U.S. 2012 Election

[Redeye]

Quote from: Rifleman62 on Today at 09:45:40

    Redeye, cupper are you going to vote in the US election?

    Every vote counts and Obama will need your vote.


Redeye:
Yes you can vote. You don't need Voter ID to vote.

To verify, go to the Department of Justice. Note you will need photo ID to get in.

That would nevertheless be illegal, which is, I suppose, why pretty much no one does it.

 

[vonGarvin]

That would nevertheless be illegal, which is, I suppose, why pretty much no one does it.

:rofl:

Of course, nobody does anything because its illegal, right?

 

[Edward Campbell]

You're quite right: the 30% who weren't going to vote for Mitt Romney anyway, under any circumstances, will now be secure in their view. The 30% who would vote for Romney no matter what will also have their views confirmed. The Big Question is: how do the other 40% feel? Do they share Romney's view that the Palestinians do not want peace? Do they agree that too many Americans are taking, taking, taking ... taking too much?

...

According to a pretty reliable media source (the Wall Street Journal: "Our analysis of the data behind Mr. Romney’s remarks found that almost half of Americans live in a home where at least one member received a government benefit. " So Governor Romney was pretty close to spot on there ... hands up all those who are certain that the Palestinians are really interested in peace - a peace which leaves Israel there, as a neighbour. Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?

 

[bridges]

"...almost half of Americans live in a home where at least one member received a government benefit. " So Governor Romney was pretty close to spot on there ...

So, depending on the average home size, that means anywhere from 1/5 to 1/2 receive a government benefit.  There may be some stats that back up the 47% figure, but that particular stat isn't one of them.

And at any rate, most of the people receiving government benefits no doubt pay various other kinds of taxes as they go about their daily lives.  Mitt seems to be implying that they pay nothing at all. 

It will be interesting to see if this still has traction by Nov. 6.

 

[Nemo888]

The democrats did try to eliminate God and Jerusalem from the platform

Probably because it is a political road map not a magic spell.

 

[Old Sweat]

I did a google search for "Americans paying income tax." About half of all Americans do not pay Federal income tax, but may pay other levies.

Check this typical explanation:

http://money.howstuffworks.com/only-53-percent-pay-income-tax.htm

 

[Redeye]

I did a google search for "Americans paying income tax." About half of all Americans do not pay Federal income tax, but may pay other levies.

Check this typical explanation:

http://money.howstuffworks.com/only-53-percent-pay-income-tax.htm

Search a little more and you'll find a radio address by The Gipper himself explaining why the Earned Income Exclusion (the American equivalent of our Personal Exemption) is a good thing. And plenty of other studies to support it. I'm having Internet connectivity troubles or I'd find the article and link it from WaPo. That concept, pus generous tax credits for having children are largely responsible for that large swath of the population who wind up not paying income tax. They still pay plenty of tax though.

 

[Redeye]

:rofl:

Of course, nobody does anything because its illegal, right?

Despite the tiresome meme that voter fraud is a significant, widespread problem, there's been no evidence it's actually happening, but there's been at least one open admission that the purpose of new strict voter identification laws is to disenfranchise voters, specifically those likely to support President Obama. That was in Pennsylvania, where a court has just vacated a ruling on their strict new voter ID rules that were expected to strip as many as 750,000 Pennsylvanians of the right to vote. That number is likely ridiculously high/inflated, but I find it troublesome all the same.

 

[Journeyman]

..... a ruling on their strict new voter ID rules

Maybe dye their fingers once they vote.

I mean, if Iraq can figure it out....

 

[vonGarvin]

I mean, if Iraq can figure it out....

YES!!!

 

[muskrat89]

I don't see a Romney Administration having any better shot at improving the Middle East situation than the previous 5 Administrations.

It's a problem whose roots go deep, back to European Colonialism. Short of letting the whole thing go up in flames, and resolve itself back into the precolonial tribal separations, all anyone will be able to do is act as a global firefighter.

Ignore the clearly biased source and listen to the recording:

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/09/14/FLASHBACK-Obama-The-Day-Im-Inaugurated-Muslim-Hostility-Will-Ease

 

[Rifleman62]

In the same frame as Journeyman, don't you think it is weird that the US (and others) expend blood and treasure so that other countries can have free elections? Free elections, where to ensure that the elections are fair, voters require ID and are "fingered" to ensure they do not disrupt the vote.

In the US, the federal government that oversees the expenditure of blood and treasure, fights tooth and nail against any form of voter ID, BUT demands photo ID to get into buildings to see the representative that (they) voted in. 

 

[vonGarvin]

In the US, the federal government that oversees the expenditure of blood and treasure, fights tooth and nail against any form of voter ID, BUT demands photo ID to get into buildings to see the representative that (they) voted in.

Not to be redundant, but...

 

[cupper]

One thing that cannot be disputed is the fact that 75% of all money spent thus far in the election has been spent in support of Mitt Romney (or against Obama), yet he trails in most (if not all) polls.

And even if you don't believe the poll numbers showing Obama with a lead, you have to question how so much money has has so little effect. 

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Obama makes Reagan look like Jimmy Carter.

So, Reagan took concrete steps to achieve more tax balance (capital gains taxed comparably to income) and improve fiscal health (eg. improving solvency of social security) and was able to work with Democrats in Congress (repeatedly, although they did screw him over on spending cuts in exchange for tax increases).  What is the evidence this made him more "like Jimmy Carter"?  Obama is on record for wanting tax increases purely for the sake of an immeasurable "fairness" irrespective of whether the actual tax take increases or falls (eg. tax avoidance measures increase) and shares with Congress equal blame for not working outside his own party ("I won").

Reagan showed sufficient flexibility to work outside his party to raise and lower taxes at different points.  Obama?

Reagan fought in the context of the Cold War, apparently successfully, while Carter's tenure was marked by continued Soviet expansion and aggression.  Obama's Middle Eastern foreign policy has become a shambles.  That makes Reagan more like Carter than Obama in what way?

"Under Obama", tax take is down because the biggest hit to incomes was among the largest incomes, belonging to people who pay most of the taxes.  (When more of the economic activity takes place among people taxed at lower rates, the tax take can be - and is - lower even when the amount of economic activity increases.)  The downside of a highly progressive tax structure (which Obama wants more of) is excessive vulnerability to downturns.  That's beside the point, though: how does tax take as a fraction of GDP make Reagan "more like Carter", given that it is a function of people and events largely outside the control of a president?

Obama tax policy - other than his desire to increase taxes on "the rich" for "fairness" - is driven by events, and mostly bipartisan.  His is not the sole guiding hand.  Neither was Reagan's, but the difference in terms of realism and practical achievements should be obvious.  "Do, or do not."  Reagan "did".

As president, Obama doesn't "pass" acts, he signs them.

>It's obvious his policies are further right than Reagan.

LEFT < increasing collectivism/statism; increasing individualism > RIGHT

Given all the examples cited of Obama's fondness for executive authoritarianism, it is abundantly clear he is a creature of the left.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>The whole thing about Palestine is also showing what was becoming clear to a lot of observers about Governor Romney, that he's out of his depth on foreign policy.

Not as out-of-depth as the other guy who came to the office with no experience, has since had three and a half years to get his feet wet, and still committed a stunning gaffe ("Egypt - ally or enemy") from a position of actual responsibility instead of mere observation.

 

[cupper]

David Brooks does a good job explaining how Romney got it wrong.

Thurston Howell Romney

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/opinion/brooks-thurston-howell-romney.html?_r=0

In 1980, about 30 percent of Americans received some form of government benefits. Today, as Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute has pointed out, about 49 percent do.

In 1960, government transfers to individuals totaled $24 billion. By 2010, that total was 100 times as large. Even after adjusting for inflation, entitlement transfers to individuals have grown by more than 700 percent over the last 50 years. This spending surge, Eberstadt notes, has increased faster under Republican administrations than Democratic ones.

There are sensible conclusions to be drawn from these facts. You could say that the entitlement state is growing at an unsustainable rate and will bankrupt the country. You could also say that America is spending way too much on health care for the elderly and way too little on young families and investments in the future.

But these are not the sensible arguments that Mitt Romney made at a fund-raiser earlier this year. Romney, who criticizes President Obama for dividing the nation, divided the nation into two groups: the makers and the moochers. Forty-seven percent of the country, he said, are people “who are dependent upon government, who believe they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to take care of them, who believe they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.”

This comment suggests a few things. First, it suggests that he really doesn’t know much about the country he inhabits. Who are these freeloaders? Is it the Iraq war veteran who goes to the V.A.? Is it the student getting a loan to go to college? Is it the retiree on Social Security or Medicare?

It suggests that Romney doesn’t know much about the culture of America. Yes, the entitlement state has expanded, but America remains one of the hardest-working nations on earth. Americans work longer hours than just about anyone else. Americans believe in work more than almost any other people. Ninety-two percent say that hard work is the key to success, according to a 2009 Pew Research Survey.

It says that Romney doesn’t know much about the political culture. Americans haven’t become childlike worshipers of big government. On the contrary, trust in government has declined. The number of people who think government spending promotes social mobility has fallen.

The people who receive the disproportionate share of government spending are not big-government lovers. They are Republicans. They are senior citizens. They are white men with high school degrees. As Bill Galston of the Brookings Institution has noted, the people who have benefited from the entitlements explosion are middle-class workers, more so than the dependent poor.

Romney’s comments also reveal that he has lost any sense of the social compact. In 1987, during Ronald Reagan’s second term, 62 percent of Republicans believed that the government has a responsibility to help those who can’t help themselves. Now, according to the Pew Research Center, only 40 percent of Republicans believe that.

The Republican Party, and apparently Mitt Romney, too, has shifted over toward a much more hyperindividualistic and atomistic social view — from the Reaganesque language of common citizenship to the libertarian language of makers and takers. There’s no way the country will trust the Republican Party to reform the welfare state if that party doesn’t have a basic commitment to provide a safety net for those who suffer for no fault of their own.

The final thing the comment suggests is that Romney knows nothing about ambition and motivation. The formula he sketches is this: People who are forced to make it on their own have drive. People who receive benefits have dependency.

But, of course, no middle-class parent acts as if this is true. Middle-class parents don’t deprive their children of benefits so they can learn to struggle on their own. They shower benefits on their children to give them more opportunities — so they can play travel sports, go on foreign trips and develop more skills.

People are motivated when they feel competent. They are motivated when they have more opportunities. Ambition is fired by possibility, not by deprivation, as a tour through the world’s poorest regions makes clear.

Sure, there are some government programs that cultivate patterns of dependency in some people. I’d put federal disability payments and unemployment insurance in this category. But, as a description of America today, Romney’s comment is a country-club fantasy. It’s what self-satisfied millionaires say to each other. It reinforces every negative view people have about Romney.

Personally, I think he’s a kind, decent man who says stupid things because he is pretending to be something he is not — some sort of cartoonish government-hater. But it scarcely matters. He’s running a depressingly inept presidential campaign. Mr. Romney, your entitlement reform ideas are essential, but when will the incompetence stop?

 

[Brad Sallows]

>And even if you don't believe the poll numbers showing Obama with a lead, you have to question how so much money has has so little effect.

How much "in kind" are the compliant media in Obama's corner worth?  Advertising time and space tend to be smaller and shorter than programs and articles.

How much traction has Obama's gaffe with real consequences ("Egypt - ally or enemy") or Susan Rice's blatant lying about events in Libya ("not pre-meditated") gotten compared to any of the manufactured "gaffes" or "campaign crises" of Romney?  How much attention is focused on actual real-world problems (eg. economy, foreign events, gross abuses of civil liberties and constitutional protections) by the "reality-based community"  instead of behaving as if they were a bunch of paparazzi on the trail of royal breasts?

 

[cupper]

Same argument can be made for Fox News as well.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/09/maddow-fox-news-a-romney-campaign-subsidiary-135863.html?hp=r18

At least the non Fox media pundits aren't employed by both the network and the campaign at the same time.

The disparity that you point out essentially comes down to the fact that the Obama Campaign is better run than the Romney Campaign.

As for manufactured gaffes, I don't buy the argument that the media could make Romney say or do the things he has. The media is just not that omnipotent and all powerful.

And if the Romney campaign keeps doubling down rather than challenge the statements, it's no longer a gaffe, but has moved to the realm of policy, personal belief or campaign platform.

 

[cupper]

Romney's campaign needs to swing for the fences and needs to do it now.

Big problem is that absentee and mail in ballots are already going out in some of the swing states, (some are already being returned as well) which means that voters are already making their decisions.

At a time when the Romney Campaign appears (or is) in disarray.