Support NeoGAF

[Aaron Strife]

Kerry lost due to one state, a fact that is overlooked when people make the argument that an unloved protest candidate cannot possibly win a general election; if not for a few thousand votes (and Ken Blackwell, if you're into conspiracy theories) in Ohio he would have won the election.

The economy sucks, and Obama's numbers with white working voters are horrible; that's bad news in states like Ohio. Romney does not inspire anyone, but is currently seen as presidential material by most viewers; he has yet to be disqualified in the eyes of most people, as Dukakkis was.

Unless the economy completely turns around in the next four months, Obama will have a hard time winning. The map clearly benefits him right now but I still expect this to change as we receive more and more bad economic news.

If Obama's still doing well now, four months of sluggish economic news isn't going to sink him.

You're assuming things will get worse. Adding 80,000 jobs a month, while that isn't great news, isn't exactly bad news either as long as the number of people entering the work force doesn't outpace that tremendously.

 

[PhoenixDark]

If Obama's still doing well now, four months of sluggish economic news isn't going to sink him.

You're assuming things will get ridiculously worse.

I think we'll have less than 90k jobs a month on average from now until November (ie the October jobs report). Want to take that bet as well, tough guy?

 

[Aaron Strife]

I think we'll have less than 90k jobs a month on average from now until November (ie the October jobs report). Want to take that bet as well, tough guy?

Did I touch a nerve?

 

[empty vessel]

I think I have come to the realization why all my IRL discussion about tax always end in frustration. Whenever I exclaim that we are not being taxed enough and actually are paying lower taxes than we ever have, I get a lot of puzzled looks and people thinking I am lying. Unfortunately, I don't have charts, diagrams, spreadsheets to show people when having these discussions.

But, if you did, you would show them this!

Which reflects that the middle class (40th to 80th percentile of income earners) is actually paying a higher effective tax now than historically. The truth is that the middle class does not, in fact, need a tax increase. And it would be very detrimental to the precarious economy to impose one on them. The top 1%, on the other hand... (although I personally would focus on the top 0.1% or higher). Of course, that wouldn't be for the purpose of "raising revenue" or "closing the deficit," both of which are as ridiculous a concept as plugging a perpetual motion machine into an outlet for power.

Thinking that MMT states that you can just keep printing money is a complete misunderstanding of the theory. MMT simply states that the constraint on governments that can print their own money is not revenue but inflation. You can keep printing money until inflation becomes a bigger problem. Empty Vessels position is that printing extra money and putting it toward employment and single payer healthcare would help our economy much more right now than any rise in inflation that would create (at our current inflation rates.)

Then under this theory, taxation is a tool the government can use to decrease inflationary pressure by taking money out of this system. Empty Vessel also proposes to use this tool in a progressive fashion (as most of us here do) and that at this moment we need to especially tax the rich due to the wide gulf in inequality which he sees as a problem because those who control vast amounts of wealth are corrupting our democracy through spending that money on campaigning, lobbying, and other forms of political 'bribery'.

Remember to seperate out MMT - Inflation is the constraint on spending money. Taxation is a tool to manage inflation by taking money out of the economy. (and side note that printing bonds is an optional operation. We do not need to take in bonds to print money, we choose to, though bonds, like taxation, provide deflationary pressure to the economy.)

Did I get this right EV? I'm trying seperate out MMT (which does not favor left/right) from what policy prescriptions I believe you/the left would prescribe.

Yeah, I'd say that's all right.

(Sorry for going back a few pages, I've been busy all day.)

 

[PhoenixDark]

Did I touch a nerve?

How so? I'm rather confident in my prediction forecast, despite the current Romney campaign problems. You're ignoring the economy

 

[Aaron Strife]

How so? I'm rather confident in my prediction forecast, despite the current Romney campaign problems. You're ignoring the economy

Who's ignoring what?

I'm not saying the economy's good or a non-issue, I'm saying the economy isn't bad enough that Obama will lose because of it. If markets start contracting and there's some huge Eurozone blowup or something, sure, but time is running short for something like that to happen. If unemployment is stable and the market keeps adding jobs, that's not bad enough for voters to shitcan Obama.

On top of that, yes, Romney is an atrocious candidate. He's a robot who won't connect to any voters on a personal level, he's been on the defensive for the past two months in spite of mediocre jobs numbers, and has let Obama define him as an out-of-touch rich guy while putting up tepid defense that just makes things even worse ("Oh, all that money I have invested overseas? I haven't even looked at it!"). And flip-flopping on every policy position he's ever held.

I'd say Obama is a 2-to-1 favorite, and the only thing keeping this competitive is the weak economy. But the economy isn't that bad especially when you consider where we were just three years ago, and Obama is still very well-liked on a personal level if not a political one. That matters to a lot of people, whether that's justified or not.

There's a difference between being confident in a prediction and being a Romney cheerleader also, and so far you've been more of the latter.

 

[Black Mamba]

Kerry lost due to one state, a fact that is overlooked when people make the argument that an unloved protest candidate cannot possibly win a general election; if not for a few thousand votes (and Ken Blackwell, if you're into conspiracy theories) in Ohio he would have won the election.

The economy sucks, and Obama's numbers with white working voters are horrible; that's bad news in states like Ohio. Romney does not inspire anyone, but is currently seen as presidential material by most viewers; he has yet to be disqualified in the eyes of most people, as Dukakkis was.

Unless the economy completely turns around in the next four months, Obama will have a hard time winning. The map clearly benefits him right now but I still expect this to change as we receive more and more bad economic news.

But Bush barely won the election prior, too. The fact that Kerry couldn't win just proves he couldn't make up ground on Al Gore who lost. He treaded water despite a crappy president, a mediocre economy (it was mediocre, especially outside the MIC).

Let me explain to you how actual swing voters think. I mean voters who may actually vote either side, not necessarily independents. (this assumed Romney passes the "do i even like this guy?" question).

1. Am I worse off, better, or same/slighty better when Obama came in?

A. If it's worse off, I'm voting Romney. If it's better (especially quite a bit), I'm voting Obama. If it's same/slighty better, I move on to the next question. Most people are not worse off compared to 2008, so Obama picks stuff up here, regardless.

2. What does Romney offer me compared to staying the course with Obama.

A. ????????? There is no answer to this. We don't know what he will offer other than stuff that's failed (tax cuts) and spending cuts which means jobs losses.

This is Romney's problem. He doesn't offer an alternative. Unless people are worse off right now compared to 4 years ago or believe they will be, they need an APPEALING ALTERNATIVE PLAN/IDEA to change course.

This is how real people think who aren't into politics. They do not care about the political games or the bullshit that goes on. Unless there is a major scandal or something someone does that is very unpopular (or he says something really stupid) people only look at those things. A lot of us live through the prism of being active in politics and forget how others see things.

Romney cannot and will not win unless the economy tanks or he provides an appealing alternative to Obama in the realm of ideas. Period.

You vastly misunderestimate American people's incredible ability to be total dumbasses. They realize the GOP got them into the ditch, but half of them are willing to give them the keys again, despite hearing Romney repeat the same GOP platform. If what you said is true, Obama and Romney wouldn't be neck and neck. American voters are idiots.

No, I don't. That's why 80%+ are locked into their vote without anyone saying anything.

What I think people underestimate is the idea that an election is a referendum on the incumbent. This is only true if he fucks up. Like the California recall. Gray Davis fucked up the blackouts here and we got pissed. We were given an actual alternative with Ahnold. So we went that way. At least it was a change we could see in our minds when we know shit wasn't working. Romney isn't offering any of that. He's basically saying "I'm not Obama, I'm sort of like Bush!"

 

[Jackson50]

Well, Romney is the Republican Kerry.

Reuter/Ipsos: Obama defeating Romney 49-43, approval 48-47

It's remarkable how this cycle corresponds with 2004. Obviously, they diverge on a few facets. Otherwise, the fundamentals are analogous. A moderately popular incumbent presiding over moderate growth with an average opponent. Naturally, the election portends to be close with the incumbent enjoying a moderate advantage. Growth was slightly greater for Bush. Yet he also faced strident opposition to a war that polarized the electorate.

No it's not

Are you jealous of Kosmo's tag?

Yeah, but Dems were convinced Kerry would win then too. Hope is a powerful thing.

"Hope. It is the quintessential partisan delusion, simultaneously the source of their greatest strength, and their greatest weakness."

Gary Johnson

 

[Mario]

I think we'll have less than 90k jobs a month on average from now until November (ie the October jobs report).

I'm not entirely clear on what those job numbers include each month, but isn't anything over zero a drop in unemployment? Or are people continuing to argue they don't reflect reality given "it doesn't include the people who have given up looking or no longer eligible for unemployment benefits"?

At 90k a month, that is another 400k+ people in work by the election. New jobs continue to be anemic, but as long as they are positive (and all else being equal) the situation is "improving", surely?

Aren't there other positive economic indicators being seen as well? Rising home sales and gas prices trending down? I asked about those a week back but don't think I got a response, so sorry if my read on them is off.

 

[The Technomancer]

I'm not entirely clear on what those job numbers include each month, but isn't anything over zero a drop in unemployment? Or are people continuing to argue they don't reflect reality given "it doesn't include the people who have given up looking or no longer eligible for unemployment benefits"?

At 90k a month, that is another 400k+ people in work by the election. New jobs continue to be anemic, but as long as they are positive (and all else being equal) the situation is "improving", surely?

Aren't there other positive economic indicators being seen as well? Rising home sales and gas prices trending down? I asked about those a week back but don't think I got a response, so sorry if my read on them is off.

PD posted earlier that we need 133k jobs a month to keep up with population growth, but I have no idea how accurate that is.

 

[Mario]

If the change in jobs doesn't exceed the change in the size of the labor pool, unemployment goes up.

Ah, okay.

So, what other published number or source that reflects that do you need to look at in order to put the jobs number in context?

PD posted earlier that we need 133k jobs a month to keep up with population growth, but I have no idea how accurate that is.

I'd imagine population growth is a decent proxy or at least a short term target goal, but perhaps not very accurate when you factor in the lag of newborns reaching the workforce, levels of adult immigration and emigration within that, numbers of people entering higher education, number of people retiring etc.

There is presumably somebody somewhere tracking month to month changes in the labour pool?

 

[DeathbyVolcano]

How so? I'm rather confident in my prediction forecast, despite the current Romney campaign problems. You're ignoring the economy

Just like how confident you were in 2008 as well? PD you dumb son

 

[BotoxAgent]

Just like how confident you were in 2008 as well? PD you dumb son

somethin somethin ABADAR

 

[TacticalFox88]

November can't come soon enough, if only just to see PD's trolling to stop.

 

[GhaleonEB]

November can't come soon enough, if only just to see PD's trolling to stop.

He'll be trolling about the impending GOP sweep in the midterms the day after the election.

 

[Tamanon]

Nah, PD will somehow say Obama's election win will be bad for Obama.

"By winning by such a large margin, he solidifies the opposition to his policies."

 

[PhoenixDark]

But Bush barely won the election prior, too. The fact that Kerry couldn't win just proves he couldn't make up ground on Al Gore who lost. He treaded water despite a crappy president, a mediocre economy (it was mediocre, especially outside the MIC).

Let me explain to you how actual swing voters think. I mean voters who may actually vote either side, not necessarily independents. (this assumed Romney passes the "do i even like this guy?" question).

1. Am I worse off, better, or same/slighty better when Obama came in?

A. If it's worse off, I'm voting Romney. If it's better (especially quite a bit), I'm voting Obama. If it's same/slighty better, I move on to the next question. Most people are not worse off compared to 2008, so Obama picks stuff up here, regardless.

2. What does Romney offer me compared to staying the course with Obama.

A. ????????? There is no answer to this. We don't know what he will offer other than stuff that's failed (tax cuts) and spending cuts which means jobs losses.

This is Romney's problem. He doesn't offer an alternative. Unless people are worse off right now compared to 4 years ago or believe they will be, they need an APPEALING ALTERNATIVE PLAN/IDEA to change course.

This is how real people think who aren't into politics. They do not care about the political games or the bullshit that goes on. Unless there is a major scandal or something someone does that is very unpopular (or he says something really stupid) people only look at those things. A lot of us live through the prism of being active in politics and forget how others see things.

Romney cannot and will not win unless the economy tanks or he provides an appealing alternative to Obama in the realm of ideas. Period.




No, I don't. That's why 80%+ are locked into their vote without anyone saying anything.

What I think people underestimate is the idea that an election is a referendum on the incumbent. This is only true if he fucks up. Like the California recall. Gray Davis fucked up the blackouts here and we got pissed. We were given an actual alternative with Ahnold. So we went that way. At least it was a change we could see in our minds when we know shit wasn't working. Romney isn't offering any of that. He's basically saying "I'm not Obama, I'm sort of like Bush!"

Voters feel worse off
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postabcpoll_20120520.html

Consumer confidence is low as well. A majority of Americans feel the economy is on the wrong track and getting worse
http://www.gallup.com/poll/151136/Economic-Outlook-Weekly.aspx

So what are you talking about? Obama is leading because voters are not familiar with Romney yet. As the conventions get closer I expect him to take the lead - not because he's some good candidate or because he's a good person, but because Obama had four years and failed to turn the economy around.

 

[Qazaq]

So what are you talking about? Obama is leading because voters are not familiar with Romney yet. As the conventions get closer I expect him to take the lead - not because he's some good candidate or because he's a good person, but because Obama had four years and failed to turn the economy around.

Do you ever look at what you post and realize you're trolling, or is it more of a deliberate kind of thing?

 

[pigeon]

So what are you talking about? Obama is leading because voters are not familiar with Romney yet.

What aspect of Romney's personality, history or platform are you hypothesizing is going to make the voters like Romney more than the generic Republican candidate they are presumably envisioning in his stead? Because a lot of people who actually run these political campaigns seem to have concluded that the answer is "nothing, for God's sake don't let him talk."

 

[ErasureAcer]

Damn, even juniors are punkin' PD...lol.

 

[silentspork]

Do you ever look at what you post and realize you're trolling, or is it more of a deliberate kind of thing?

It's great. He posts the same thing repeatedly, includes a couple links that don't really prove his argument (and which you can find contradicting articles as well) and gets indignant when no one believes him. It's either trolling or just intentional ignorance.

Romney is a terrible candidate who is not going to sway independents with his pro-rich policies. People don't know who Romney is yet, and that is precisely why he has support right now amongst independents.

The meltdowns in November are going to be glorious regardless of the outcome.

 

[demon]

So what are you talking about? Obama is leading because voters are not familiar with Romney yet.

And that's a plus for Romney.....how?

 

[Officerrob]

And that's a plus for Romney.....how?

Because Romney is going to bowl them over with his unique ideas, detailed policy proposals, and charming personality...........Am I doing it right PD?

 

[SteveWinwood]

I don't use the ignore function on here, but I do automatically skip posts if I see they're written by PD. It's just a waste of my time to even skim them.

 

[eznark]

I don't use the ignore function on here, but I do automatically skip posts if I see they're written by PD. It's just a waste of my time to even skim them.

If PD didn't post this thread would be a barren wasteland and about a third the size it is now. Most everyone else got bored with an extended poking of the poligaf hive mind.

 

[TacticalFox88]

I don't use the ignore function on here, but I do automatically skip posts if I see they're written by PD. It's just a waste of my time to even skim them.

Funny thing is, if you actually read them, they seem to go back and forth between a subtle "Yep, Obama's got this election" to "Lulz, Obama is DOOMZ!!111"

It's fucking fascinating and sad at the same time.

 

[Averon]

LoL. I see PD still got PoliGAF wrapped around his fingers.

 

[DeathbyVolcano]

If PD didn't post this thread would be a barren wasteland and about a third the size it is now. Most everyone else got bored with an extended poking of the poligaf hive mind.

Best watch yo' ass brutha, the whole hive mind thing doesn't fly with a lot of mods. Don't know if it matters in community though because...well, community.

 

[Black Mamba]

Voters feel worse off
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postabcpoll_20120520.html

Can you read?

"Would you say you, yourself are better off financially than you were when Obama became president, not as well off, or in about the same shape as then financially?"

Better off Not as well off About the same No opinion
5/20/12 16 30 53 1

That's almost 70% better off or about the same. Math, how does it work?

Aslo, look at the question on the economy over time. People fell much better now than when Obama took office. He hit a high of 94% negative, down to 83%. Poor was 62%, now 36%

Consumer confidence is low as well. A majority of Americans feel the economy is on the wrong track and getting worse
http://www.gallup.com/poll/151136/Economic-Outlook-Weekly.aspx

All still better than when he took office. That's what matters.

So what are you talking about? Obama is leading because voters are not familiar with Romney yet. As the conventions get closer I expect him to take the lead - not because he's some good candidate or because he's a good person, but because Obama had four years and failed to turn the economy around.

I think the trend will go the other way. As more people learn about Romney, the less people will like him as he's a robot with no ideas.

I didn't say if people are happier or people are better now than a year ago. I said compared to 4 years ago. And I said people don't change the status quo without a viable alternative. Romney offers nothing so far to those people.

Tell me what he offers. I'd love to know.

 

[Chichikov]

I really don't understand why some of you get so worked out because someone might be wrong about his November prediction.

 

[ToxicAdam]

But, if you did, you would show them this!

Which reflects that the middle class (40th to 80th percentile of income earners) is actually paying a higher effective tax now than historically. The truth is that the middle class does not, in fact, need a tax increase.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456

Taxes are too low for all Americans. We as a nation are among the lowest taxed in all of the Western countries, yet we depend on the government as much as ever.

Until you expand the pool of contributors, you will never have the political capital/will to enact policy changes to help America. The last 4 years have shown that. The deficit/debt hang over EVERY POLICY decision now, to the detriment of the poor and lower middle class.

This imaginary "fiscal cliff" might hurt in the short term, but the long term decisions that are not being made (or being nerfed) are hurting this country exponentially down the road.

 

[DeathbyVolcano]

I really don't understand why some of you get so worked out because someone might be wrong about his November prediction.

The people who know PD think its fucking hilarious

 

[Chichikov]

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456

Apples and oranges.
They count benefits you got from the government as non taxed income (which would lower the effective tax rate of pretty much all poor and lower middle class people).

I don't really think that's a useful measure for the discussion at hand, even if you accept the premise that it's only really a tax if you don't get anything directly back (which I certainly don't) still such analysis misses 2 huge elements -
Sales tax and the fact that taxes benefits everyone in ways outside direct welfare support (even the staunchest libertarian would agree that the military protects even rich people from getting Red Dawned by commies).

 

[Black Mamba]

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456

Taxes are too low for all Americans. We as a nation are among the lowest taxed in all of the Western countries, yet we depend on the government as much as ever.

Until you expand the pool of contributors, you will never have the political capital/will to enact policy changes to help America. The last 4 years have shown that. The deficit/debt hang over EVERY POLICY decision now, to the detriment of the poor and lower middle class.

This imaginary "fiscal cliff" might hurt in the short term, but the long term decisions that are not being made (or being nerfed) are hurting this country exponentially down the road.

In fairness, those are just federal tax rates. Doesn't take into account state and local taxes.

Note: not arguing your general point is wrong, simply that your data is a bit incomplete.

 

[Oblivion]

LOL, has this been posted yet? Mittens secret weapon against Obama - Seduce the blacks:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...l-car-wreck-Mitt-Romney-to-court-black-voters

 

[Aaron Strife]

Who let the dogs out?

I like on those banner "polls" you can always tell which team they're playing for. There's one that keeps showing up for me that says "Who's best for economic recovery?" and it has a picture of Romney, Obama, and Ron Paul. Gee, I wonder if they're Ron Paul supporters?

 

[maximum360]

It's remarkable how this cycle corresponds with 2004. Obviously, they diverge on a few facets. Otherwise, the fundamentals are analogous. A moderately popular incumbent presiding over moderate growth with an average opponent. Naturally, the election portends to be close with the incumbent enjoying a moderate advantage. Growth was slightly greater for Bush. Yet he also faced strident opposition to a war that polarized the electorate.Are you jealous of Kosmo's tag?"Hope. It is the quintessential partisan delusion, simultaneously the source of their greatest strength, and their greatest weakness."

Gary Johnson

 

[GaimeGuy]

But, if you did, you would show them this!

Which reflects that the middle class (40th to 80th percentile of income earners) is actually paying a higher effective tax now than historically. The truth is that the middle class does not, in fact, need a tax increase. And it would be very detrimental to the precarious economy to impose one on them. The top 1%, on the other hand... (although I personally would focus on the top 0.1% or higher). Of course, that wouldn't be for the purpose of "raising revenue" or "closing the deficit," both of which are as ridiculous a concept as plugging a perpetual motion machine into an outlet for power.



Yeah, I'd say that's all right.

(Sorry for going back a few pages, I've been busy all day.)

Don't forget that the OASDI tax has increased from 6% in 1960 to 12.4% (down to 10.4% since last year) over the course of that time. This tax is regressive. It only affects wages up to a certain point, and it does not apply to compensation in stock and other benefits, and that the medicare health insurance program didn't exist at the beginning of that graph. That represents another 2.9% (1.45% by the employee) that didn't exist in 1960.


I guarantee you that the 0-40th percentile's taxes have also gone up if you include this.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Don't forget that the OASDI tax has increased from 6% in 1960 to 12.4% (down to 10.4% since last year) over the course of that time. This tax is regressive. It only affects wages up to a certain point, and it does not apply to compensation in stock and other benefits, and that the medicare health insurance program didn't exist at the beginning of that graph. That represents another 2.9% (1.45% by the employee) that didn't exist in 1960.


I guarantee you that the 0-40th percentile's taxes have also gone up if you include this.

From what I have read, benefits (when adjusted for inflation) have tripled over that same time frame. It seems to me that the net benefit far outweighs whatever small amount of money that is being extracted.

 

[empty vessel]

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456

I posted something went back to 1960--not 1979--for a reason.

Taxes are too low for all Americans.

This statement is meaningless as is. Taxes are too low for what purpose?

We as a nation are among the lowest taxed in all of the Western countries, yet we depend on the government as much as ever.

First, I'm not sure if the first proposition in this sentence was intentionally crafted to address collective taxation as a whole, but if you look at how much tax an average, middle class member of the society pays, I am not at all sure that statement holds. (And, if it does, I bet it doesn't hold true by much.) The burden is on you to show it, although I think these kinds of comparisons are difficult. The US undeniably does take in less total tax revenue as a percent of GDP than most OECD countries, but that only tells us what things sum up to, not what the tax burden on typical members of the society or the middle class for any given country is.

Second, this doesn't get us anywhere even if it were true, because it could just as well be that taxes on the typical person in most Western countries are too high rather than that taxes on the typical American are too low.

Until you expand the pool of contributors, you will never have the political capital/will to enact policy changes to help America. The last 4 years have shown that. The deficit/debt hang over EVERY POLICY decision now, to the detriment of the poor and lower middle class.

But your proposal is to enact terrible policy. You see the problem here? It is your very idea to raise taxes on the middle class--austerity--that is the bad policy. You are proposing a policy detrimental to the poor and middle class--a tax hike--and justifying it by saying you want to help them. Not only does the policy directly hurt them by taking money from them, it also hurts the economy and maintains high unemployment on them.

As well, raising taxes does not "expand the pool of contributors." It just takes more money from the people already paying. You can expand the pool of contributors by flattening incomes. You can flatten incomes by taxing anomalously high income earners at drastically higher rates.

This imaginary "fiscal cliff" might hurt in the short term, but the long term decisions that are not being made (or being nerfed) are hurting this country exponentially down the road.

What long term decisions? The thing that is hurting the country most down the road is the government's current refusal to spend money to optimize the economy and employ the unemployed. Your proposal--fiscal austerity--makes that problem worse, not better.

And I still don't understand the purpose for which you think taxes are too low. It hasn't been articulated. What do you want raising tax rates on the middle class to accomplish, in policy terms?

 

[ToxicAdam]

My 'proposal' is not to raise taxes on the middle class but to -return- tax policy to where it once was in the mid-90's.

This is not a radical idea, and not one where we haven't been before.

I would post more but I am turning in and am doing this on an iPad.

 

[empty vessel]

My 'proposal' is not to raise taxes on the middle class but to -return- tax policy to where it once was in the mid-90's.

Increasing taxes on the middle class in the current economic environment will (1) hurt the middle class; (2) decrease aggregate demand and thus sap economic growth; and (3) raise unemployment (of the middle class!). These would be the policy results of such a move. What I am wondering is what you think is gained by it. A tax raise is never economically necessary unless (1) the productive capacity of the economy is maxed out; and (2) the government wants to spend more money on something. Unless those two conditions exist simultaneously, tax increases have to be justified on their own terms, i.e., they have to achieve some policy goal in and of themselves. For example, this is how I justify dramatically raising taxes on anomalously high income earners--because the tax itself enhances egalitarianism and democratic governance.

 

[thatbox]

LOL, has this been posted yet? Mittens secret weapon against Obama - Seduce the blacks:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...l-car-wreck-Mitt-Romney-to-court-black-voters

I really don't even know why he's speaking there, given how the NAACP's policy positions are pretty much the polar opposite of his own. Is it just tradition?

 

[XMonkey]

He'll be trolling about the impending GOP sweep in the midterms the day after the election.

Nope, because he'll be on a 3-month ban if Obama wins. Or I will be if Romney wins.

Spoiler

Unless you were trolling with that ban bet, PD?

If PD didn't post this thread would be a barren wasteland and about a third the size it is now. Most everyone else got bored with an extended poking of the poligaf hive mind.

Guess we'll find out in November if that's true.

 

[leroidys]

If Romney actually does win the election (I consider him a longshot at this point) what would his first term look like? Though Republicans have been more succesfull at passing major legislation in recent years, in this era of hyper partisan politicing trumping governance, would he really be able to get anything done?

Certainly even if he won and the senate flipped, they would be nowhere near a super majority. I could see tax reform as having a realistic chance, but I don't think immigration reform would be possible. Anything that would be palatable to his base would not go nearly far enough for anyone who has actually been working toward comprehensive immigration reform on the left. Could we afford to punt immigration reform another 6 years down the road? I guess we'll find out.

"Entitlement" reform seems a long shot as well, though not completely impossible. Although Romney fully supported the Ryan plan, I would not expect him to embrace such an extreme position if he was actually in office. An attempt at this, especially in a first term, would be handing Democrats a PPACA/"Romney's Waterloo".

Education is the last major issue standing, but one that Romney has spent virtually no time on - or at least one that has not gotten any coverage. This could be a serious issue for him, but as the campaign has taken seemingly no interest in it, I do not find it likely that a president Romney would expend the political capital on an issue that would not get him an immediate boost.

Those being the elephants in the room, what would Romney hope to accomplish? They would certainly strive for something to hang their hat on for their re-election bid, and with Romney's stated disastrous FP stances, I honestly don't think another war or military incursion is totally out of the question.

 

[Puddles]

If PD is going to be banned for 3 months, we won't get to see his new avatar until February 2013.

 

[PhoenixDark]

If PD is going to be banned for 3 months, we won't get to see his new avatar until February 2013.

The bet is that I get banned the day after the election, if I lose of course. That way I get to analyze the result and discuss the 2014 elections briefly with my new avatar

 

[Black Republican]

I really don't even know why he's speaking there, given how the NAACP's policy positions are pretty much the polar opposite of his own. Is it just tradition?

didnt mccain go too?

 

[XMonkey]

The bet is that I get banned the day after the election, if I lose of course. That way I get to analyze the result and discuss the 2014 elections briefly with my new avatar

2014? You'll be back by then

 

[talisayNon]

I'm reading a piece about WFAN's origins and this gem came up, I thought I'd share it with POLIGAF:

Imus: I think that was either Paul Begala or Carville that called and said [Clinton] was coming into New York. He had some controversy surrounding him. He had finished second in New Hampshire and he called himself the Comeback Kid. And he had the Gennifer Flowers controversy surrounding him. And this is before he did the Arsenio Hall saxophone deal. So I just simply thought they needed to humanize him a little bit. So we arranged this interview and it just happened.

IMUS: Well, here now on a phone with us, the governor of Arkansas who, as you probably know, is running for the presidency of the United States. Good morning, Governor Clinton.
CLINTON: Good morning, Don.
IMUS: How are you?
CLINTON: Well, I'm all right. I'm disappointed you didn't call me "Bubba."
IMUS: [Laughing vigorously.] Well —
CLINTON: It's an honorable term where I come from. It's just Southern for mensch.
IMUS: I'd actually read in the New York Times that that was a derisive term, but then, that was the New York Times …. So how are you? Do you want to go back to Arkansas? It's like you've been mugged here in New York, isn't it?
CLINTON: Well, I'm having a good time, you know. I'm trying to mug back.
IMUS: At what point yesterday when you were on that simple-minded, nitwit Donahue Show6 did you realize that this might not be the right thing to do?
CLINTON: Oh, I think it was all right.
IMUS: Have you had a chance to read the papers this morning?
CLINTON: No.
IMUS: I've got some good news: There's nothing awful in them. At least you haven't been accused of having any kind of relationship with unattractive women. I mean, what if Roseanne Arnold were calling Ted Koppel, saying, "Yeah, I been sleeping with Governor Clinton"? I mean, that would be a problem.
CLINTON: Listen, if she did that, I'd file a palimony suit against her. She's got the no. 1 TV show in America, and I could finance the rest of this presidential campaign. It'd be better than Jerry Brown's 800 number.

McGuirk: Everybody was laughing. And this guy, this Southern governor, was actually human with a sense of humor. Clinton eventually won New York State even though he'd been down in the polls before the interview. Imus was credited with turning around his fortunes in the primary, which turned around his fortunes in the general primary itself. ... But [the Clinton interview] impressed in people's minds that the I-Man was a kingmaker and that he had some juice. After that, everybody wanted on the show — Giuliani, David Dinkins, you name it. Imus has a great BS antenna. He gets right to the heart of things and gets people to say things that they would otherwise not say. The hope always was that we have somebody say something that they end up apologizing for the rest of the week.

Don Criqui (updates, "Imus in the Morning"): The guy is very smart. He can read people as well as anybody you'll meet. He makes an awful lot of calls about people in the news that might seem a little outrageous at first, but he tends to be right about them.

Imus: I remember telling Charles the day John Edwards came into the studio, "That's the phoniest son of a bitch I've ever met in my life." Edwards is even a bigger piece of shit than Newt Gingrich, if you can even fathom that.