Support NeoGAF

[markatisu]

And Scott Walker. WI will be a lock for Dems.

Also, I suppose we can assume Romney finally being front and center with no distractions is going to give him a bump. The question if he can maintain that. Obama losing so much ground with Independents so quickly is definitely cause for concern, though.

Its not a cause for concern, when Independents were polled before they were watching Romney give his empty right wing crazy speech to secure the nomination and answered accordingly.

Now that the general is set its going to be much closer with them, it will be up to Romney whether he manages to offend them with his flop flopping and disconnect. They know what they get with Obama, Romney is still a question for them and that works positively for him.

Nate Silver has a nice rundown of the ground game up, this was interesting since we all suspected Obama had a solid system while the joke of a primary for the GOP was going on

 

[PhoenixDark]

And Scott Walker. WI will be a lock for Dems.

Also, I suppose we can assume Romney finally being front and center with no distractions is going to give him a bump. The question if he can maintain that. Obama losing so much ground with Independents so quickly is definitely cause for concern, though.

No it's nothing to be worried about! Neither is the fact Obama can't sniff 50% approval consistently, everyone knows that's not an indicator of anything! Obama is going to win a landslide even bigger than 08 just watch!

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Romney's latest Budget attack really must send Empty Vessel into a fit of rage.

There's just so much wrong... Part of which is the fact that the family can't create its own money... another part of which is that most families do spent themselves into debt with buying a house or a car and having credit cards...

The idea of an ad like this isn't to make direct comparisons between a household budget and the government budget. It's simply slashing off all the zeros so that people can relate better and get a better feel of how much money the government is taking in vs. spending.
I doubt even EV is overthinking this to the point of going into rage. I sure hope not. I don't like him when he's angry.
The bottom line is that for the government or a household, these are budgetary concerns.

 

[SouthernDragon]

Oh, AND if the ticket is Romney-Rubio, Romney actually loses two points (50-43). But Hispanics would vote for him in droves!

lol

The idea of an ad like this isn't to make direct comparisons between a household budget and the government budget. It's simply slashing off all the zeros so that people can relate better and get a better feel of how much money the government is taking in vs. spending.
I doubt even EV is overthinking this to the point of going into rage. I sure hope not. I don't like him when he's angry.
The bottom line is that for the government or a household, these are budgetary concerns.

But it is. It is making a direct comparison.

 

[Blergmeister]

The idea of an ad like this isn't to make direct comparisons between a household budget and the government budget. It's simply slashing off all the zeros so that people can relate better and get a better feel of how much money the government is taking in vs. spending.
I doubt even EV is overthinking this to the point of going into rage. I sure hope not. I don't like him when he's angry.
The bottom line is that for the government or a household, these are budgetary concerns.

So your main point is that comparing the Federal budget to a household budget makes it more relatable but the critisism is it does so in the wrong way. In translating the Federal budget down the comparison turns an apple into an taco.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Gallup has Romney at +5...Obama might as well resign

 

[Clevinger]

So Ted Nugent said a horrible, hateful, violent thing. Again.

The only funny part about this is that Romney actively pursued Nugent's endorsement, even after Nugent said this stuff about both Obama and Clinton last election. Will it get even a 10th of the Rosen coverage? lol

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

So your main point is that comparing the Federal budget to a household budget makes it more relatable but the critisism is it does so in the wrong way. In translating the Federal budget down the comparison turns an apple into an taco.

Yes, but now I'm hungry.

 

[Blergmeister]

Yes, but now I'm hungry.

Quit living off the taco that is government handouts you welfare queen! Start eating the apple that is bootstraps!

 

[cartoon_soldier]

So Ted Nugent said a horrible, hateful, violent thing. Again.

The only funny part about this is that Romney actively pursued Nugent's endorsement, even after Nugent said this stuff about both Obama and Clinton last election. Will it get even a 10th of the Rosen coverage? lol

No, because it is expected of Republican right wingers to say things like this. So, it doesn't create a media firestorm.

 

[Plinko]

So Ted Nugent said a horrible, hateful, violent thing. Again.

The only funny part about this is that Romney actively pursued Nugent's endorsement, even after Nugent said this stuff about both Obama and Clinton last election. Will it get even a 10th of the Rosen coverage? lol

"Personal friend of Sean Hannity" Ted Nugent.

 

[RDreamer]

The idea of an ad like this isn't to make direct comparisons between a household budget and the government budget. It's simply slashing off all the zeros so that people can relate better and get a better feel of how much money the government is taking in vs. spending.

Uh... Slashing off the zeros in order to turn it into a household budget is literally making a direct comparison to a house hold budget. And that's beside the point that at the end of the graphic they don't just compare the numbers so they're easier to understand, they compare the actions and consequences of those numbers in both instances and infer they should be the same. You can't spin that graphic as not being a direct comparison. It is. It's meant to be.

I doubt even EV is overthinking this to the point of going into rage. I sure hope not. I don't like him when he's angry.
The bottom line is that for the government or a household, these are budgetary concerns.

Those budgetary "concerns" that you speak of are exactly what EV (and MMTs) normally speaks out against. A government which creates its own currency absolutely does not have the same budgetary concerns as a household. Also, your statement that they have the same concerns is, again, buying into the flawed direct comparison of a household budget to our federal governmental budget.

So Ted Nugent said a horrible, hateful, violent thing. Again.

The only funny part about this is that Romney actively pursued Nugent's endorsement, even after Nugent said this stuff about both Obama and Clinton last election. Will it get even a 10th of the Rosen coverage? lol

Wtf... seriously what the fuck. Is he insinuating what I think he's insinuating?

 

[Ghost_Protocol]

Romney's latest Budget attack really must send Empty Vessel into a fit of rage.

Here's Talking Points Memo's view on it

There's just so much wrong... Part of which is the fact that the family can't create its own money... another part of which is that most families do spent themselves into debt with buying a house or a car and having credit cards...

I need a concise, easily digestible explanation for why this comparison doesn't make any sense. Saying that the government can create its own money isn't enough. Doesn't that just make it easier for you to accrue debt faster? Being the debtor and the lender? I want to be able to respond inteligently to the scores of people adopting this comparison as doctrine.

 

[reilo]

I need a concise, easily digestible explanation for why this comparison doesn't make any sense. Saying that the government can create its own money isn't enough. Doesn't that just make it easier for you to accrue debt faster? Being the debtor and the lender? I want to be able to respond inteligently to the scores of people adopting this comparison as doctrine.

Does the head of the household take in revenue from their children?

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Uh... Slashing off the zeros in order to turn it into a household budget is literally making a direct comparison to a house hold budget. And that's beside the point that at the end of the graphic they don't just compare the numbers so they're easier to understand, they compare the actions and consequences of those numbers in both instances and infer they should be the same. You can't spin that graphic as not being a direct comparison. It is. It's meant to be.


Those budgetary "concerns" that you speak of are exactly what EV (and MMTs) normally speaks out against. A government which creates its own currency absolutely does not have the same budgetary concerns as a household. Also, your statement that they have the same concerns is, again, buying into the flawed direct comparison of a household budget to our federal governmental budget.

I still say you are overthinking this. And I never said they are the "same" concerns. I said they both signal budgetary concerns. But no.. you go on thinking the government can keep creating currency ad infinitum with no issues. Golly, I remember a time when Democrats used to bitch about debt and deficit. It seems so long ago.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

The idea of an ad like this isn't to make direct comparisons between a household budget and the government budget. It's simply slashing off all the zeros so that people can relate better and get a better feel of how much money the government is taking in vs. spending.
I doubt even EV is overthinking this to the point of going into rage. I sure hope not. I don't like him when he's angry.
The bottom line is that for the government or a household, these are budgetary concerns.

No, the idea is to court the low information voter. There isn't one person in the Romney camp (or the entire Republican Party) who has any illusions about the intent of that graphic. It's not to impart any insight or to boil it down for the layman, lol.

 

[empty vessel]

Romney's latest Budget attack really must send Empty Vessel into a fit of rage.

Yes, it does. If I knew how to photoshop, I'd place a big apple on the left side of the chart and a big orange on the other.

In place of "projected national debt," it should read, "projected size of national bank program as a result of incredibly stupid law that requires the government bank to grow in size whenever the government net spends money by the exact amount the government net spends even though it need not." That's what bond issuance is.

These kind of bald misrepresentations about how our monetary system works should be called out at every turn, because all they do is mislead and confuse, which, of course, is their purpose.

The bottom line is that for the government or a household, these are budgetary concerns.

Because it has unlimited money, the government doesn't have budgetary concerns. It has only economic concerns. (Well, and other non-economic concerns, of course, but I mean as related to its spending capacity.)

I need a concise, easily digestible explanation for why this comparison doesn't make any sense. Saying that the government can create its own money isn't enough. Doesn't that just make it easier for you to accrue debt faster? Being the debtor and the lender? I want to be able to respond inteligently to the scores of people adopting this comparison as doctrine.

The link you are missing here is that, because the government creates money, the government does not need to issue debt to net spend (i.e., spend more than it receives in taxes). So the government's power to create its own money does not make it easier to accrue debt faster. Just the opposite, in fact. Debt issuance is a choice that has nothing to do with spending. The law that requires the government to issue bonds in the amount that its spending exceeds its tax intake has no purpose. It is, itself, an entirely separate and independent government spending program that amounts to the creation (and expansion) of a national bank. When you purchase a bond from the government, you open a savings account with it. But the government does not need the money you give it when you purchase a bond in order to spend money. Why? Because it can just create its own. So there is a complete disconnect at that point between debt and spending.

 

[Blergmeister]

I need a concise, easily digestible explanation for why this comparison doesn't make any sense. Saying that the government can create its own money isn't enough. Doesn't that just make it easier for you to accrue debt faster? Being the debtor and the lender? I want to be able to respond inteligently to the scores of people adopting this comparison as doctrine.

One thing is that it is not uncommon for a family to be $160,000 in debt due to mortgage loans, car loans, student loans, medical bills, etc.

Second, when a family is in trouble and cannot pay it's bills the family would generally try to get more money coming in. A family would do this through a second job, a government through raising taxes. Romneys budget absolutely goes against this. Romneys budget would sell the family car before picking up the second job... which would leave them in worse shape to get to work.

Third, the US Government can print more money until inflation or other economic concerns become a greater risk than severe austerity (ie not any time soon.) Sick of the increasing interest on debt payment? Just don't hand out treasuries (obviously pay back the ones we have.) Treasuries are government services to the financial system, not funding for federal programs specifically.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Because it has unlimited money, the government doesn't have budgetary concerns. It has only economic concerns. (Well, and other non-economic concerns, of course, but I mean as related to its spending capacity.)

Some day I will have to try to wrap my head around your economic theory.

 

[RDreamer]

I still say you are overthinking this. And I never said they are the "same" concerns. I said they both signal budgetary concerns. But no.. you go on thinking the government can keep creating currency ad infinitum with no issues. Golly, I remember a time when Democrats used to bitch about debt and deficit. It seems so long ago.

You're misunderstanding things. MMTs don't think you can create currency ad infinitum with no issue. They just don't believe the issue is the deficit itself. The deficit is a measurement the difference in government spending and tax revenues. That's all it is. It isn't something to be concerned with for its own sake. You can't create currency ad infinitum for other reasons, some reasons which have not happened yet (rampant inflation). By focusing on the deficit for its own sake our government is wasting resources and work hours that could be easily put to use with infrastructure. And that use would send money back into the economy. By deficit mongering at a time when the deficit is supposed to balloon, we're just going against our best interest. The big actual concern for government spending should be the economy, especially during a recession.

But yes, maybe we are over thinking this particular budget attack. The thing is that even if you keep the same framing there are numerous flaws. Rachel Maddow goes into a few here. The problem is that the graphic uses scare tactics to get people to believe we should stop spending or cut spending, because a family totally would! Nevermind the fact that most American families do deficit spend when they buy a house or when they buy a car or when they use a credit card, and this is normally a good thing, especially for our economy. It becomes a concern when the family no longer can pay off its monthly payments, not when the number itself becomes huge. The analogy also doesn't work, because as someone sarcastically pointed out before me, the head of a household doesn't gain revenue from its children. Even if you stretch it that far and go with that children thing, the normal family during tough times wouldn't keep giving HUGE allowances (tax breaks) to their children (the rich). They'd cut back on that, and that's something Romney isn't going to do.

I need a concise, easily digestible explanation for why this comparison doesn't make any sense. Saying that the government can create its own money isn't enough. Doesn't that just make it easier for you to accrue debt faster? Being the debtor and the lender? I want to be able to respond inteligently to the scores of people adopting this comparison as doctrine.

I guess I'd start with what Rachel Maddow says here. She's still keeping the framework of the Romney argument, but she puts things in a way that most normal folks can understand, I think.

Some day I will have to try to wrap my head around your economic theory.

I don't get how you can't. To me it feels so blatantly obvious that the only reasons not to believe it is because you want to cling to the political propaganda thrown around to misrepresent things or your just hesitant because it is so blatantly obvious.

 

[Diablos]

No it's nothing to be worried about! Neither is the fact Obama can't sniff 50% approval consistently, everyone knows that's not an indicator of anything! Obama is going to win a landslide even bigger than 08 just watch!

LOL

Pretty sure the election will be closer than PoliGAF suggests.

I still think Obama can beat the Republican John Kerry, though.

 

[reilo]

LOL

Pretty sure the election will be closer than PoliGAF suggests.

I still think Obama can beat the Republican John Kerry, though.

The economy just needs to tank really badly, and then PhoenixDark will be proven right!

 

[Diablos]

The economy just needs to tank really badly, and then PhoenixDark will be proven right!

That could always happen, too. The current pace is bad enough as is. Anything that throws a wrench into it (even higher gas prices than expected, Israel vs. Iran, some kind of scandal, etc.) can all but solidify a Romney win, absolutely. Don't forget about PAC money. I don't think we've even begun to witness its true prowess for the GOP.

I don't expect it as much as PD, but it's all certainly very possible.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

But no.. you go on thinking the government can keep creating currency ad infinitum with no issues. Golly, I remember a time when Democrats used to bitch about debt and deficit. It seems so long ago.

I hate to talk for others, but I don't think EV or any MMTist I've ever read has said "We can create unlimited money with no consequences." They'll admit that things like inflation can occur, but that they're secondary to solving more important problems. The claim EV makes is that we should aim to have a certain budget, but rather to accomplish a goal, and let the deficit be what may. Again, if I'm misrepresenting his or your argument, I'm sorry.
The other thing is, I don't think EV has as favorable opinion of democrats as you seem to be implying. Just because he doesn't think debt and deficit are as important as you do, doesn't mean all democrats do. Saying that Democrats don't care about the deficit just because EV doesn't is a pretty stupid claim to make.

 

[RustyNails]

So Ted Nugent said a horrible, hateful, violent thing. Again.

lol
enjoy your meeting with secret service, asshole

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

Anyone think Romney can win Ohio?

 

[empty vessel]

I hate to talk for others, but I don't think EV or any MMTist I've ever read has said "We can create unlimited money with no consequences." They'll admit that things like inflation can occur, but that they're secondary to solving more important problems. The claim EV makes is that we should aim to have a certain budget, but rather to accomplish a goal, and let the deficit be what may. Again, if I'm misrepresenting his or your argument, I'm sorry.

That's close. The one caveat is that MMT doesn't suggest that inflation is a "secondary" concern, only that inflation is not a risk so long as the economy is not at capacity. MMT actually perceives inflation as a primary concern, just one that (1) is not presently a risk; and (2) can be contained when and if it ever does become a risk by decreasing net spending. MMT sees spending and taxing as a steering wheel for the economy. Too cold = increase net spending to increase aggregate demand. Too hot (inflation risk) = decrease net spending to decrease aggregate demand. The budget is irrelevant, except that Congress has attached debt issuance to it, which amounts to an unnecessary government spending program.* (There are reasons why a government would issue debt notwithstanding the false belief that it is needed to spend. Australia, for example, continued to issue debt despite that its government was in surplus, because debt was demanded by investors as a safe investment. Still, even if there are good reasons for the maintenance of a national bank, there are no good reasons for pegging its size to the amount of positive net spending in any given year.)

* Debt issuance was necessary before the government adopted a fiat monetary system. Only since 1971 has the US government had a fiat monetary system.

The other thing is, I don't think EV has as favorable opinion of democrats as you seem to be implying. Just because he doesn't think debt and deficit are as important as you do, doesn't mean all democrats do. Saying that Democrats don't care about the deficit just because EV doesn't is a pretty stupid claim to make.

It is. I have the same complaint about Democrats that misunderstand and misrepresent the monetary system and its implications.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

That's close. The one caveat is that MMT doesn't suggest that inflation is a "secondary" concern, only that inflation is not a risk so long as the economy is not at capacity. MMT actually perceives inflation as a primary concern, just one that (1) is not presently a risk; and (2) can be contained when and if it ever does become a risk by decreasing net spending. MMT sees spending and taxing as a steering wheel for the economy. Too cold = increase net spending to increase aggregate demand. Too hot (inflation risk) = decrease net spending to decrease aggregate demand.

Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Clevinger]

actual Fox News headline: Ted Nugent Under Investigation But Not Black Panthers?

 

[Aaron Strife]

No it's nothing to be worried about! Neither is the fact Obama can't sniff 50% approval consistently, everyone knows that's not an indicator of anything! Obama is going to win a landslide even bigger than 08 just watch!

Are you really taking this approach right now?

Plus your argument belly-flops if you're going to point to a poll as evidence that Obama will lose when it shows him LEADING by a 4-point margin.

In fact let's take a look at all the polls from April of Obama v. Romney, taking out daily trackers:

CNN: Obama 52, Romney 43 (+9 Obama)
Reuter/Ipsos: Obama 47, Romney 43 (+4 Obama)
Pew: Obama 49, Romney 45 (+4 Obama)
PPP: Obama 50, Romney 44 (+6 Obama)
ABC/WaPo: Obama 51, Romney 44 (+7 Obama)

and last, and certainly least

Fox News: Obama 44, Romney 46 (+2 Romney)

I mean unless you want to pretend Fox News doesn't have an agenda, everything's coming up 'bamsy and is pretty much in line with the 5ish point margin I've been predicting him to win by. In electoral college terms, that'd basically replicate his 2008 sweep.

 

[Hawkian]

actual Fox News headline: Ted Nugent Under Investigation But Not Black Panthers?

That's Fox Nation, let's not be disingenuous now.

 

[Clevinger]

That's Fox Nation, let's not be disingenuous now.

Ah. It came up as just "Fox News" in the Google news feed.

 

[Diablos]

It's April.

 

[Hobbestetrician]

That's Fox Nation, let's not be disingenuous now.

And now Fox News shows up on my browser history because I went looking for it for some sick reason. Now I need to go delete my history.*

*Probably needed to clear the history anyway.

 

[Aaron Strife]

It's April.

It sure is.

 

[speculawyer]

So Ted Nugent said a horrible, hateful, violent thing. Again.

The only funny part about this is that Romney actively pursued Nugent's endorsement, even after Nugent said this stuff about both Obama and Clinton last election. Will it get even a 10th of the Rosen coverage? lol

Ted Nugent Declares ‘I Will Either Be Dead or in Jail’ if Obama Is Re-elected.

Sounds like fine news to me. Let it happen.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Ted Nugent Declares ‘I Will Either Be Dead or in Jail’ if Obama Is Re-elected.

Sounds like fine news to me. Let it happen.

Especially since being dead is the bigger possibility. lol

 

[mckmas8808]

Dems fold

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/dnc-declares-end-to-phrase-war-on-women

DNC Declares An End To Phrase ‘War On Women’

I'm glad the Dems stopped this phrase, because it's stupid. A war? Really? Maybe they should have chosen a better name.

 

[el retorno]

actual Fox News headline: Ted Nugent Under Investigation But Not Black Panthers?

There´s also this.
http://nation.foxnews.com/bill-maher/2012/04/17/pig-maher-faces-ann-romney-backlash

Fox news calling on Obama to return Maher´s donation.

IT DOESNT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN ITS A SUPERPAC. OBAMA HAS NO CONTROL.

But of course Obama can control everything.

 

[Hawkian]

Ah. It came up as just "Fox News" in the Google news feed.

Yeah, I hate how rss does that sometimes because it's at a .foxnews.com subdomain. It'd make you think "Liberals Smear Hooters Waitress" (yes, this is real) was a Fox News headline.

 

[jamesinclair]

This pisses me off. I mean I don't mind road projects now, but to cut out a high speed rail project that, I believe, would have been insanely beneficial to the state because of costs (when those weren't actually that much) and then turn around and spend more... ugh.

Also, doing some research and it seems like the transportation advisor to Walker was Robert Poole of the Reason Foundation. The Reason Foundation apparently helped put a halt on some other Rail Projects around the country, most notably in Florida.

Its strictly a coincidence, I'm sure, but the reason foundation is funded almost entirely by oil money.

 

[Hawkian]

Its strictly a coincidence, I'm sure

Looks like you've come to a...






Reasonable conclusion.

 

[Jackson50]

Jackson50 already covered this pretty thoroughly, but let me say that pulling out is simply a better option by virtue of the First Rule of Holes. Nothing we are doing there currently is materially advancing our interests, and it is costing us an exorbitant amount of money.

But if we only drop another few hundred billion, it's going to fix itself. The perils of overstretch have plagued great powers since antiquity. It's disheartening to watch the U.S. fall prey to this ancient morass while ignoring a path which bolsters our future power.

Obama leads Romney 50-45 in Florida.

He's still doomed though.

Oh, AND if the ticket is Romney-Rubio, Romney actually loses two points (50-43). But Hispanics would vote for him in droves!

No it's nothing to be worried about! Neither is the fact Obama can't sniff 50% approval consistently, everyone knows that's not an indicator of anything! Obama is going to win a landslide even bigger than 08 just watch!

This thread is going to be lovely for the next six months.

 

[RDreamer]

There´s also this.
http://nation.foxnews.com/bill-maher/2012/04/17/pig-maher-faces-ann-romney-backlash

Fox news calling on Obama to return Maher´s donation.

IT DOESNT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN ITS A SUPERPAC. OBAMA HAS NO CONTROL.

But of course Obama can control everything.

I don't even get why what Bill Maher said was so bad... I mean in and of itself it would have been off-putting, but in the context of the conversation as a whole it makes sense, and is obviously hyperbolic and sarcastic. The guy's an asshole and has said some actual bad things, but this isn't really one of those things. It's no worse than what Romney said in that video dug up of him a few days ago. The Fox News people there were acting like it was the same sort of shit that Rush Limbaugh pulled by stating "...with that kind of language!"

 

[AndyD]

Looks like you've come to a...






Reasonable conclusion.

I love your edit reason.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

I love your edit reason.

Dammit, I was hoping I was the only one who noticed. Wasn't funny until I saw that.

 

[Hawkian]

I love your edit reason.

Dammit, I was hoping I was the only one who noticed. Wasn't funny until I saw that.

The fact that it just says "Reason:" made it too good to pass up.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

You're misunderstanding things. MMTs don't think you can create currency ad infinitum with no issue. They just don't believe the issue is the deficit itself. The deficit is a measurement the difference in government spending and tax revenues. That's all it is. It isn't something to be concerned with for its own sake. You can't create currency ad infinitum for other reasons, some reasons which have not happened yet (rampant inflation). By focusing on the deficit for its own sake our government is wasting resources and work hours that could be easily put to use with infrastructure. And that use would send money back into the economy. By deficit mongering at a time when the deficit is supposed to balloon, we're just going against our best interest. The big actual concern for government spending should be the economy, especially during a recession.

But yes, maybe we are over thinking this particular budget attack. The thing is that even if you keep the same framing there are numerous flaws. Rachel Maddow goes into a few here. The problem is that the graphic uses scare tactics to get people to believe we should stop spending or cut spending, because a family totally would! Nevermind the fact that most American families do deficit spend when they buy a house or when they buy a car or when they use a credit card, and this is normally a good thing, especially for our economy. It becomes a concern when the family no longer can pay off its monthly payments, not when the number itself becomes huge. The analogy also doesn't work, because as someone sarcastically pointed out before me, the head of a household doesn't gain revenue from its children. Even if you stretch it that far and go with that children thing, the normal family during tough times wouldn't keep giving HUGE allowances (tax breaks) to their children (the rich). They'd cut back on that, and that's something Romney isn't going to do.



I guess I'd start with what Rachel Maddow says here. She's still keeping the framework of the Romney argument, but she puts things in a way that most normal folks can understand, I think.




I don't get how you can't. To me it feels so blatantly obvious that the only reasons not to believe it is because you want to cling to the political propaganda thrown around to misrepresent things or your just hesitant because it is so blatantly obvious.

Thanks for the explanations. Honestly speaking, my knowledge of economic issues and theories is pretty damn weak. That's why I said I need to wrap my head around this. Maddow's argument is that we can afford the deficits now, so... no problem. But, how long will this be true? When interest on the debt eats up 20% of the revenue, is that a problem? When do you get worried? On our current path, 80% of the projected deficit in 2021 will be from interest on debt. How is this kind of deficit spending sustainable?

 

[Black Republican]

Gallup has Romney at +5...Obama might as well resign

someone gonna get Cartered!

 

[Aaron Strife]

This thread is going to be lovely for the next six months.

I'm going to love it when Obama's in for another four years and we can all kick back and sip some mojitos.

And PD will get stuck with some hilarious avatar and claiming Democrats are doomed in 2016.

Incidentally, PPP did a funsies Democratic primary poll in 2016. Clinton -> Biden -> Cuomo seems to be the preference. Personally I'm betting Biden runs with the intention of being a one-termer. Cuomo in 2020.