachusetts
In 2005, 89% of all Massachusetts residents had some form of health insurance. By 2008 -- two years after the state passed a law that required all state residents to buy insurance -- 97% of all state residents had insurance, researchers reported in the CDC's March 12 issue of the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Both sides ridicule and name-call. I tend to reserve my scorn for 3 distinct sets of people: Jon (when I bother to un-ignore his posts and read them), liars, and hypocrites.

Had you just came in and talked about your personal circumstance and your concerns I would have been 100% content to have a nice conversation about it. For too long though, folks on the left have rolled-over and left unchallenged the BS of those on the right in the name of civility and it hasn't led to anything positive, so I'm done with that. You'll be heartened to know that I'm that way IRL too though (although I do tend to leave political discussions out of work), so at least I practice what I preach and I'm not some internet-only toughguy in this regard.

[JPhillips]

I can be aggressive in my arguments, but where do I call people names?

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

You came out not like...5 pages ago in this thread talking about Rand in positive terms. For sure you're on the right. And you're embrace of that particular subset puts you on the right-of-the-right.

Err cough - I think Rand has some interesting (if not at all realistic) things in her books myself and I don't think anyone would call me "Right Wing" so thats an unusual basis to decide someones political stance upon ....

While I veer to the left somewhat I'll readily admit myself that the best solutions are normally found somewhere in the middle where a compromise sits - the lack of compromise in American politics in recent years is part of the problem the country is facing imho.

[ISiddiqui]

I have to take the side of DT on the specific issue of 'less people uninsured' - it really is a lie when you look at it and calling someone on it isn't exactly a problem. Though I guess how you act when you do call someone on it may be one.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

While I veer to the left somewhat I'll readily admit myself that the best solutions are normally found somewhere in the middle where a compromise sits - the lack of compromise in American politics in recent years is part of the problem the country is facing imho.

And the winner is...The man who is not originally from here. Thank you America for sucking at this. Next test, geography!!!

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Err cough - I think Rand has some interesting (if not at all realistic) things in her books myself and I don't think anyone would call me "Right Wing" so thats an unusual basis to decide someones political stance upon ....

While I veer to the left somewhat I'll readily admit myself that the best solutions are normally found somewhere in the middle where a compromise sits - the lack of compromise in American politics in recent years is part of the problem the country is facing imho.

You're a good European socialist though .

Hey - I freely admit that if there was a fiscally middle-of-the-road, socially liberal party I'd be there. Unfortunately there's not.

And yes - the total polarization of politics in this country is ridiculous and problematic.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I can be aggressive in my arguments, but where do I call people names?

Trying to leave me all alone out here hmm?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Err cough - I think Rand has some interesting (if not at all realistic) things in her books myself and I don't think anyone would call me "Right Wing" so thats an unusual basis to decide someones political stance upon ....

While I veer to the left somewhat I'll readily admit myself that the best solutions are normally found somewhere in the middle where a compromise sits - the lack of compromise in American politics in recent years is part of the problem the country is facing imho.

I'm a little different as I don't think the middle is always the best option. The stimulus was a good example of this. It was too much if you don't believe I it, but it was too little to be effective if you do believe in it. Doing something in the middle just made it less effective regardless of ideology.

I do believe in strong, sane forces presenting opposing views and balancing the excesses of either major party. Over time the parties will get a chance to implement ideas and have them judged by the populace.

The current problem is that the GOP won't let the Dems implement any policy and too many of them are seemingly immune to evidence outside of their beliefs. A strong conservative message is an essential balance to liberalism's excesses.