• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
Flying_Phoenix said:
Possibly. I mean I have doubts that America will find itself in mass starvations and go into anarchy ala Mad Max or that the average college student spends $100,000 in student loans and most people support Communism.
Click to expand...

You would be surprised. I have been hoarding shoulder pads for the last decade in anticipation.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
AlteredBeast said:
Are you insinuating that prestigious institutions like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore are not good representatives of the truth?
Click to expand...

The truth shall set you free. If there were more truth out there, I really think people could agree on things more and get things done. That is why it really fucking pisses me off when people spew lies such as Rush talking about Sandra Fluke getting government funded contraception or Mike Daisy making up stories about the conditions in Foxconn factories. The lies waste our time and cause us to make bad decisions.
 
N

NihonTiger90

Member
speculawyer said:
More charts & graphs are good. I'd like to see them use them in presidential debates.
Click to expand...

the_return_of_ross_perot_syndrome-460x307.jpg
 
S

Scirrocco

Member
Black Republican said:
despite the infighting, is a Romney/Santorum ticket still possible?
Click to expand...

More then most people think, i'd guess, but probably not until Santorum's momentum slows down and he starts losing more primaries. No point on getting out while you're still moving up. Maybe just before or after the convention, when Santorum knows he's lost.
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
speculawyer said:
I LOVED it when Ross Perot did that. He didn't win but I think that guy can take partial responsibility for the fiscal sanity of Clinton years. I wish someone would do it again.
Click to expand...

And cause another recession? No thanks.

The 1990′s were characterized by enormous prosperity in America. A multitude of factors combined to form one of the great economic booms in the history of modern economies. And our government used this opportunity to invoke some politics into the mix. In the late 1990′s our politicians started worrying about our national debt. The rhetoric about America going bankrupt became a persistent theme. And we took drastic measures to combat this supposed threat. Bill Clinton spearheaded the movement towards fiscal responsibility. So, the government dramatically reduced the budget deficit and sent the US government briefly into budget surplus. ...

What happened next directly contributed to the current malaise in the US economy. If we look at the sectoral balances we can see exactly what the Clinton surplus did. As the US economy was running a current account deficit in excess of 2% in the mid 90′s the US government began to shrink the deficit. This wasn’t entirely misguided, however, it was taken to an extreme. As the current account remained steady near 2% the government’s balance continued to shrink and went positive in 1999. All the while the domestic private sector is being driven into deficit. Why? Because the government was not spending enough to allow the domestic private sector to net save. So what happens as Americans attempt to counteract this?

They fund their lifestyles in other ways. This means going into debt. As you can see from household debt levels Americans were taking on an increasingly large amount of debt in order to sustain their lifestyles. ...
Click to expand...

6sQlN.png


http://pragcap.com/visualizing-the-destruction-of-the-clinton-surplus
 
I

Invisible_Insane

Member
Black Republican said:
despite the infighting, is a Romney/Santorum ticket still possible?
Click to expand...
Forget possible; from Romney's perspective, I can't see why such a thing would even be desirable. There are suitable socially conservative Republicans without Santorum's baggage, and I don't think Santorum could even deliver Pennsylvania, so there really would not have been a point to picking him.
 
A

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
AlteredBeast said:
Maybe Romney can pull up how many lives are lost or destroyed thanks to alcoholism, drunk driving, cirrhosis of the liver, abuse, etc.

Of course, with the great majority of people in the country that do drink, it would only serve to make him look pious.
Click to expand...

True but I don't think Americans want a president who drinks a lot either. If a crisis were to erupt today Obama would be too tipsy to handle it
 
L

lenovox1

Member
Invisible_Insane said:
Forget possible; from Romney's perspective, I can't see why such a thing would even be desirable. There are suitable socially conservative Republicans without Santorum's baggage, and I don't think Santorum could even deliver Pennsylvania, so there really would not have been a point to picking him.
Click to expand...

If they go into a brokered convention and Santorum gets second place, he may not have a choice.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
lenovox1 said:
If they go into a brokered convention and Santorum gets second place, he may not have a choice.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that's the case. Romney will most likely be 100-500 delegates away from clinching. Given the rules on unbound delegates plus Ron Paul's, I don't think Romney will need Santorum.

Of course we're assuming a brokered convention will actually happen. If Santorum loses Ill, which he most likely will (by a small margin), he'll be officially out of hail mary chances at the nomination. If he decides to stay in, all he does is hurt the party, and I think unbound delegates will flock to Romney when the time is right.
 
A

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
PhoenixDark said:
I'm not sure that's the case. Romney will most likely be 100-500 delegates away from clinching. Given the rules on unbound delegates plus Ron Paul's, I don't think Romney will need Santorum.

Of course we're assuming a brokered convention will actually happen. If Santorum loses Ill, which he most likely will (by a small margin), he'll be officially out of hail mary chances at the nomination. If he decides to stay in, all he does is hurt the party, and I think unbound delegates will flock to Romney when the time is right.
Click to expand...

I doubt Santorum or Gingrich cares about hurting the party at this point, as far as they see it, they are trying to save the party from Mitt the Moderate Mormon.
 
C

Chumly

Member
AlteredBeast said:
Maybe Romney can pull up how many lives are lost or destroyed thanks to alcoholism, drunk driving, cirrhosis of the liver, abuse, etc.

Of course, with the great majority of people in the country that do drink, it would only serve to make him look pious.
Click to expand...

Somehow I dont think suggesting going back to the prohibition era would be very effective during a run for the president of the United States.
 
A

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
Chumly said:
Somehow I dont think suggesting going back to the prohibition era would be very effective during a run for the president of the United States.
Click to expand...

Not prohibition-enforcing or supporting, but having the ability to say he lives above something that destroys and hurts millions of families annually. Obama can barely claim to be above smoking, with its obvious negative connotation and harmful effects on the body.

elrechazao said:
Obama seems to think it's effective with his war on pot.
Click to expand...

war on pot is subjective. He is no more enforcing than other presidents that precede him, he is just not progressive enough to realize that marijuana should be regulated, taxed, and legalized.
 
E

elrechazado

Banned
AlteredBeast said:
Not prohibition-enforcing or supporting, but having the ability to say he lives above something that destroys and hurts millions of families annually. Obama can barely claim to be above smoking, with its obvious negative connotation and harmful effects on the body.



war on pot is subjective. He is no more enforcing than other presidents that precede him, he is just not progressive enough to realize that marijuana should be regulated, taxed, and legalized.
Click to expand...

Well, he's actually going above and beyond what Bush or any others did, but the sad fact is that this is what the voting public seems to want generally. Tide is turning though
 
X

XMonkey

lacks enthusiasm.
Stephen Moore thinks Newt can actually get gas to $2.50/gal.

Ya.

Also no mention of the rising influence of speculators in the oil market, which is something legislation can be used to help curb.
 
C

cartoon_soldier

Member
Romney doing well in IL

PublicPolicyPolling ‏ @ppppolls Reply Retweet Favorite · Open
Romney's winning by a larger margin in our Illinois polling than the surveys to date- double digits in today's calls
Click to expand...

I am sure the 8-1 spending advantage helped.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
Plinko said:
Anybody interested in the United States' oil/gas issues needs to watch this interview/debate with Fareed Zakaria and Stephen Moore, the senior economics writer on the Wall Street Journal. A lot of good points discussed.

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn...licans-are-pandering-on-oil-prices/?hpt=hp_t3
Click to expand...

Stephen Moore is an ideological zealot idiot. This statement is pretty stupid:
Anderson Cooper: Stephen, do you believe that Newt Gingrich can bring it to $2.50 a gallon?

Stephen Moore: Yes, I do. I have seen presidents do this when one of the reason this is such a hot button issue, Anderson, is because of the fact that one of the reasons that Jimmy Carter lost the election 1980 was because of very high gasoline prices a result of very high inflation.
Click to expand...
Really? We had 2 oilmen running the whitehouse and total GOP control of the House and Senate from 2000 to 2006 yet they couldn't stop the price of oil shooting up from 2000 to 2005 very sharply. And 2007 saw $4/gasoline. You think Newt could fix that? Really? Never mind that we have reports from EIA that say even if we drilled ANWR and off the Atlantic coast, it would not make a significant difference.

I don't know if he is dumb enough to believe that . . . he might be. Or he might just be a big fat liar that says he believes it because that will help his favored candidates win office.
And it is well known that he is a big fat liar when he says things like:
I mean, we have more oil right now in states like North Dakota, Oklahoma, Colorado, California, than Saudi Arabia has oil.
Click to expand...
The ONLY way anyone could assign any truth to that statement is to include oil shale which IS NOT OIL. It is Kerogen, a waxy pre-oil substance. There is currently no process for economically extracting it. No one really knows how much it will cost to extract it. People have tried to extract since the 1973 oil crisis and there have been some projects that do extract it but it is so expensive, requires so much water, requires so much energy, and creates so much waste material that it just makes no economic sense.


Fareed knows his foreign policy stuff but he really made a MAJOR boner in that discussion:
Fareed said:
The United States for the first time is actually exporting oil rather than importing oil, and it has made no difference to our prices. In fact, as we can see, oil prices have gone up. Why?
Click to expand...
No, we still import around half our crude oil. We merely export refined product these days because we have excess refining capacity and south/central America has demand. (We have excess refining capacity since demand has dropped due to a slowed economy and high oil prices.)

C'mon Fareed . . . you should do better than that. Look at the demand growth from China and the nearly flat worldwide oil production from around 2005. It is no mystery why gas is expensive. It is mostly supply & demand but with a little speculation froth from Iran crisis. Fareed did mostly get it right . . . he just missed the flat oil production.
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
speculawyer said:
Fareed knows his foreign policy stuff but he really made a MAJOR boner in that discussion:

No, we still import around half our crude oil. We merely export refined product these days because we have excess refining capacity and south/central America has demand. (We have excess refining capacity since demand has dropped due to a slowed economy and high oil prices.)

C'mon Fareed . . . you should do better than that. Look at the demand growth from China and the nearly flat worldwide oil production from around 2005. It is no mystery why gas is expensive. It is mostly supply & demand but with a little speculation froth from Iran crisis. Fareed did mostly get it right . . . he just missed the flat oil production.
Click to expand...

http://business.financialpost.com/2012/03/12/china-oil-demand-as-good-as-it-gets/?__lsa=4824ccf9

Interesting analysis here and speculation that China is simply buying oil to store because demand is falling off.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
quadriplegicjon said:
I've seen no Santorum ads at all. Completely bombarded with Romney ads though.
Click to expand...
He doesn't have much money. And he mentioned that he wasn't going to spend a lot on TV since most of those viewers in that expensive Chicago media market are Democrats.

But he's gonna lose there because due to that area being more of an East Coast moderate Republican type of state instead of a Southern or Western red meat conservative Republican kind of state. The crazy circus looks like it is going to end soon.
 
A

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
speculawyer said:
He doesn't have much money. And he mentioned that he wasn't going to spend a lot on TV since most of those viewers in that expensive Chicago media market are Democrats.

But he's gonna lose there because due to that area being more of an East Coast moderate Republican type of state instead of a Southern or Western red meat conservative Republican kind of state. The crazy circus looks like it is going to end soon.
Click to expand...
Only if romney closes out LA, as well. I fully expect Santorum and Gingrich to hang on no matter what, but would love to see the selfishness of this circus end.
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
speculawyer said:
Yeah, me and the entire economic world must have missed that 90's recession. There was a recession after 2000 but that was caused by over-investment in dot com mania. That was when we convinced ourselves that FedExing dog food from pets.com was a viable business strategy.

8380_a_2.png
Click to expand...

I never said there was a recession in the 90's. The government surpluses were in 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001. The recession began in March of 2001, following three years of government surpluses that had the effect of forcing the private sector to go into the red (which is what the chart I posted reflects). When the government runs a surplus (i.e., removes money from the economy), it drains the private sector of financial assets. You can give credit to Clinton for the 90's economy (to the extent you give any president credit). You can also give him credit for the 2001 recession (again, to the extent you give any president credit).

Jimothy said:
First post in Poligaf and just wanted to say, I love your work.
Click to expand...

Gracias.
 
S

SouthernDragon

Member
Copernicus said:
I doubt it, but when those same people come up for reelections in 2014, this will be thrown in their face, and they won't be office.
Click to expand...

Oh no, I don't expect the subsidies to end.

Just that they are actually voting on it is, like, whaaaaaaaaaaaaat

Well, I know that the subsidies have to be renewed regularly, but still...
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
SouthernDragon said:
Wow! This is... is this really happening? Are they going to vote to end subsidies for big oil?
Click to expand...

No, they won't. This is a pinata dems pull out every 2 to 4 years when gas prices are high during the summer. It's like the whole "end tax cuts to businesses that ship jobs overseas" phantom they bring up every election cycle as well.

There are too many democratic senators and congressmen willing to preserve this corporate welfare, as we saw when dems controlled both houses of congress.
 
R

Redux

Banned
Gruco said:
I was really disappointed with the mini-doc. Maybe had unrealistic expectations, but was expecting something a bit more substantive. 16 minutes doesn't give much of a chance to go into detail (promos had already covered like 25% of it). Basically it seemed like the target audience was people with an extremely short attention span who literally can't remember anything that happened between 2008 and 2012.
Click to expand...

not to mention just recently obama's 2013 budget would add 6 trillion to the debt
 
S

speculawyer

Member
empty vessel said:
I never said there was a recession in the 90's. The government surpluses were in 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001. The recession began in March of 2001, following three years of government surpluses that had the effect of forcing the private sector to go into the red (which is what the chart I posted reflects). When the government runs a surplus (i.e., removes money from the economy), it drains the private sector of financial assets. You can give credit to Clinton for the 90's economy (to the extent you give any president credit). You can also give him credit for the 2001 recession (again, to the extent you give any president credit)..
Click to expand...
See . . . I think we had the opposite problem. There was too much money flowing around as people invested in all sorts of crazy internet start-ups. I was there, I had my own. A lack of money was not a problem, a lack of good businesses was the problem. But it sounds like you approve of Bush's moves to fix the economy . . . he massively cut taxes and thus "put money back into the economy". I find it quite amusing to see you on the same side of George Bush in economic matters!!

By adding more money when there were no real good business opportunities all the Bush administration (and Greenspan to who cuts rates too much at the time) did was inflate a bubble. The real estate bubble mostly.

AlteredBeast said:
Only if romney closes out LA, as well. I fully expect Santorum and Gingrich to hang on no matter what, but would love to see the selfishness of this circus end.
Click to expand...
I expect Santorum and Newt to continue but it just won't be the same. It will be like when Huckabee kept running . . . everyone knew it was over but Huckabee was just collecting more delegates in vain. There is still a remote chance of Santorum winning right now but that window is rapidly closing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom