-
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 |OT3| If it's not a legitimate OT the mods have ways to shut it down
- Thread starter pigeon
- Start date
- Status
So now Romney doesn't want to cut government spending?
Honestly, I would vote for an alternative if I thought Romney's economic plan had even a remote chance of achieving its goals.
The problem is that Romney's economic plan is a complete joke. The whole thing is predicated around the ideas that government spending, specifically deficit spending, creates unemployment, and that Obama has managed to "demonize" and "terrify" businesses so much that this is the primary reason they aren't hiring. But then his plan is to add 5 trillion in tax cuts to the deficit over 10 years, so the plan isn't even congruent with its own premises.
The problem is that Romney's economic plan is a complete joke. The whole thing is predicated around the ideas that government spending, specifically deficit spending, creates unemployment, and that Obama has managed to "demonize" and "terrify" businesses so much that this is the primary reason they aren't hiring. But then his plan is to add 5 trillion in tax cuts to the deficit over 10 years, so the plan isn't even congruent with its own premises.
ThisWreckage
Banned
An increase in military spending would actually create jobs, especially since the military has scaled back dramatically in the past year.
For what though? More money to be wasted in in wars? Money the military doesn't want nor need? It would be more beneficial to directly invest that money in the united states
Rather than wasting it overseas.
Federal spending targeted specifically towards job creation is almost certainly more efficient than military spending for the purpose of job creation.
ThisWreckage
Banned
Of course it is. I'm not disputing that. I was just stating that pouring money into the military would at least see recruitment numbers shoot up.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
ThisWreckage
Banned
They're both pretty damn bad. Not catastrophic, but not inspiring in the least.
At what point do these ads just annoy people and possibly cause them to shift in the other direction? I mean a lot of people in general get annoyed at politics and especially political ads. I know a lot of independents are especially this way. They recoil when they hear or see and ad and think it's a lie because it's a political ad. I just wonder if carpet bombing isn't going to turn off more than it actually helps at this point.
It would, sure, and one of the drags on the economy has been the loss of or lack of growth in government jobs, too. I just think that we really don't need to spend that money on the military. We really should be smart about where we spend our money. We already spend so goddamned much on military, and that's doing fine. Why not put that same money that would have gone there into fixing infrastructure and basically future proofing the nation. We should be building our nation here, not building more military. You'll get more jobs, you'll get more national pride, and you'll get a better country to give to your children.
Eastwood says his convention appearance was 'mission accomplished'
http://www.pineconearchive.com/120907-1.html
ThisWreckage
Banned
Well, Obama is going to be doing the same thing. I brought that point up earlier myself. I can see a lot of independents (and voters in general) getting pissed off at being bombarded by ads. Obama and Romney's campaigns are both risking completely alienating people.
Not only that, but investing that money in infrastructure, education, and energy will have much higher multiplier effects for the rest of the economy compared to investing it in the military.
I don't think he can do quite the same thing. I mean I'm sure he'll "flood" the airwaves too, for the most part, but he lacks the funding that the Republican side has, so he won't be keeping up with them on it. I'm talking about superPACS and everything combined. Here in Wisconsin it's probably an 8:1 ratio of anti-Obama to Obama.
ThisWreckage
Banned
I'm very cynical. If I'm being honest, I don't envision this country making major strides in infrastructure and energy. I think those things are very low on the priority list. Funneling money into education would be amazing because we'd have even more overqualified people entering the workforce.
You know what, I agree with those 3 points. I'm sure there are some right wing nutjobs in Hollywood, I want Obama move back from the center to the left like he was before getting elected so he can keep more of his promises, and people should feel free to get rid of republican senators in the senate who are doing a bad job by only acting in the interests of their party to block Obama and not the people so the democrats can get 60 seats.
I can go back to watching Clint Eastwood movies now.
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
Yeah, the president Obama Clint Eastwood and the rest of the Republicans were talking about is indeed the greatest hoax perpetrated on the American people.
Mercury Fred
Banned
You can almost hear him filling his Depends while he says that.
Why not? More investment in infrastructure: better mobility, less time wasted travelling.
More investment in energy: less energy imports, more money left to pay down the deficit/invest more internally.
More investment in education: more technological innovations that pull America ahead of the foreign competition and boosting our economy.
TacticalFox88
Banned
Considering they are running against a fabrication and hoax THEY created rather than the real President, yeah, this statement stands true.
Officerrob
Banned
We have been swimming in Romney Super-Pac ads for the past two months here in southwest Virginia. Both parties need to be careful about putting on too many ads
I do think over-saturation of the airwaves could be a real problem this election cycle.
It could really start to engender some annoyance with undecided voters in swing states.
DataStream
Member
I think the real #s to watch at this point are not employment reports, but any shift in likely voters post DNC. Given the huge advantage in registered voters for Obama, its pretty much the entire election. The Dems have done a good enough job when speaking to the base to make this election about wanting a strong Democratic party that will fight against the Republicans and begin calling them on their BS.
StopMakingSense
Member
Yeah. It's the Meg Whitman effect. Flooding the market with ads that were having zero effect.
worldrunover
Member
Will the right or left have a bigger meltdown if the opposite side wins? Just curious.
worldrunover
Member
Awesome new House Elections Map at 270towin.com by the way.
RustyNails
Member
One Firms ad From Obama campaign is equivalent to 100 nonsense Obama teh boogeymanz! Ads from Romney campaign. I pointed this out earlier. Obama's messaging is sharp, clean and objective, whereas Romney's messaging doesn't have any clear narrative other than I'm anti-Obama. Democrats and Obama have successfully painted Romney as an opportunist corporate raider who takes your job and ships it overseas. He's also shown as free market capitalist who has called for Detroit to go Bankrupt, and auto industry fail. This is the main reason why Ohio and Virginia are still polling blue despite never ending deluge of Romney ads. I've pointed this out earlier, Obama and the democrats are vastly outspent by Romney and his allies when it comes to campaign cash (fundraising as well as SuperPACs). Obama will continue sticking to quality over quantity, whereas Romney wants to drown everything with quantity. The man has enough money to run a small country, but misfortune to present everything but himself and his record.
The right, for sure.
Just like the left had a huge meltdown in '04.
When you think a sitting president is awful, you can justify it by saying he tricked the electorate, but after 4 years of what you think is horrible policy, it's harder to swallow.
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
Unfortunately, annoyance doesn't really matter. There's not much actual downside to saturating the airwaves, there's only diminishing returns and the risk of wasted money.
People can get sick of advertising, but if they're even modestly inclined to receive the message, then mission accomplished. No one is going to vote for the other guy or not vote at all just to spite annoying commercials. (Or not in appreciable numbers, anyway.)
We wouldn't have advertising on everything that is humanly possible to sponsor if there was a measurable negative return for it.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I'll give one to PD for the jobs numbers.
But the thing is, +96k is basically the status quo that we've been dealing with for the past two years. There have been some really strong jobs reports and some really weak ones. Last August the initial number was 0, later it was revised to 82,000.
The status quo being that the economy is in a recovery, albeit a sluggish one that could use some legislative action to kickstart it. The debate being held is whether that's a balanced plan that pushes targeted tax breaks and investments, or if we should just cut regulations and Obamacare and magically corporations will start creating jobs again.
I still think Obama is the clear favorite because the economy isn't bad enough that it's any more of a burden on him now than it was yesterday.
The fact that Romney's only playing in NC, OH, FL, VA, NH, NV, CO, IA speaks volumes to this. Notice how his surge of advertising doesn't hit Wisconsin at all.
But the thing is, +96k is basically the status quo that we've been dealing with for the past two years. There have been some really strong jobs reports and some really weak ones. Last August the initial number was 0, later it was revised to 82,000.
The status quo being that the economy is in a recovery, albeit a sluggish one that could use some legislative action to kickstart it. The debate being held is whether that's a balanced plan that pushes targeted tax breaks and investments, or if we should just cut regulations and Obamacare and magically corporations will start creating jobs again.
I still think Obama is the clear favorite because the economy isn't bad enough that it's any more of a burden on him now than it was yesterday.
The fact that Romney's only playing in NC, OH, FL, VA, NH, NV, CO, IA speaks volumes to this. Notice how his surge of advertising doesn't hit Wisconsin at all.
ThisWreckage
Banned
I may be wrong, but I don't feel like the RNC or the DNC is going to have an impact. I really don't think ads will have an impact. I'm not convinced that the actual debates will have an impact. It's going to be pretty close and most voters are locked in. Nothing is going to change that short of an utter catastrophe.
jamesinclair
Banned
Jobs....
At this rate, unemployment will be under eight percent by the election.
Ads....
People hate ads. Why not give the people something they want?
Ie: the first thirty minutes of this episode of fringe are brought to you ad free by Obama, moving forward.
Ads can backfire so easily, as people sick of ads might vote in spite.
At this rate, unemployment will be under eight percent by the election.
Ads....
People hate ads. Why not give the people something they want?
Ie: the first thirty minutes of this episode of fringe are brought to you ad free by Obama, moving forward.
Ads can backfire so easily, as people sick of ads might vote in spite.
That is pretty sweet. I just don't like the numbers its showing right now. :lol
CharlieDigital
Banned
Email this to the Obama campaign. Brilliant.
ThisWreckage
Banned
I sincerely doubt this. If it manages to drop blow 8% it is going to be damn near negligible.
CharlieDigital
Banned
Rocket Scientist
Member
Why do these bands keep claiming it's unlicensed and unauthorized? I thought news organisation and so on just get these licenses that give them the right to use a record labels whole catalog?
worldrunover
Member
To be fair she is a huge Joe Biden fan.
Blergmeister
Member
I thought it was more the optics (OPTICS!!!) of someone using a song while the creator of the song decries it. They may legally be able to do it but they look like dicks.
Drago!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I literally can't tell if this is good for Obama or not.
Also:
THE NEW YORK FUCKING TIMES said:
Now come on.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll