Support NeoGAF

[Kosmo]

FYI, we already burned through that 30 million barrels of oil today - it was projected to last 1/2 a day.

 

[Chichikov]

Obama's drawdown riskier than military first advised: Mullen

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2011/06/obamas_drawdown_riskier_than_military_first_advise.php

Damn its either too fast or too slow no way to win.

Drawdowns don't work.
I had the displeasure of witnessing one up close and personal (Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000).
No matter how much planning you're gonna do, eventually every ally or neutral person in the region will realize they need to start hedging their bets with the other side.
And eventually, your opposition will realize that you have no will to fight anymore (trust me on this one, generals and politicians will talk about our soldiers' commitment to the mission or whatever, but no one wants to be the last causality of a war, and it has a dramatic effect on a unit's battle effectiveness).

Unless people still think that democracy and stability will spring in Afghanistan by 2014, and if that's the case, I have a bridge AAA graded credit default swap to sell to you.

So yeah, it's going to be ugly, but that band aid need to be pulled with one stroke.
And I'm sure Obama knows that.
But we're not doing it right now so he wouldn't have to contend with fall of Saigon style pictures in an election year.
I'm sure our soldiers will die gladly for that cause.

Osama's death was a golden opportunity, and we wasted it.
Let the quagmire continue.

 

[eznark]

Romney doesn't suck as a candidate

yes he does

 

[RustyNails]

CBO: 80% of the deficit increase is due to healthcare spending, and letting bush tax cuts expire will single handedly solve the problem

“The health care programs are the main drivers of that growth,” the CBO said, responsible for 80 percent of the projected rise in spending on those programs over the next 25 years.

Tax collections could keep pace with those costs if Congress permitted the George W. Bush tax cuts to expire on schedule in 2012 and allowed the alternative minimum tax to hit millions of additional households, the CBO said. But under current tax policies, the CBO said, tax collections would barely cover the cost of the health and retirement programs alone by 2035.

“If policymakers are to put the nation on a sustainable budgetary path, they will need to let revenues increase substantially as a percentage of GDP, decrease spending significantly from projected levels, or adopt some combination of those two approaches,” the CBO report said.

I'm gonna go little bigsicily and post some graphs from the article. The first one shows spending/revenue chart as a percentage of GDP IF we allow bush tax cuts to expire in 2012. Second graph shows what will happen if we do not allow bush tax cuts to expire in 2012.

But to poop on everyone's party,

“I think I can safely say, this Congress is not going to raise taxes, so why are we still talking about it?” McConnell told reporters at a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. “So, look, taxes aren’t gonna be raised.”

 

[Kosmo]

Why do people keep spreading this bizarre notion? Congress didn't "raid social security." The fund isn't full of IOUs. It's not a Ponzi.

I don't know where this stuff comes from.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html#n7

As stated above, money flowing into the trust funds is invested in U. S. Government securities. Because the government spends this borrowed cash, some people see the trust fund assets as an accumulation of securities that the government will be unable to make good on in the future. Without legislation to restore long-range solvency of the trust funds, redemption of long-term securities prior to maturity would be necessary.

Far from being "worthless IOUs," the investments held by the trust funds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S. Government. The government has always repaid Social Security, with interest. The special-issue securities are, therefore, just as safe as U.S. Savings Bonds or other financial instruments of the Federal government.

AKA it's full of IOU's. Just not necessarily "worthless" IOUs, if you believe in the full faith and credit of the US Government.

 

[TacticalFox88]

CBO: 80% of the deficit increase is due to healthcare spending, and letting bush tax cuts expire will single handedly solve the problem

I'm gonna go little bigsicily and post some graphs from the article. The first one shows spending/revenue chart as a percentage of GDP IF we allow bush tax cuts to expire in 2012. Second graph shows what will happen if we do not allow bush tax cuts to expire in 2012.

But to poop on everyone's party,

I propose raising taxes on the rich to 40 percent, if possible. If only just to make the recovery process go faster.

 

[Clevinger]

yes he does

Romney sucks trying to act like a normal person around voters, but with debates and speeches and such he's decent enough.

 

[eznark]

Romney sucks trying to act like a normal person around voters, but with debates and speeches and such he's decent enough.

Romney is a good candidate. But he isn't a good GOP candidate.

A general election between Obama (whose supporters are supposedly losing interest if Rove's WSJ editorial numbers are to be believed) and a candidate that the GOP base hates will have the lowest turnout in decades. That might actually be fun!

 

[Cyan]

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html#n7



AKA it's full of IOU's. Just not necessarily "worthless" IOUs, if you believe in the full faith and credit of the US Government.

My God, it's full of IOUs!

Yes, I know that the SS Fund invests in Treasuries. The point is, why do people keep saying "IOUs"? It's incorrect, and clearly meant to imply something--the Fund's holdings are worthless--that simply isn't true. Is this a Fox News thing?

 

[Kosmo]

My God, it's full of IOUs!

Yes, I know that the SS Fund invests in Treasuries. The point is, why do people keep saying "IOUs"? It's incorrect, and clearly meant to imply something--the Fund's holdings are worthless--that simply isn't true. Is this a Fox News thing?

It's a reality thing and not an issue so long as the US can repay its debt.

 

[reilo]

My God, it's full of IOUs!

Yes, I know that the SS Fund invests in Treasuries. The point is, why do people keep saying "IOUs"? It's incorrect, and clearly meant to imply something--the Fund's holdings are worthless--that simply isn't true. Is this a Fox News thing?

It's a "factually challenged" kind of thing.

 

[RustyNails]

Romney doesn't suck as a candidate, that's the problem; if this was merely a circus show with Bachman and Ron Paul types you'd be right. But the GOP actually has a "credible" (laughable I know) economic candidate for once.

Romney is a good candidate. But he isn't a good GOP candidate.

A general election between Obama (whose supporters are supposedly losing interest if Rove's WSJ editorial numbers are to be believed) and a candidate that the GOP base hates will have the lowest turnout in decades. That might actually be fun!

Am I in la-la land? PD favoring Romney's electability and predicting Obama's downfall while eznark downplaying it (with good reasons I might add) and showing such a scenario is farcical. It's like we all slipped through the rabbit hole in the last couple of weeks or something.

It's always tea time in wonderland.

 

[eznark]

Am I in la-la land? PD favoring Romney's electability and predicting Obama's downfall while eznark downplaying it (with good reasons I might add) and showing such a scenario is farcical. It's like we all slipped through the rabbit hole in the last couple of weeks or something.

It's always tea time in wonderland.

I have never in my entire life said a nice thing about Romney. I lived in Boston when he was Governor and shoved Romneycare down our throats.

 

[besada]

I think it's far too early to claim that this strategy has worked-it's been about 4 hours. It'll have to be a couple of weeks at least before we establish whether this causes prices to be lower now than they would be otherwise.

It's also a little too early to claim it's not going to work, which you did, and which flies in the face of falling oil prices. Prices are lower NOW than they would be otherwise, so it's clearly had an effect. Whether they'll stay lower, it's too soon to tell.

Nonetheless, if restricted supplies aren't responsible for the current state of gas prices, it's not clear to me that increasing the available supply is going to shift the price significantly.

This is what I mean when I say your opinions are flying in the face of the actual facts. I suppose you could take the semantic argument that a $5 dollar (or 5%)drop in a single day isn't "significant" and I'd be glad to rebut that argument, too.

Look, the release had two primary economic goals and one political goal. 1) To make speculators shit their pants by making a sharp pivot on expectations and 2) to smooth the minor disruption from the lack of Libyan production (1.7m out of the 88m barrels produced a day) as we roll into the largest demand period. The political goal was obviously to make gas a little cheaper in the pocket of future voters.

I've asked you a couple of times now, but where exactly is the negative effect that makes this a problem? Even if it only works a little, that's a positive effect. What's the negative effect? I keep trying to figure out what your problem with this is, and the only thing I can find in your commentary, is that it's not going to be useful enough for a long enough term, but you provide absolutely no downside in your evaluation other than "it's a gimmick."

Normally, you have good and valid reasons for your opinions, which is why this one is so confusing to me. I don't think this is going to solve any long term problems (and I don't think the IEA or the administration does either), but if the only effect was to scare speculators out of the market, I'd support a regular shot from the SPR every summer.

I'll end with a little bit of schadenfreud:
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11163707/1/iea-fires-warning-shot-at-oil-speculators.html

"In my view, this is less about long-term supply and more about the long-term message being sent," says Kloza.

Indeed, there was an initial knee-jerk reaction to the IEA's announcement, especially in Brent crude, which has been the global benchmark for oil prices, including that of the lost Libyan output -- priced off of a differential to Brent. But as the announcement flushed out speculators, those who initially thought the dip would be a good buying opportunity had to think twice.

"Speculators will try to buy the dips," says Armstrong. "But if I were a speculator, I would be concerned that this may be first move of several that IEA and [U.S. Department of Energy] may make." The U.S., a member of the IEA, will be releasing 30 million barrels of oil from its strategic reserves as part of the IEA's 60 million barrel release.

"There was a lot of profuse bleeding among those who had lots of money in Brent today," says Kloza.

 

[Measley]

Cantor, Kyl Pull Out of Budget Talks, Call on Obama to 'Resolve' Tax Hike Dispute

Bipartisan budget talks led by Vice President Biden collapsed Thursday after the top two Republican negotiators pulled out, complaining Democrats won't drop their push for tax increases and calling on the president to get involved.

The decision by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., effectively sidelines the talks, which had accelerated in recent weeks as lawmakers tried to strike a budget deal that would pave the way for Congress to approve an increase in the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling. The clock is ticking, with the Treasury Department having set Aug. 2 as the deadline to lift the debt cap.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-cantor-pulls-out-budget-talks/#ixzz1Q7lVUzL5

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-cantor-pulls-out-budget-talks/#ixzz1Q7GL4CLX

I wish I could say I was surprised.

 

[Cyan]

It's a reality thing

Yeah?

and not an issue so long as the US can repay its debt.

So... it's not a reality thing.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Romney is a good candidate. But he isn't a good GOP candidate.

A general election between Obama (whose supporters are supposedly losing interest if Rove's WSJ editorial numbers are to be believed) and a candidate that the GOP base hates will have the lowest turnout in decades. That might actually be fun!

GOP turnout is going to be high; they won't let Obama coast to victory. That alone won't beat him though; dems came out strong to topple Bush in 04 but didn't have enough independent votes. Romney actually has a shot with those voters. I doubt Rove's numbers (which I haven't seen, admittedly) are accurate given his history, but his general point stands: the base that voted in 08 might not show up next year. I see young people and Hispanics staying home in higher numbers.

 

[speculawyer]

My God, it's full of IOUs!

Yes, I know that the SS Fund invests in Treasuries. The point is, why do people keep saying "IOUs"? It's incorrect, and clearly meant to imply something--the Fund's holdings are worthless--that simply isn't true. Is this a Fox News thing?

Frank Lutz style word-smithing. "Bonds" sounds too legitimate . . . what will make it sound shaky? . . . I know "I.O.U.'s"! OK, say that.

 

[Gaborn]

CBO: 80% of the deficit increase is due to healthcare spending, and letting bush tax cuts expire will single handedly solve the problem

I'm gonna go little bigsicily and post some graphs from the article. The first one shows spending/revenue chart as a percentage of GDP IF we allow bush tax cuts to expire in 2012. Second graph shows what will happen if we do not allow bush tax cuts to expire in 2012.

But to poop on everyone's party,

that first chart is such complete BULLSHIT. Federal revenue has consistently been under 20% of GDP since 1950 and they're projecting 23%? That's not a "real" number. In fact I think it's been above 20% of GDP ONCE since 1950. And that includes some MASSIVE tax rates in the 60s.

 

[RustyNails]

I have never in my entire life said a nice thing about Romney. I lived in Boston when he was Governor and shoved Romneycare down our throats.

I understand that, but I was thinking more in line of "supporting the other team". I want to make a bad sports analogy but wouldn't know where to begin.

 

[mckmas8808]

I mentioned the gas tax holiday in order to suggest that this is the same sort of sounds-good action that has incredibly little effect on what is fundamentally responsible for high gas prices.

This is just not true. Read the story below.

Eight Reasons to Release Oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve

5. Past reserve releases lowered oil prices

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, oil markets were roiled due to some damage to oil rigs and infrastructure. On September 1, 2005, the spot price for oil was $69 per barrel—up 10 percent from two weeks before. President Bush announced the impending release from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve the next day. Oil closed at $66.91—a 3 percent decrease. On October 10, a month after the oil sales closed, the spot price was $60.74, a 12 percent drop from September 1. Oil averaged $62 in October, $58 in November, and $59 in December.

On January 16, 1991, on the eve of the first Gulf War, President George H.W. Bush announced that he would sell 34 million barrels from the Reserve to “minimize world oil market disruptions.” That day oil sold for $32 per barrel. The day after the announcement, the price dropped to $21 per barrel. Oil remained in the $20 per barrel range during and after the war. The Department of Energy concluded that the “partial drawdown…help[ed] restore stability to world oil markets during the Persian Gulf War.”


8. Putting SPR oil on the market could help burst the speculative bubble

Various government and private energy experts believe that speculators account for one-third or more of all oil trades, and have increased the price of oil by anywhere from $10 to $30 per barrel. Since January 2, oil prices increased from $100 to $145 per barrel. This steady ascent in price makes it tempting for speculators to buy oil futures as a safe bet, particularly given that record prices have not led to more supply. Putting some SPR oil on the market in one sudden spurt could burst the speculative bubble. Investors and speculators in oil contracts could no longer assume that oil supplies will remain stagnant even as prices rise. When institutional investors and oil traders sense that the supply and price of oil might go in different directions, all bets are off.
​

###################


As you can see I only agree with two of his points. And they both check out. These two things are beyond true. And since we live in a world where the oil market doesn't directly always respond to realities, you have to do things like release some oil from the reserve.

 

[eznark]

GOP turnout is going to be high; they won't let Obama coast to victory. That alone won't beat him though; dems came out strong to topple Bush in 04 but didn't have enough independent votes. Romney actually has a shot with those voters. I doubt Rove's numbers (which I haven't seen, admittedly) are accurate given his history, but his general point stands: the base that voted in 08 might not show up next year. I see young people and Hispanics staying home in higher numbers.

I think you're letting yourself give in to your worst fears instead of looking at the reality of the situation. Romney is not liked within the party and is only leading based on "electability." He is the John Kerry of 2012. The left thought they could just run against Bush and it didn't matter who they put up, clearly that didn't work (they got close because the hatred of Bush was strong). It feels to me like the GOP is trying to do the same. They want to nominate a guy who looks/feels/acts/talks Presidential so that the general public doesn't question him too much and focuses on the shitty job Obama has done.

If Romney does somehow get the nomination it will maybe be a slightly closer race than the rest of the chuckleheads currently in the field but he'll still lose. Looking at the field I think Mitch Daniels had a real chance (before we found out he was a cuckold) and Rick Perry is the next best bet (I'm not saying he's a great guy or would be a good President, just that he could win). Not a single other person mentioned for the GOP nomination has a prayer in the world of coming close...unless Paul Ryan gets crazy.

 

[besada]

Romney is not liked within the party and is only leading based on "electability."

And Romney's got Bachmann on his heels in Florida, which does not bode well for his long-term survival. She's got 17% compared to his 27%, and that assumes Palin is going to run (who has another 17%). If Palin drops, Cain and Bachmann are going to split those votes.

The fundamental problem with some of the prognostication going on here is that Democrats are attempting to evaluate the most likely candidate based on THEIR preferences (a quasi-reasonable moderate) while completely ignoring that the Republican base (and that's whose going to decide the Republican candidate, not independents) doesn't seem all that interested in moderate candidates this time around.

I continue to not be worried.

 

[eznark]

GOP polls mean absolutely nothing at this point. Come late August things will start to take shape. Until then, there will be plenty of Howard Dean type flashes of "omg check out who is winning!!!"

 

[Gaborn]

I should say I was right. From this PDF put together by the whitehouse office of management and budget, look at table 1.2. Since 1950 total federal receipts (read: federal revenue) has been above 20% of GDP precisely once, in 2000 when it was 20.6%. That's WITH a 35% corporate tax rate and INCLUDES a top marginal tax rate above 91% from 1950-1963 Let's not deal in fantasies.

 

[TacticalFox88]

But really though, are people REALLY going to feel excited about voting Republican after not only the first 8 years of the 21st century, but Congressional Reps not doing a DAMN thing for the economy?

 

[Cyan]

Until then, there will be plenty of Howard Dean type flashes of "omg check out who is winning!!!"

Byaaaaaaaah!

 

[eznark]

Byaaaaaaaah!

Herman Cain needs to stop ripping muslims so that he can have his cover of Time 15 minutes like ol' Howie.

 

[RustyNails]

8. Putting SPR oil on the market could help burst the speculative bubble

Various government and private energy experts believe that speculators account for one-third or more of all oil trades, and have increased the price of oil by anywhere from $10 to $30 per barrel. Since January 2, oil prices increased from $100 to $145 per barrel. This steady ascent in price makes it tempting for speculators to buy oil futures as a safe bet, particularly given that record prices have not led to more supply. Putting some SPR oil on the market in one sudden spurt could burst the speculative bubble. Investors and speculators in oil contracts could no longer assume that oil supplies will remain stagnant even as prices rise. When institutional investors and oil traders sense that the supply and price of oil might go in different directions, all bets are off.
[/indent]

They should release oil from SPR only for this reason alone. Whenever oil price goes through the ceiling, people go on TV and scream release the krakens, as if releasing the oil from reserves has any effect whatsoever on the global oil supply. This gives speculators a leg room to jack up prices. A mere showing by the government that it is unafraid to tap reserves will take away quite a lot of that leg room.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

stuff.

more stuff.

Alright, I stand corrected.

 

[RustyNails]

that first chart is such complete BULLSHIT. Federal revenue has consistently been under 20% of GDP since 1950 and they're projecting 23%? That's not a "real" number. In fact I think it's been above 20% of GDP ONCE since 1950. And that includes some MASSIVE tax rates in the 60s.

It's because CBO is predicting the "as is" revenue projection based on Congress doing absolutely nothing. There are several tax provisions that are set to expire in the next half decade. About 150 of them. If none of them are modified or altered, the outlook isn't that far fetched.

However, if the expiring provisions of EGTRRA, JGTRRA, and other tax legislation were extended and if the AMT was indexed for inflation, revenues would be substantially lower than those shown in CBO’s baseline projections. Instead, revenues would rise more slowly relative to GDP in 2011 and 2012 and would reach roughly 17.5 percent of GDP in 2020.

The biggest boost in federal revenues is being expected from AMT liabilities, which pushed more middle-class families into the AMT brackets. The bracket creep is happening because the AMT is not adjusted for inflation.

CBO

 

[mckmas8808]

It's because CBO is predicting the "as is" revenue projection based on Congress doing absolutely nothing. There are several tax provisions that are set to expire in the next half decade. About 150 of them. If none of them are modified or altered, the outlook isn't that far fetched.

The biggest boost in federal revenues is being expected from AMT liabilities, which pushed more middle-class families into the AMT brackets. The bracket creep is happening because the AMT is not adjusted for inflation.

CBO

The point that Gaborn is correctly making is that if taxes on all people go up that much, then the revenue won't jump up to 23% because people will have less spending money and the economy will to some degree pull back some.

Tax hikes to the Clinton days on everyone within the next 18 months will have an adverse affect on some people's every day lives.

 

[Cyan]

The point that Gaborn is correctly making is that if taxes on all people go up that much, then the revenue won't jump up to 23% because people will have less spending money and the economy will to some degree pull back some.

Indeed. Much as we like to mock "Cut taxes to zero, infinite revenue!" thinking, there's a grain of truth to it.

 

[GaimeGuy]

The point that Gaborn is correctly making is that if taxes on all people go up that much, then the revenue won't jump up to 23% because people will have less spending money and the economy will to some degree pull back some.

Tax hikes to the Clinton days on everyone within the next 18 months will have an adverse affect on some people's every day lives.

Well no duh.

But let's not act like there aren't millions of people out there who'll be living the same as they always were.

I'm 23 years old, single, but i top out in the 25% tax bracket (only two out of six brackets fall below me), despite having higher taxes by virtue of being single and making more than the median two worker household does, and I'm putting away $30k a year in savings. I'm not struggling. Why do republicans think people making 4x more money than me shouldn't be paying more taxes? I mean, i don't have children to feed or debt to pay off, but still, I think it's stupid to lower my taxes considering our fiscal situation

 

[Gaborn]

The point that Gaborn is correctly making is that if taxes on all people go up that much, then the revenue won't jump up to 23% because people will have less spending money and the economy will to some degree pull back some.

Tax hikes to the Clinton days on everyone within the next 18 months will have an adverse affect on some people's every day lives.

essentially. The assumption that revenue will increase at a basically constant rate if taxes go up denies history. We have a 35% corporate tax but most companies avoid that effectively by sending the majority of their revenue overseas. A change in the tax structure can and will have somewhat unpredictable effects and alter human behavior in ways that are not linear, but that is why looking at history is so valuable. No matter what our tax rates have been for the last 60 years or so revenue has been around 18% or so. It's been above 20% once. So a solution should probably expect to bring in revenue around the same number - which suggests spending cuts are likely to be a more realistic solution since spending is well over 20% of GDP right now.

 

[Matt]

So, Perry is running.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/06/23/perry_will_make_white_house_bid.html

 

[Diablos]

Obama down to 43/50 on Gallup.

Total reversal :\

 

[RustyNails]

Obama down to 43/50 on Gallup.

Total reversal :\

Hello.

Polls this early don't matter. For entertainment,

Obama vs Romney

RCP Average 5/31 - 6/13 -- 48.0 42.8 Obama +5.2
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 6/9 - 6/13 RV 49 43 Obama +6
PPP (D) 6/9 - 6/12 520 RV 47 45 Obama +2
FOX News 6/5 - 6/7 912 RV 48 41 Obama +7
Reuters/Ipsos 6/3 - 6/6 1132 A 51 38 Obama +13
ABC News/Wash Post 6/2 - 6/5 RV 46 49 Romney +3
Quinnipiac 5/31 - 6/6 1946 RV 47 41 Obama +6

Obama vs Pawlenty

RCP Average 5/31 - 6/13 -- 50.2 36.5 Obama +13.7
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 6/9 - 6/13 RV 50 37 Obama +13
PPP (D) 6/9 - 6/12 520 RV 50 39 Obama +11
FOX News 6/5 - 6/7 912 RV 50 32 Obama +18
Reuters/Ipsos 6/3 - 6/6 1132 A 53 34 Obama +19
Quinnipiac 5/31 - 6/6 1946 RV 48 36 Obama +12
ABC News/Wash Post 6/2 - 6/5 RV 50 41 Obama +9

Obama vs Bachmann

RCP Average 5/5 - 6/6 -- 51.0 33.3 Obama +17.7
Reuters/Ipsos 6/3 - 6/6 1132 A 53 33 Obama +20
ABC News/Wash Post 6/2 - 6/5 RV 51 40 Obama +11
Rasmussen Reports 5/5 - 5/6 1000 LV 49 27 Obama +22

Obama vs Huntsman

RCP Average 5/31 - 6/6 -- 50.0 36.0 Obama +14.0
Reuters/Ipsos 6/3 - 6/6 1132 A 52 34 Obama +18
Quinnipiac 5/31 - 6/6 1946 RV 48 34 Obama +14
ABC News/Wash Post 6/2 - 6/5 RV 50 40 Obama +10

If elections were held right now, Obama will roflskate to victory. Polls don't mean shit this early in the election cycle.

 

[eznark]

Weird that so few of those polls have him above 50%. If I took anything from those (outside of how fucking terrible the GOP field is) it's that should a decent candidate emerge Obama should be pretty concerned.

 

[gcubed]

So, Perry is running.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/06/23/perry_will_make_white_house_bid.html

that will be very interesting. I think its between him and Romney, although i think perry has no shot with independents, but will get more from the base. neither will win

Weird that so few of those polls have him above 50%. If I took anything from those (outside of how fucking terrible the GOP field is) it's that should a decent candidate emerge Obama should be pretty concerned.

imo the issue right now is the gop voters. Someone to get independent interested will turn off gop voters, someone to get the gop voters interested will turn off the independents. That coupled with the overall negative reaction to the GOP in the house/senate/governorships basically makes it impossible via electoral college for one to win. The successful 2010 basically killed their 2012 chances

 

[eznark]

So, Perry is running.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/06/23/perry_will_make_white_house_bid.html

Remember the week full of insiders claiming Mitch was going to run...yeah.

 

[RustyNails]

Weird that so few of those polls have him above 50%. If I took anything from those (outside of how fucking terrible the GOP field is) it's that should a decent candidate emerge Obama should be pretty concerned.

 

[Clipjoint]

This video should be played over and over again if the Dems want to win in 2012:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIfDx3BZgRE

 

[besada]

Remember the week full of insiders claiming Mitch was going to run...yeah.

Yep. Even though I maintained that he'd run since the day after the 2010 elections, I'll wait until we hear it from Perry.

 

[eznark]

he hasn't announced shit, Rusty

 

[Clevinger]

Every time I see him, I think of Josh Brolin.

 

[BotoxAgent]

Every time I see him, I think of Josh Brolin.

holy shit, can't unsee!!

 

[eznark]

Yep. Even though I maintained that he'd run since the day after the 2010 elections, I'll wait until we hear it from Perry.

I think if he does enter my mind changes significantly on the ease of Obama's victory (as of now, I still think he beats him, but tight race). Perry is going to have a ridiculous amount of money to spend on the campaign. Those Texas boosters go freaking nuts. Plus, the national papers already ran their dirt on the execution thing, unless there is more to it I don't see that being a factor. He apparently loves God and talks like a preacher, I don't think the country is yet at the point where those are absolute negatives.

It'd be halfway decent if a Presidential campaign actually came down to positions for once.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Every time I see him, I think of Josh Brolin.

You sonava bitch.

 

[mckmas8808]

essentially. The assumption that revenue will increase at a basically constant rate if taxes go up denies history. We have a 35% corporate tax but most companies avoid that effectively by sending the majority of their revenue overseas. A change in the tax structure can and will have somewhat unpredictable effects and alter human behavior in ways that are not linear, but that is why looking at history is so valuable. No matter what our tax rates have been for the last 60 years or so revenue has been around 18% or so. It's been above 20% once. So a solution should probably expect to bring in revenue around the same number - which suggests spending cuts are likely to be a more realistic solution since spending is well over 20% of GDP right now.

But right now they aren't even at 18%. That's the problem. The last time I looked they were at 16% or so.