2012 Presidential Race

[F1boat]

Congratulations to Obama and the american people!!

+1 :)

[Dave B]

Thank goodness, that's all I can say.

[Mark]

Agreed Dave. But I never thought it was in any doubt. As much as the polls saying it was close I never thought Romney was at all likely to win.

[Dave B]

I watched about 5 minutes of Fox News this morning and it was hilarious - but at the same time downright scary - to hear the excuses they were coming out with. Oh, and I learned that access to college isn't a "social issue". That's nice.

[ShiftingGears]

I watched about 5 minutes of Fox News this morning and it was hilarious - but at the same time downright scary - to hear the excuses they were coming out with. Oh, and I learned that access to college isn't a "social issue". That's nice.

I thought the fact that they got bitch-whipped by Karl Rove to find any reason not to call Ohio for Obama was both pathetic and cringe-inducingly awkward.

[CaptainRaiden]

http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net/photo/5776631_700b.jpg

:p

[Malbec]

As much as the polls saying it was close.

Why the big discrepancy between the polls claiming it was too close to call and the results which weren't?

Glad about the result which is good for non-Americans. Mitt Romney would have been a disasterous president on the international scene. I bet David Cameron is breathing a sigh of relief too after someone leaked that he had serious issues dealing with Romney on a personal level. I bet Netanyahu regrets openly backing Romney from months ago though.

[Knock-on]

I think this is good for America and good for the world.

Romney would have just been a protest vote against global economic conditions but Obama seems to be getting things resolved slowly, but steadily.

Of course, the Republicans could be correct and the world will come crashing around our earoles ;)

[Don Capps]

Here is a listing from Politico of several predictions for the election that were wrong:




Newt Gingrich: “I believe the minimum result will be 53-47 Romney, over 300 electoral votes.” – Oct. 25, on Fox News.

Karl Rove: Romney 285, Obama 253. “If crowds at his recent stops in these states [NV, WI and PA] are any indication of his supporters’ enthusiasm, Mr. Romney will likely be able to claim victory in these states as well.” — Nov. 5, on his website.

Fox News contributor Dick Morris: Romney 325, Obama 213. “It will be the biggest surprise in recent American political history. It will rekindle the whole question as to why the media played this race as a nailbiter where in fact I think Romney’s going to win by quite a bit.” — Nov. 4, on Fox News.

Conservative radio host Laura Ingraham: “I think he’s going to win New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and a few other surprises. I think this thing is going to be close.” — Oct. 31, on the Laura Ingraham Show.

The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol: “I’m cautiously optimistic that Romney’s going to win.” — Oct. 31, on the Laura Ingraham Show.

Conservative columnist George Will: Romney 321, Obama 217. “The wild card in what I’ve projected is I’m projecting Minnesota to go for Romney.” — Nov. 4, on ABC’s “This Week.”

UnskewedPolls’ Dean Chambers: Romney 311, Obama 227. “Despite the pattern of skewed polls, most of them commissioned by the mainstream media, the overall electoral landscape is looking more and more favorable for Romney.” — Nov. 1, on examiner.com.

The Washington Examiner’s Michael Barone: “Bottom line: Romney 315, Obama 223. That sounds high for Romney. But he could drop Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and still win the election. Fundamentals.” — Nov. 2, writing in The Washington Examiner.

House Speaker John Boehner: “I think Ohioans vote with their wallets. That’s why I think Romney’s going to win on Tuesday.” — Nov. 4, on CNN.

Sarah Palin: “I do believe that enough Americans have awakened and understand it’s time for a shift.” — Nov. 2, on Fox News.

Fox News’s Sean Hannity: “I got this, Romney three points.” — Nov. 2, on Fox News.

CNBC’s Larry Kudlow: ”I am now predicting a 330 vote electoral vote landslide. Yes, that’s right — 330 electoral votes.” — Oct. 25, on CNBC.

Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer: “Romney, very close. But he’ll win the popular by I think about half a point, electoral college probably a very narrow margin.” — Nov. 2, on Fox News.

Rush Limbaugh: “All of my thinking says Romney big. All of my feeling is where my concern is. But my thoughts, my intellectual analysis of this — factoring everything I see plus the polling data — it’s not even close. Three hundred-plus electoral votes for Romney.” — Nov. 5, on his radio show.

The Wall Street Journal’s Peggy Noonan: “I think it’s Romney. … While everyone is looking at the polls and the storm, Romney’s slipping into the presidency. ”— Nov. 5, on her Wall Street Journal blog.

Former Bush White House press secretary Ari Fleischer: “My prediction: Romn 50.1%-49.5%. Romn w minimum 271 EVs (FL, VA, CO, WI, NH). 309 EVs if he takes OH&PA. Pres-elect Romney.” — Nov. 4, via Twitter.

[Mark]

Why the big discrepancy between the polls claiming it was too close to call and the results which weren't?

.

Did they? Up to about 3-4 days before the polls were saying it's too close, as the final days approached the polls took a definite swing to Obama.

[FIAT1]

Congratulation to all of the victors in the election and thanks to the others who chose to run. Back to work now!

[wedge]

Why the big discrepancy between the polls claiming it was too close to call and the results which weren't?


Do the polls take the electoral college into account?

Obama narrowly won the popular vote but the large majority came from the electoral college.

[Tazio]

The polls do take the electoral college into consideration but they also all give a disclaimer that they have a degree of error of roughly 3 points. This was a close election going in by (almost) all accounts. :bulb:

[Gregor-y]

The polls weren't really that close; it was mainly reporting that was playing up the closeness. More telling are the demographics of voting. Republicans received 7% of the black vote (no surprise there no matter which angle you look at it), 27% of the Hispanic vote (still the fastest growing voting group) and about 37% of voters under 30.

None of this bodes well for the future unless Republicans change their positions on a lot of issues, but this is where they were after the last election and if anything Republicans became more combative, obstructionist and extreme. So they're either going to change or split, with the current leadership and their dedicated followers being relegated to embarrassing nuisances like various national fronts in Europe. Granted they'll still make a lot of noise on the internet. ;)

[veeten]

but everyone missed the best thing voted on... In Colorado & Washington state, they've passed ordanences to make pot LEGAL! :D

Yes! It will be okay to "light up" in Denver & Seattle.

[Tazio]

but everyone missed the best thing voted on... In Colorado & Washington state, they've passed ordanences to make pot LEGAL! :D

Yes! It will be okay to "light up" in Denver & Seattle.

Until the Feds step in :dozey:
Every medical Marijuana "brick and mortar" dispensary in San Diego has been shut down by the Federal Government. It is still available through delivery services however ;) It is not legal for recreational use in Cal. but in San Diego County they do not prosecute (for possession) unless it is for sale (over one ounce, or having it in multiple containers) however I don't recommend firing up in front of San Diego's finest. They may just empty their clip into you, and then get off with a slap on the wrist by claiming that they thought you brandished weapon when holding a spliff in anger :laugh:

[Gregor-y]

The medical requirements in Colorado have been super lax for years so I don't see much changing other than all the ads at the back of papers don't have to specify the medical aspect. The real question is will the federal government step in? They were a bit heavy handed claiming there was a lot of abuse of the medical requirements, but without that rule it's a direct federal/state issue, now.

[TyPat107]

I have never been a fan of pot and never smoked it myself, but I think it should be made legal and taxed. If it were legal and taxed like cigarettes, the deficit would be paid down in weeks ;)

[Tazio]

I have never been a fan of pot and never smoked it myself, but I think it should be made legal and taxed. If it were legal and taxed like cigarettes, the deficit would be paid down in weeks ;) Totally agree, but I would make the comparison with alcohol. Marijuana definitely carries negative side affects beyond the danger from inhaling smoke. Also as with alcohol these can be exacerbated when used as a youngster.

[donKey jote]

If the amount that went into the election campaigns had been taxed, the deficit would have been paid by now :p

[Roamy]

274-203

Just past 11 am and Florida hadn't even been called.

I am not shy to say that I am SO happy with this news.

My respects to my republican fellow forum members.


Thank you Race, I am not at all unhappy about the results. I think the republican party needs a total overhaul at best. At the end of this term if I am still alive I will
be way to old to give a crap about the next one. So onward and GO Alonso!!!!

[Malbec]

The polls do take the electoral college into consideration but they also all give a disclaimer that they have a degree of error of roughly 3 points. This was a close election going in by (almost) all accounts. :bulb:

Thats what I thought too, that even with the polls slightly in favour of Obama just a day before the election a Romney victory was certainly within the margins of error.

[Malbec]

The polls weren't really that close; it was mainly reporting that was playing up the closeness. More telling are the demographics of voting. Republicans received 7% of the black vote (no surprise there no matter which angle you look at it), 27% of the Hispanic vote (still the fastest growing voting group) and about 37% of voters under 30.

After all the odd Republican comments about abortion, rape and sometimes abortion after rape what about vote breakdown between men and women?



None of this bodes well for the future unless Republicans change their positions on a lot of issues, but this is where they were after the last election and if anything Republicans became more combative, obstructionist and extreme. So they're either going to change or split, with the current leadership and their dedicated followers being relegated to embarrassing nuisances like various national fronts in Europe. Granted they'll still make a lot of noise on the internet. ;)

It looks like the Republicans have repeated what happened in the UK after Tony Blair won in 1997. For a decade the Tory party lurched progressively right wing to the extent that the extremists were getting concerned that their policies were being hijacked and they were losing votes to the Conservatives. While that won a few votes from a vocal but small part of the population that made them unelectable for the mainstream. It took over a decade and several electoral disasters for them to finally elect a leader capable taking the party back into the centre.

I wonder if the Republicans are heading for a similar time in the wilderness, after all even Romney started relatively mainstream and got pulled further to the right by people from the Tea Party etc.

[Starter]

The polls weren't really that close; it was mainly reporting that was playing up the closeness. More telling are the demographics of voting. Republicans received 7% of the black vote (no surprise there no matter which angle you look at it), 27% of the Hispanic vote (still the fastest growing voting group) and about 37% of voters under 30.

None of this bodes well for the future unless Republicans change their positions on a lot of issues, but this is where they were after the last election and if anything Republicans became more combative, obstructionist and extreme. So they're either going to change or split, with the current leadership and their dedicated followers being relegated to embarrassing nuisances like various national fronts in Europe. Granted they'll still make a lot of noise on the internet. ;)
A quick look at the last figures I could find show Obama at approx. 59 million votes and Romney at approx. 57 million votes. That's a winning margin of 1.7% of the total votes cast. Hardly a blow out win in the popular vote. The real difference was in the electoral college. The sad thing is that only 57.48% of eligible voters cast ballots - that's a real shame no matter who you may have supported. (Caveat - not all votes counted yet.)

[F1boat]

As an outsider, who values the role of the United States of America in the world I sincerely hope that the GOP can be rebuilt and return to the center, becoming a party with more mainstream positions, not dedicated to ruin the lives of women, minorities and gays. I think that the USA can only benefit from a rational alternative to the Democrats, which for now seem to be the sensible choice despite their weaknesses.

[Starter]

I think the republican party needs a total overhaul at best.
I've been of that opinion for a long time now.

[Malbec]

The sad thing is that only 57.48% of eligible voters cast ballots - that's a real shame no matter who you may have supported. (Caveat - not all votes counted yet.)

You sound disappointed with that figure but for a mature democracy that really isn't a bad turnout.

[Dave B]

As an outsider, who values the role of the United States of America in the world I sincerely hope that the GOP can be rebuilt and return to the center, becoming a party with more mainstream positions, not dedicated to ruin the lives of women, minorities and gays. I think that the USA can only benefit from a rational alternative to the Democrats, which for now seem to be the sensible choice despite their weaknesses.
So do I, our country is poorer for having hopeless opposition in recent years. When Labour romped to a landslide victory in '97 the Conservatives tore themselves apart, seemingly having a different leader every few months. Even as their popularity faded and Brown became a hate figure, Cameron couldn't muster a proper majority. Now we have a coalition who seem utterly useless in every respect but Milliband is the equivalent of the hapless footballer who, faced with an open goal, kicks the ball up into the stands every time.

A strong opposition is vital to a working democracy, and I hope the Republicans can morph into a party capable of working with Obama but keeping him on his toes, rather than a reactive bunch of naysayers hell bent on blocking every Democratic policy out of sheer bloodymindedness.

[Starter]

You sound disappointed with that figure but for a mature democracy that really isn't a bad turnout.
I could call our democracy many things, but given the antics of both parties this time around, "mature" won't be one of them. :p

[F1boat]

Dave B, I must admit that I do not follow British politics as much as US ones, but from what I see neither Labours nor Conservatives are as extreme as their positions as the tea party controlled GOP. In fact, the current GOP resembles BNP and that is why I find it to be scary - something which I can't say for a mainstream political party in the UK or Western Europe.

[Mark]

Yes. I think that's true. Whenever someone asks me to describe the Democrats and Republicans in terms of British polictics I always say that the Democrats are the equivalent to the Conservatives in the UK and the Republicans don't have a UK equivalent.

The Labour Party would seem positively communist to many in America.

PS Today marks the day when we are exactly half way through the current governments term in office.

[D-Type]

Do folk feel that the electoral college system is democratic. There are many states that have voted consistently Republican or Democrat for decades. If you lived in one of them and supported the other party, do you feel your vote counts for anything? Wouldn't a straightforward 'one man, one vote' system voting directly for the candidate give the country the president it wants.

[Mark]

It's not entirely dissimilar to the way we elect MPs.

An interesting variation would be proportional representation. Where you don't a proportion for each candidate according to what proportion of the vote they got.

[Don Capps]

As Meat Loaf sang, "Two Out of Three Ain't Bad," with Joe Walsh and Allen West both being defeated and Michelle Bachmann barely surviving -- even in a district designed to quarantine her. The entertainment value of the House GOP certainly takes a hit, but it will be interesting to see if Bachmann survives the 2014 election given that is now very apprent that she is vulnerable.

That West is now whining about the result is scarcely a surprise. How he managed to avoid being court-martialed and tossed out of the Army is beyond me, but typical of the two-tiered justice system in the Army: one for the officers and one the enlisted. Had West been an E-5 (SGT), little doubt as to the outcome, but as an O-5 (LTC), he skated and was alllowd to retire rather than being discharged under other than honorable conditions.

As for the GOP doing some actual soul-searching and begin moving towards once again being a "big tent" party, one would think that such a thing might make sense. However, this is the modern GOP and the most likely reaction will be to find someone in 2016 who is close to a white, reactionary, right-wing, ultra-flamethrower as possible: a "true conservative." This is sad, given that the GOP really once was a Grand Old Party, once filled with reasonable, thoughtful leaders whose thoughts were focused how to best govern for the common good. The loss of the moderate Republicans through both election results and those either bolting or no longer supporting the party does not bode well. That there are still many good, reasonable people sticking it in the GOP does give one hope for the future, but it will not be any easy task.

As much as some may not realize it, the Democratic party is very much a party of the moderate Center these days. It is "liberal" only by comparison with the current GOP which has veered sharply to the right. We have more years of political gridlock and mayhem ahead of us before something approaching rationality returns to the US political scene. That the current Democratic coalition contains many who should rightfully be in a moderate, slightly right of center political party (as the GOP once was) shows just how badly the leadership of the GOP -- especially at the national and, in many cases, the state level -- has dropped the ball.

[Don Capps]

Do folk feel that the electoral college system is democratic. There are many states that have voted consistently Republican or Democrat for decades. If you lived in one of them and supported the other party, do you feel your vote counts for anything? Wouldn't a straightforward 'one man, one vote' system voting directly for the candidate give the country the president it wants.

You might wish to direct that question to Al Gore....

[Gregor-y]

As for the GOP doing some actual soul-searching and begin moving towards once again being a "big tent" party, one would think that such a thing might make sense. However, this is the modern GOP and the most likely reaction will be to find someone in 2016 who is close to a white, reactionary, right-wing, ultra-flamethrower as possible: a "true conservative." This is sad, given that the GOP really once was a Grand Old Party, once filled with reasonable, thoughtful leaders whose thoughts were focused how to best govern for the common good. The loss of the moderate Republicans through both election results and those either bolting or no longer supporting the party does not bode well. That there are still many good, reasonable people sticking it in the GOP does give one hope for the future, but it will not be any easy task.

Republicans are passing over the hump begun in 1968 by Richard Nixon's 'Southern Strategy' of appealing to southern white voters alienated by civil rights (which until then most Republicans also supported which allowed Democrats to push it through in the first place). Nixon's cynical maneuvering to add bodies to the party worked well for a number of years as the religious social conservatives moved from overt racism to a more religious based conservatism that didn't conflict with the more moderate parts of the party.

Through the 80s and into the 90s this conservative sect became stronger and resulted in a more negative, angry style of politics that started to permeate the whole party. The 1992 election saw the first real personally hostile behavior, reinforced by election gains in 1994 and only mildly blunted by losses in 1996, blame for the government shutdown, and impeachment of President Clinton. Republican candidates - most obviously Dole in 1996 - had to alter their long-standing image as moderates and accept more extreme vice presidential candidates to appeal to an increasingly bellicose party to get the nomination. The latter isn't so uncommon as Eisenhower was forced to accept Richard Nixon in 1952 for the same reason. But at that time Eisenhower didn't himself need to realign himself with the Party's conservative wing as later candidates did.

The 2000 election of President Bush resulted in a complete power grab by conservative elements, the pushing out of any older moderate Republicans - the Republican in Name Only moniker - or forcing them to change their views to appear presentable to what was becoming the Republican 'base.' John McCain's 2008 run, along with Romney this year, followed the path of failure blazed by Bob Dole in 1996 where a moderate candidate had to appeal to the conservative wing but tainted themselves so badly doing they appeared to be dishonest with their former selves and too conservative for the general election.

How will Republicans handle this loss? I've already mentioned the challenges they face, and as of today it doesn't look like they plan to do anything but triple down on a strategy that's already proven to be a loser two times over. And it's bad for the country as it prevents any real alternative to the Democratic party, stymies the political process overall and will seriously harm the current economic recovery. And there's every chance they will be blamed for the result, which will hurt them much more than the government shutdown of 1995 in the eyes of all but their most fervent supporters. The same people Nixon wanted to use for votes have ended up destroying his party. A fitting bit of karma for appealing to that element in the first place.

[Starter]

Republicans are passing over the hump begun in 1968 by Richard Nixon's 'Southern Strategy' of appealing to southern white voters alienated by civil rights (which until then most Republicans also supported which allowed Democrats to push it through in the first place). Nixon's cynical maneuvering to add bodies to the party worked well for a number of years as the religious social conservatives moved from overt racism to a more religious based conservatism that didn't conflict with the more moderate parts of the party.

Through the 80s and into the 90s this conservative sect became stronger and resulted in a more negative, angry style of politics that started to permeate the whole party. The 1992 election saw the first real personally hostile behavior, reinforced by election gains in 1994 and only mildly blunted by losses in 1996, blame for the government shutdown, and impeachment of President Clinton. Republican candidates - most obviously Dole in 1996 - had to alter their long-standing image as moderates and accept more extreme vice presidential candidates to appeal to an increasingly bellicose party to get the nomination. The latter isn't so uncommon as Eisenhower was forced to accept Richard Nixon in 1952 for the same reason. But at that time Eisenhower didn't himself need to realign himself with the Party's conservative wing as later candidates did.

The 2000 election of President Bush resulted in a complete power grab by conservative elements, the pushing out of any older moderate Republicans - the Republican in Name Only moniker - or forcing them to change their views to appear presentable to what was becoming the Republican 'base.' John McCain's 2008 run, along with Romney this year, followed the path of failure blazed by Bob Dole in 1996 where a moderate candidate had to appeal to the conservative wing but tainted themselves so badly doing they appeared to be dishonest with their former selves and too conservative for the general election.

How will Republicans handle this loss? I've already mentioned the challenges they face, and as of today it doesn't look like they plan to do anything but triple down on a strategy that's already proven to be a loser two times over. And it's bad for the country as it prevents any real alternative to the Democratic party, stymies the political process overall and will seriously harm the current economic recovery. And there's every chance they will be blamed for the result, which will hurt them much more than the government shutdown of 1995 in the eyes of all but their most fervent supporters. The same people Nixon wanted to use for votes have ended up destroying his party. A fitting bit of karma for appealing to that element in the first place.
I agree with much of what you said. I would also add that the Republicans insisting on religious dogma (right to life) as part of their political platform has alienated many, especially women, who might otherwise have been more sympathetic to their economic arguments.

[Gregor-y]

Republican values are not necessarily religious, (ignoring Papal and local differences among US Catholics) as much as a particular religion, primarily Southern Baptist and various offshoots from it or in its vein along with a hard line position from Rome that most non-appointed clergy ignore. Most moderates, such as the first George Bush, are from much more moderate churches. Which also probably hurt Romney since many of the hard-line faiths and trends are antagonistic toward Catholics, let alone Mormons. The differences among Catholics alone is pretty interesting and working at a Catholic (specifically Vincentian) school can lead to all sorts of fun lunch discussions when some of the priests join us.

Evangelicals aren't bad per se. It depends on what they're evangelizing.

[ShiftingGears]

Republican values are not necessarily religious, (ignoring Papal and local differences among US Catholics) as much as a particular religion, primarily Southern Baptist and various offshoots from it or in its vein along with a hard line position from Rome that most non-appointed clergy ignore. Most moderates, such as the first George Bush, are from much more moderate churches. Which also probably hurt Romney since many of the hard-line faiths and trends are antagonistic toward Catholics, let alone Mormons. The differences among Catholics alone is pretty interesting and working at a Catholic (specifically Vincentian) school can lead to all sorts of fun lunch discussions when some of the priests join us.

Evangelicals aren't bad per se. It depends on what they're evangelizing.

I find it somewhat difficult to fathom Romney's religion had any significant impact amongst the religious right. He won the primaries, and considering the publicised opinions of many religious fanatics about Obama, I just don't believe they would have voted against Romney on a religious basis in the Presidential Election.

[race aficionado]

I wonder who is going to be Hillary Clinton's replacement . . . . .

could it be Powell?

[beachgirl]

I haven't yet commented on this thread, but I have been reading it since it started. I want to say that this entire thread has been more insightful, more interesting, and far more rational (with just an exception or two) than anything I could, and have, read in the past months in mainstream news and commentary. The viewpoints of those of you who do not live in the US have been very enlightening and very well stated. My husband and I periodically travel out of the country, and I always search out, and enjoy reading, the international editions of news magazines and their reporting of the US from the international perspective. We are not an insular country (no matter how much our one political party would like it to be), and all of us all over the world are globally connected in a way that will now never be severed. What happens to one of us politically has major impact on all of the rest of us.

And for we posters here in the States, it was so enjoyable to read posts that were well thought out, and transcended any one particular political view to go on to focus on the real challenges facing us as a country. Many of these posts gave me new "food for thought", and got me through a miserable few months when I felt that no one in the news or the campaigns remembered that we didn't want to hear talking heads and backstabbing, but rather wanted to hear real ideas for real solutions from those who wanted to lead our country.

Thank you, everyone.

[ShiftingGears]

I wonder who is going to be Hillary Clinton's replacement . . . . .

could it be Powell?

I would say it's a possibility. He's experienced, bipartisan, and his name isn't political poison like other former members of the GWB cabinet, for one.

[BleAivano]

I wonder who is going to be Hillary Clinton's replacement . . . . .

could it be Powell?

I think Colin have said himself, 4 years ago, that he considers himself as unsuitable due to the Iraq war and his actions leading to it. You know that he
mislead his country and the rest of the world with the talks about how Iraq with most certainty had weapons of mass destruction.

[Knock-on]

A MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

To the citizens of the United States of America from Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

In light of your failure in recent years to nominate competent candidates for President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective immediately. (You should look up 'revocation' in the Oxford English Dictionary.)

Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths, and territories (except North Dakota, which she does not fancy).

Your new Prime Minister, David Cameron, will appoint a Governor for America without the need for further elections.

Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire may be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed.

To aid in the transition to a British Crown dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:

-----------------------

1. The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'colour,' 'favour,' 'labour' and 'neighbour.' Likewise, you will learn to spell 'doughnut' without skipping half the letters, and the suffix '-ize' will be replaced by the suffix '-ise.' Generally, you will be expected to raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. (look up 'vocabulary').

------------------------

2. Using the same twenty-seven words interspersed with filler noises such as ''like' and 'you know' is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. There is no such thing as U.S. English. We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take into account the reinstated letter 'u'' and the elimination of '-ize.'

-------------------

3. July 4th will no longer be celebrated as a holiday.

-----------------

4. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers, or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you're not quite ready to be independent. Guns should only be used for shooting grouse. If you can't sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist, then you're not ready to shoot grouse.

----------------------

5. Therefore, you will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous than a vegetable peeler. Although a permit will be required if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.

----------------------

6. All intersections will be replaced with roundabouts, and you will start driving on the left side with immediate effect. At the same time, you will go metric with immediate effect and without the benefit of conversion tables. Both roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour.

--------------------

7. The former USA will adopt UK prices on petrol (which you have been calling gasoline) of roughly $10/US gallon. Get used to it.

-------------------

8. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries are not real chips, and those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called crisps. Real chips are thick cut, fried in animal fat, and dressed not with ketchup but with vinegar.

-------------------

9. The cold, tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually beer at all. Henceforth, only proper British Bitter will be referred to as beer, and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as Lager. Australian beer is also acceptable, as they are pound for pound the greatest sporting nation on earth and it can only be due to the beer. They are also part of the British Commonwealth - see what it did for them. American brands will be referred to as Near-Frozen Gnat's Urine, so that all can be sold without risk of further confusion.

---------------------

10. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as good guys. Hollywood will also be required to cast English actors to play English characters. Watching Andie MacDowell attempt English dialect in Four Weddings and a Funeral was an experience akin to having one's ears removed with a cheese grater.

---------------------

11. You will cease playing American football. There is only one kind of proper football; you call it soccer. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which has some similarities to American football, but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like a bunch of nancies).

---------------------

12. Further, you will stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the World Series for a game which is not played outside of America. Since only 2.1% of you are aware there is a world beyond your borders, your error is understandable. You will learn cricket, and we will let you face the Australians first to take the sting out of their deliveries.

--------------------

13.. You must tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us mad.

-----------------

14. An internal revenue agent (i.e. tax collector) from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all monies due (backdated to 1776).

---------------

15. Daily Tea Time begins promptly at 4 p.m. with proper cups, with saucers, and never mugs, with high quality biscuits (cookies) and cakes; plus strawberries (with cream) when in season.

God Save the Queen!

[BDunnell]

As for the GOP doing some actual soul-searching and begin moving towards once again being a "big tent" party, one would think that such a thing might make sense. However, this is the modern GOP and the most likely reaction will be to find someone in 2016 who is close to a white, reactionary, right-wing, ultra-flamethrower as possible: a "true conservative." This is sad, given that the GOP really once was a Grand Old Party, once filled with reasonable, thoughtful leaders whose thoughts were focused how to best govern for the common good. The loss of the moderate Republicans through both election results and those either bolting or no longer supporting the party does not bode well. That there are still many good, reasonable people sticking it in the GOP does give one hope for the future, but it will not be any easy task.

It's a very necessary one, though, given one fact above all others: the USA's changing ethnic demographic.

[Don Capps]

More predictions from the pundits:



“It comes down to numbers. And in the final days of this presidential race, from polling data to early voting, they favor Mitt Romney.”
GOP strategist Karl Rove, in the Wall Street Journal, Oct. 31.


New York Times polling blogger “Nate Silver says there’s a 73.6 percent chance that the president’s going to win. Anybody that thinks this race is anything but a tossup right now is such an ideologue [that] they should be kept away from typewriters . . . because they’re jokes.”
Joe Scarborough, on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Oct. 29.


“By my reckoning, Gov. Romney will win . . . Florida, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia, plus either New Hampshire and/or Iowa for 270 to 276 electoral votes.”
University of Maryland professor Peter Morici, Tuesday morning, to e-mail subscribers (Romney won only North Carolina).


“I believe the minimum result will be 53-47 [percent] Romney, over 300 electoral votes, and the Republicans will pick up the Senate. I base that just on just years and years of experience.”
Newt Gingrich on Fox News, Oct. 25


“Mitt Romney will win big tonight. . . . Despite intense efforts, Obama will lose both Ohio and Pennsylvania. . . . One of the big Wednesday morning stories will be why most of the polls didn’t have this right.”
Former GOP candidate Steve Forbes, on Forbes.com, Tuesday.


“But frankly, my view, Greta, is that Romney is going to win this election by more than five points and that he’s going to get north of 320 electoral votes.”
Former Bill Clinton pollster Dick Morris, to Fox News’s Greta van Susteren, Oct. 26.


“I’m predicting a 5 to 7 point popular vote victory [for Romney]. Electorally it won’t even be that close. Romney will win many states that went to Obama in 2008. I’m predicting Romney victories in Ohio, Florida, Colorado, Virginia, Iowa, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Indiana. I predict a Romney victory by 100 to 120 electoral votes.”
Las Vegas oddsmaker Wayne Allyn Root, in a Foxnews.com column, Oct. 9 (of the states listed, Romney won only North Carolina and Indiana and was losing in Florida).


“Furthermore, in battleground states, the edge in early and absentee vote turnout that propelled Democrats to victory in 2008 has clearly been eroded, cut in half according to a Republican National Committee summary.”
Rove, WSJ, Oct. 31.


“In addition to the data, the anecdotal and intangible evidence — from crowd sizes to each side’s closing arguments — give the sense that the odds favor Mr. Romney. They do. My prediction: Sometime after the cock crows on the morning of Nov. 7, Mitt Romney will be declared America’s 45th president. Let’s call it 51 percent-48 percent, with Mr. Romney carrying at least 279 Electoral College votes, probably more.”
Rove, WSJ, Oct. 31.


“George Will’s Electoral [vote] Pick: Obama 217. Romney: 321.” Added Will: “I’m projecting Minnesota to go for Romney.” (It didn’t.)
Washington Post columnist Will, on ABC’s “This Week,” Sunday.


“I think this is premature. We’ve got a quarter of the vote. Now remember, here is the thing about Ohio. A third of the vote or more is cast early and is won overwhelmingly by the Democrats. It’s counted first and then you count the Election Day, and the question is, by the time you finish counting the Election Day, does it overcome that early advantage that Democrats have built up in early voting, particularly in Cuyahoga County? . . . Even if they have made [the call] on the basis of select precincts, I’d be very cautious about intruding in this process.”
Rove, on election night, disputing Fox News’s decision to call Ohio, and the election, for Obama.


“You know, after the election, either I’m going to have to go through a big reckoning or [people who think I’m wrong] are. And you know what? They are.”
Morris, on Fox News, Sunday.


Over the next two years, we will probably see a very nasty civil war within the Republican party. One imagines that the plutocrats and oligarchs that tossed hundreds of millions (more like billions) into the election to buy it for the GOP are not very happy campers at the moment. Of course, that all the money could have probably been better spent actually doing something such as creating employment opportunities through investments and so forth for the betterment of the nation never crosses their minds. They will find ways to continue their fight to place their puppets into the political process and by so doing continue to undermine their efforts the American democracy. Likewise, wishing away the problem of the oligarchs will not work. At some point the corrosive influence of money upon the American political process will have to be faced. I would not hold my breath for that to happen at any moment soon, there being a near-total lack of backbone and character among the vast majority of those engaged in national politics, Democrats and Republicans, to clean out the sewer that has become the American political system and process. However, at some point it seems that people will finally get disgusted enough to become angry enough to force this sort of change. It could make the Tea Party pale by comparison. Indeed, the Tea Party demonstrates the path that should not be taken: it gave way to its delusions and denied realities, so intent on the universe it created its narrow interests that it missed the boat.

Something worth taking a look at regarding the problem with reality check and the problem that the GOP is facing (from the last paragraph in George Orwell: In Front of Your Nose (http://orwell.ru/library/articles/nose/english/e_nose)):


The point is that we are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield.

[Tazio]

I have to say that I am quite pleased with the outcome of the election. I feel even better that I put my money where my mouth is and contributed (a little) to the campaign. As insignificant as it may seem I apreciate this form letter I received from the Obama machine within minutes of The President of The United States of America being projected as the winner:

Victor --

I'm about to go speak to the crowd here in Chicago, but I wanted to thank you first.

I want you to know that this wasn't fate, and it wasn't an accident. You made this happen.

You organized yourselves block by block. You took ownership of this campaign five and ten dollars at a time. And when it wasn't easy, you pressed forward.

I will spend the rest of my presidency honoring your support, and doing what I can to finish what we started.

But I want you to take real pride, as I do, in how we got the chance in the first place.

Today is the clearest proof yet that, against the odds, ordinary Americans can overcome powerful interests.

There's a lot more work to do.

But for right now: Thank you.

Barack

[BDunnell]

Today is the clearest proof yet that, against the odds, ordinary Americans can overcome powerful interests.

That sticks in the craw a bit. As though his campaign wasn't funded by other, different, no doubt quite powerful interests!

[Gregor-y]

I find it somewhat difficult to fathom Romney's religion had any significant impact amongst the religious right. He won the primaries, and considering the publicised opinions of many religious fanatics about Obama, I just don't believe they would have voted against Romney on a religious basis in the Presidential Election.

In the end it didn't affect the vote so much because of the intense hatred drummed up against the President, but it was a bitter pill to swallow in the primaries. And as many Ron Paul supporters like to point out, the primaries (and the convention itself) were rigged to favor Romney. There's no law being broken when a party manipulates its own procedures.


A MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
That reminded me of a cartoon from the 80s about 'taking back' Massachusetts:
http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/6536/bloom1.jpg

[Tazio]

That sticks in the craw a bit. As though his campaign wasn't funded by other, different, no doubt quite powerful interests!
Actually I think that comment was in the context of having a better ground game and many more volunteers that not only kept people informed about his message in general, but also providing transportation to citizens without any of their own to the DMV’s do to changing regulations ramroded through by Republicans at the state level specifically getting previously unnecessary ID's required to facilitate voter suppression of this demographic, and the information about court injunctions that overruled some.
Although there is no doubt that his campaign spent a lot of money, in the Super PACS it was less than 1/4 of the contributions for his opponent. I saw an interesting piece on the news last night (which I can't find a link to) that reported The President of The United States of America was told by his campaign handlers that attacking Romney early would be a very good strategy but if the gamble failed there would be no resources left for a plan "B", before he had to make the decision to take that tack.

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/s480x480/75930_439586869438277_711856673_n.jpg

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I'm glad they made the right decision. The religious right in America really scares me. Hopefully the Republican party can now reorganise itself so it doesn't have to worry about the votes of people with silly ideas on abortion and creationism in science classes.

[Don Capps]

I'm glad they made the right decision. The religious right in America really scares me. Hopefully the Republican party can now reorganise itself so it doesn't have to worry about the votes of people with silly ideas on abortion and creationism in science classes.

While one may hope that will be the case, it might be a misplaced hope. There are those in the evangelical, charismatic, hard shell or whatever camp that are determined to forcefully wedge/impose their views into secular life in an attempt to create some sort of American theocracy. Regardless of what happens to the Republicans, these folks are not going to go away. Indeed, they seem unable to shake their addiction to politics and the determination to shape things to their way of thinking. Tolerance and moderation are not touchstones of their political beliefs. While there is certainly a place for religion in public life, it must be tempered with prudence, respect, and moderation. While Luther did not actually say, "It's better to be governed by wise Turk than a foolish Christian," he did come very close to that idea in one of his writings (CrossAlone Lutheran District » Blog Archive » It (http://crossalone.us/?p=1453)).

[Don Capps]

From Politico:



Throughout much of the general election, Republican activists and pundits were more prone to attack the sampling methods of public polls than to consider the possibility that they’d face a historically diverse, unexpectedly Democratic-leaning electorate on Nov. 6. That mind-set of denial collided with objective reality yesterday.

“The conservative media bubble is totally self-defeating for us. It denies us any realistic view of the real world of the general election, assuming instead that all politics is simply an extension of the Republican primary. It blindly drives us off one cliff after another,” said Republican presidential strategist Mike Murphy. “We will not win the real world of big-turnout, presidential-year politics until our bubble realizes that a big world exists outside the precincts of the Republican primary.”

Said Murphy: “Much of the conservative media bubble, with its isolation, denial and semi-paranoia, only incentivized us to lose general elections.”

[Starter]

There are those in the evangelical, charismatic, hard shell or whatever camp that are determined to forcefully wedge/impose their views into secular life in an attempt to create some sort of American theocracy. Regardless of what happens to the Republicans, these folks are not going to go away. Indeed, they seem unable to shake their addiction to politics and the determination to shape things to their way of thinking. Tolerance and moderation are not touchstones of their political beliefs.
These people are, in many ways, the less violent Christian version of Islamic jihadists. There is no meeting of the minds with them.

[F1boat]

These people are, in many ways, the less violent Christian version of Islamic jihadists. There is no meeting of the minds with them.

These guys are very scary and really similar to the jihadists. But aren't they usually old guys?

[race aficionado]

I know, I know . . . . we are done with this election, but I couldn't resist.

Post Democalypse 2012 - America Takes a Shower - Karl Rove's Math - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 11/07/12 - Video Clip | Comedy Central (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-november-7-2012/post-democalypse-2012---america-takes-a-shower---karl-rove-s-math)

[Starter]

These guys are very scary and really similar to the jihadists. But aren't they usually old guys?
Unfortunately, no.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

These guys are very scary and really similar to the jihadists. But aren't they usually old guys?

Usually their beliefs are passed on from generation to generation. But in general younger people tend to be less religious than older people.

[Tazio]

Actually I think that comment was in the context of having a better ground game and many more volunteers that not only kept people informed about his message in general, but also providing transportation to citizens without any of their own to the DMV’s do to changing regulations ramroded through by Republicans at the state level specifically getting previously unnecessary ID's required to facilitate voter suppression of this demographic, and the information about court injunctions that overruled some.
Here is an example of what I was getting at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBK2rfZt32g&feature=player_embedded

[Tazio]

Now to get into the tabloid aspect of the election:
Mitt Romney's disastrous ground game and 7 other behind-the-scenes revelations - The Week (http://theweek.com/article/index/236189/mitt-romneys-disastrous-ground-game-and-7-other-behind-the-scenes-revelations)
Here is a little tease:

7. Ann Romney cried when Obama won
When it was all over on Election Night, the GOP nominee called Obama to concede defeat. "Romney was stoic as he talked to the president," says CBS News' Crawford, "but his wife Ann cried." His running mate Paul Ryan "seemed genuinely shocked," while "Ryan's wife Janna also was shaken and cried softly."

[chuck34]

That sticks in the craw a bit. As though his campaign wasn't funded by other, different, no doubt quite powerful interests!

Or that other "ordinary Americans" somehow didn't contribute to the "other side".

[chuck34]

Is it just me or does anyone else find it odd that most exit poling showed that the #1 concern among voters was economic issues. But in the "analysis" that has gone on since the election the focus seems to be placed only on women and minorities? I suppose that means that most voters see economic issues to be simply having contraception and abortions paid for out of the Federal budget, allowing anyone into this country at anytime whether or not they have a SS# so they can pay income taxes, paying for everyone to go to college, on and on like the Treasury is bottomless pit of money. Just tax the heck of "the rich". They'll pay for it all. Then what happens after the 9-17 days of Federal funding that will pay for ends? It's just sad to me that people don't see the reality of the situation: WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO PAY FOR THIS STUFF!!

I'm sure that's just me. I'm the one that isn't facing reality. I'm the one that's "too extreme".

[Gregor-y]

Romney didn't have a lock on economic issues. Just cutting programs without even entertaining raising revenues (other than unspecified loopholes) including Ryan's various Social Security schemes weren't any more fundamentally sound (and probably worse since so much was never specified) than raising taxes while reducing fewer benefits. Given what the President offered during the last debt ceiling crisis Republicans got everything they could have hoped for and still didn't budge just to avoid any shred of cooperation.

Republicans painted themselves into a corner over taxes in 1994 and haven't been able to back out yet. It's treated as a faith as strong as some candidates' abortion positions and is just as senseless to the general population but enforced upon the whole party. Sadly too many Republicans have signed the equivalent of a 'loyalty oath' regarding taxes just be be allowed to represent the party, so they're stuck, as I say.

[chuck34]

Romney didn't have a lock on economic issues. Just cutting programs without even entertaining raising revenues (other than unspecified loopholes) including Ryan's various Social Security schemes weren't any more fundamentally sound (and probably worse since so much was never specified) than raising taxes while reducing fewer benefits. Given what the President offered during the last debt ceiling crisis Republicans got everything they could have hoped for and still didn't budge just to avoid any shred of cooperation.

Republicans painted themselves into a corner over taxes in 1994 and haven't been able to back out yet. It's treated as a faith as strong as some candidates' abortion positions and is just as senseless to the general population but enforced upon the whole party. Sadly too many Republicans have signed the equivalent of a 'loyalty oath' regarding taxes just be be allowed to represent the party, so they're stuck, as I say.

What you just wrote is well reasoned and logical. That is until you do the math. We can raise taxes on "the rich" to 100%. At that point we either have enough money to pay for Federal spending for 9-17 days, depending upon the accounting method. What then?

We currently borrow about 40% of our total budget that's 146 days if you spread it evenly. So now under this 100% tax on the rich we bring that down to 129 days (best case, and using static economic theory). What then?

Women's issues, abortion, immigration, education, any other issue you want to bring up doesn't mean a damn when our debt is more than 100% of GDP. How much longer do you want to pretend that we can give away free contraception for all? Free abortions? 2+years of unemployment benefits? Free healthcare for all? US citizens already owe more per capita than Greeks. How much farther in debt do we need to be before people wake up?

The US has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. On that there is do debate, only posturing and party politics.

[Gregor-y]

The US has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. On that there is do debate, only posturing and party politics.
I'm not going to quote the full text because your case lies on this point.

This is your opinion and not a fact. Spending isn't an issue if you have revenue, and revenue isn't an issue if you're not spending too much. We're always going to be spending and raising revenue. The posturing as you call it is simply politics, which is a compromise on the best balance of the two. The problem Republicans have had lately is their inability to make any kind of agreement based on an absolutist opinion similar to your own rather than trying to identify areas for compromise. That along with the political intent of denying Obama a second term. One Republican position down, one to go.

[Starter]

Romney didn't have a lock on economic issues. Just cutting programs without even entertaining raising revenues (other than unspecified loopholes) including Ryan's various Social Security schemes weren't any more fundamentally sound (and probably worse since so much was never specified) than raising taxes while reducing fewer benefits. Given what the President offered during the last debt ceiling crisis Republicans got everything they could have hoped for and still didn't budge just to avoid any shred of cooperation.
I beg to differ. My question to you is: At what point would you say enough taxes, we're already giving too much? Obviously it's not now. How about when you pay 20% of your income? 30%? 50%? 75%? Where would you draw the line? The unfortunate history is that politicians will spent as much as you let them get away with. All in the name of providing "services" of course. The truth is that they are just buying votes. One of the biggest mistakes in recent years was in not passing a line item veto. That would allow the President to pare out all the pork and special interest spending which is hidden away in almost every bill Congress passes. Then we could truly hold one person responsible if most of the BS spending wasn't cut.

The other crying need is for radical tax reform at the federal level. Any tax system which requires an army of lawyers and accountants to negotiate through the various provisions, as well as hidden benefits for special investments, is unfair to everybody. I don't mind paying more money in taxes. I should pay more if I make more. I just don't want to pay more proportionally. I am a firm proponent of the flat tax, where everyone pays the same rate with NO exemptions for anything.

[ShiftingGears]

What you just wrote is well reasoned and logical. That is until you do the math. We can raise taxes on "the rich" to 100%. At that point we either have enough money to pay for Federal spending for 9-17 days, depending upon the accounting method. What then?

You are assuming people did not vote for Obama on an economic basis. Romney didn't exactly do a great job to convince people that he would do better. His proposed policy was vacuous and devoid of detail, which stopped at "I know how to create jobs", while at the same time wanting to increase military spending by $2 trillion and giving the impression of being very enthusiastic about a war in Iran. I think it is apparent why some people would be less than convinced.

[Starter]

You are assuming people did not vote for Obama on an economic basis. Romney didn't exactly do a great job to convince people that he would do better. His proposed policy was vacuous and devoid of detail, which stopped at "I know how to create jobs", while at the same time wanting to increase military spending by $2 trillion and giving the impression of being very enthusiastic about a war in Iran. I think it is apparent why some people would be less than convinced.
Yoy didn't answer the "What then" question. Easy for all of us to point fingers, actually addressing the problem is more difficult. And Chuck is correct. You can tax the bejesus out of rich folks and you still won't make more than a dent in the deficit.

[ShiftingGears]

Yoy didn't answer the "What then" question. Easy for all of us to point fingers, actually addressing the problem is more difficult. And Chuck is correct. You can tax the bejesus out of rich folks and you still won't make more than a dent in the deficit.

Indeed I didn't - I incorrectly quoted Chuck's argument, which seemed to suggest that people didn't vote one way or another based on economic issues. I do not wish to weigh into addressing that question.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Is it just me or does anyone else find it odd that most exit poling showed that the #1 concern among voters was economic issues. But in the "analysis" that has gone on since the election the focus seems to be placed only on women and minorities? I suppose that means that most voters see economic issues to be simply having contraception and abortions paid for out of the Federal budget, allowing anyone into this country at anytime whether or not they have a SS# so they can pay income taxes, paying for everyone to go to college, on and on like the Treasury is bottomless pit of money. Just tax the heck of "the rich". They'll pay for it all. Then what happens after the 9-17 days of Federal funding that will pay for ends? It's just sad to me that people don't see the reality of the situation: WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO PAY FOR THIS STUFF!!

I'm sure that's just me. I'm the one that isn't facing reality. I'm the one that's "too extreme".

How were Romneys economic plans any better?

Cut taxes for the rich, squeeze more tax from the middle classes and pray for economic growth? To balance the books with his tax cuts he would need to drastically cut spending or hope for GDP growth on a level not far from China's (6%+).

The current situation in the UK is a fine example of how cutting spending is the best way to stagnate your economy. The US ecomomy seems to be on the road to recovery thanks to Obama's sensible approach. If growth continues you will have the money to pay for the this stuff and invest in further growth.

[Dave B]

Romney didn't have a lock on economic issues. Just cutting programs without even entertaining raising revenues (other than unspecified loopholes) [...] weren't any more fundamentally sound (and probably worse since so much was never specified) than raising taxes while reducing fewer benefits.
That's exactly what the coalition over here have been trying for two and a half years, and it's not exactly been a resounding success. Slash this, slash that, and raise a few quid from slapping VAT on cornish pasties was never going to be a successful longterm policy.

[Starter]

How were Romneys economic plans any better?

Cut taxes for the rich, squeeze more tax from the middle classes and pray for economic growth?
Not true. There were no plans to cut taxes for the rich, just to leave the already existing tax cuts in place. There were NO plans to raise taxes on the middle class.

[loowisham]

Seems as though this post sums up the whole year of Republican Polls. Nate Silver was the laughing stock of many but the one that was correct in predictions from the very start both the House and Senate. And, of course the president.

[race aficionado]

Isn't this race done?

[D-Type]

What has surprised me about this campaign has been the shear negativity of it all - attacking the other party's [supposed] policies without putting forward any firm proposals, systematic character assassination, etc.

Most British campaighs are focussed far more on the policies and manifestoes. An exception was Margaret Thatcher's first campaign where her campaign was based on a philosophy and attitude of mind rather than detailed policies. And of course there was Smethwick nearly 50 years ago ... where someone coined the phrase "If you want a <censored> for a neighbour - vote Labour" and a 'safe' labour seat fell to the Tories.

[beachgirl]

Has anyone seen Danicafan lately? Who was the last one responsible for suicide watch?

[Lousada]

The US has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. On that there is do debate, only posturing and party politics.

This has been disproven many times already but you keep ignoring. So here again:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/90/Revenue_and_Expense_to_GDP_Chart_1993_-_2008.png/800px-Revenue_and_Expense_to_GDP_Chart_1993_-_2008.png
Yes spending is higher than ever, but revenue is also lower than ever. To say that there is no revenue problem is ignoring facts.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/Tax_Revenue_as_Share_of_GDP_for_OECD_Countries_in_ 2009.jpg/368px-Tax_Revenue_as_Share_of_GDP_for_OECD_Countries_in_ 2009.jpg
This might also be interesting. The US has the third lowest tax revenue of all developed countries.

[Mark]

Because traditionally taxes in the US are low compared to almost everywhere.

[race aficionado]

Isn't this race done?

Florida is finally confirmed.

A whoop-ass drubbing is official:

Obama/Biden: 332
Romney/Ryan: 206

[Tazio]

What has surprised me about this campaign has been the shear negativity of it all - attacking the other party's [supposed] policies without putting forward any firm proposals, systematic character assassination, etc.

Most British campaighs are focussed far more on the policies and manifestoes.
I humbly suggest that you may have not actually read or seen them.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uONGtgxHjYk

[race aficionado]

[quote="Dr Giacomo Rappaccini"]I humbly suggest that you may have not actually read or seen them.


I'm honored that he is my president.

[gloomyDAY]

Close thread, please? Romney lost. Obama won.

[Jag_Warrior]

The US has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. On that there is do debate, only posturing and party politics.

To the complete contrary, there most certainly is a debate about that. In fact, that is precisely what the debate is about. Actual non-partisan economists generally suggest spending cuts and revenue increases. Only partisans are yammering for either/or solutions. The Simpson-Bowles commission suggested tax reform measures that would increase revenues, even though overall rates would be lowered.


Simpson-Bowles gives Republicans some cover on raising taxes because it is bipartisan, and because the plan goes through the back door when it comes to getting more money out of people.


Simpson-Bowles would lower overall tax rates, but raise more revenue by scaling back tax deductions and loopholes that many people, including business owners, utilize.


For example, the plan suggests reducing income tax rates to as low as 8 percent, 14 percent, and 23 percent – versus present rates that reach 35 percent for the wealthiest Americans. At the same time, it also suggests halving the cap for the mortgage interest deduction – and limiting the deduction to primary residences.
Newly issues state and municipal bonds would no longer have their interest shielding from taxes under Simpson-Bowles.


The corporate tax rate would go down to a single 28 percent bracket and would be “territorial,” meaning that it would only apply to profits earned inside the United States. But Simpson-Bowles also proposes eliminating more than 30 tax credits available to businesses.

[anthonyvop]

Isn't this race done?

Mid-term elections are just around the corner and we are warming up for 2016!!!

Can't wait.

Marco Rubio/Rand Paul 2016!

[anthonyvop]

Florida is finally confirmed.

A whoop-ass drubbing is official:

Obama/Biden: 332
Romney/Ryan: 206

50.3-48.3 in the popular vote, 7 million LESS people voted for Obama this time compared to the last presidential election.

Whoop-ass in only your dreams or in the mind of the MSM

[D-Type]

Grammatical point: It's "fewer" if you count it, "less" if you measure it. (I got a bollocking this week for using the wrong one)

How does 7 million convert into a percentage? Was the total turnout smaller or larger?

[Jag_Warrior]

Has anyone seen Danicafan lately? Who was the last one responsible for suicide watch?

My bad! I'm supposed to watch him on Tuesdays and Thursdays, but with the election on Tuesday I got busy and I couldn't get anybody to answer the door on Wednesday morning. There was a distinct smell of natural gas when I tried to look in the kitchen window, but I figured he was just baking some cookies. Maybe I should have called somebody?

First Danica is proving to be a flop in NASCAR and then poor old Willard Mittens couldn't even beat Obama in a state full of geriatric folks... the only group that really seemed to like the old boy. You're right, that really is weak sauce and a lot for a dude to deal with all at once. Tell ya what, I'll drop by again Wednesday after next and check on him. I would go next Wednesday, but I have an appointment to get my hair cut. Sounds trivial, but my barber is a hard man to catch!

[race aficionado]

Give Danica Fan a brake.
Why kick him when he is down.
If he gets up and starts yapping again then he's opening himself again to fall flat on his face.
Let's see if he is up to savor some humble pie. There's plenty to pass around in this country right now.

[Jag_Warrior]

I guess I should be a bigger, better person... but I'm not. :D

Unfortunately, our lil pal crossed the Rubicon when he questioned the patriotism and the devotion to the American republic of those who voted for Obama. I consider myself to be a rather extreme republican (in the ideological, though most definitely not in the party sense). So questioning my devotion to the republic based on who I voted for, when neither of the two major party candidates was all that different ideologically, was quite offensive to me. If he wants to apologize for that, I am a forgiving person. We'll just chalk it up to heat of the moment yammering - and we all do that from time to time. But short of that, the beatings will continue. The path forward is entirely up to him.

This is a clear example why one never discusses politics or religion at parties or business meetings. It seldom ends well.

[Mark]

As for the issue of revenue. In 1997 the Labour Party in the UK won a landslide on the promise they would actually raise taxes in order to find spending. This is after nearly two decades of constant spending cuts.

[F1boat]

Women's issues, abortion, immigration, education, any other issue you want to bring up doesn't mean a damn

No. Human rights are fundamental and for me even more important than the economy. For this matters to not mean "a damn" the GOP should abandon it's loonie religious positions.

[Tazio]

Has anyone seen Danicafan lately? Who was the last one responsible for suicide watch?That would be me. :o During my watch he asked me to euthanize him, so I honored his request and dispatched him. :eek:
With my auditory capacity slightly diminished, and upon further consideration, I'm starting to have doubts as to what he exactly requested, and now believe it's possible his actual request may have been "exorcize me" :confused:
Sorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry :devil:
RIP

[Starter]

No. Human rights are fundamental and for me even more important than the economy. For this matters to not mean "a damn" the GOP should abandon it's loonie religious positions.
In a bad economy, human rights get run over in the quest to survive. In a good economy, there is the luxury to share the "wealth" across the spectrum. So, IMO, the economy trumps all. I'll buy your "abandon loonie religious positions" though!

[Roamy]

I am good with the election as I mentioned I think the republican is in great need of a overhaul. It appears that one needs to take religion and abortion out of the equation.
Women are not going to vote for someone wanting to control their body. Those days are quite over IMO. I am also afraid the capitalism will need to be at least monitored in the future. A pig get fatter and a hog gets slaughtered is really what is happening. We you screw around with the middle class in this country you are asking for it. Class warfare is in play right now and the gov needs to pay close attention. Hopefully we will get a strong 3rd party that will be for the middle class. the congress needs a major gutting and I think only a 3rd party can do that.

[Tazio]

These guys are very scary and really similar to the jihadists. But aren't they usually old guys? Mostly yes, but they indoctrinate their offspring


http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s480x480/423102_492590974096106_295790260_n.jpg

[F1boat]

Mostly yes, but they indoctrinate their offspring


http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s480x480/423102_492590974096106_295790260_n.jpg

I know. Another wanted to execute naughty children to set an example for the others. I would not vote for such man even if he is the best economist, Starter. I believe that you wouldn't too.

[Rollo]

I cut this in two:


To the complete contrary, there most certainly is a debate about that. In fact, that is precisely what the debate is about. Actual non-partisan economists generally suggest spending cuts and revenue increases. Only partisans are yammering for either/or solutions. The Simpson-Bowles commission suggested tax reform measures that would increase revenues, even though overall rates would be lowered.

Tick :D


Basically it's a mathematical impossibility to close the either the deficit or cut the debt by spending cuts alone. Both spending cuts and tax increases are inevitable in any realistic scenario.

Then this:

The Simpson-Bowles commission suggested tax reform measures that would increase revenues, even though overall rates would be lowered.

Capital, like water and electricity, flows according to the path of least resistance and greatest benefit. If you choose to tax wages, people will choose to take their incomes out of companies out as dividends. If you choose to tax dividends, people will choose to take their incomes out of companies out as wages (replace options with the greatest net taxation benefit).

Also, there is a tendancy over the past 70 years (since about WW2), irrespective of whatever taxation policy is employed, for taxation revenues to cycle around a midpoint of about 19.5% of GDP.

Over the past six decades, tax revenues as a percentage of GDP have averaged just under 19% regardless of the top marginal personal income tax rate. The top marginal rate has been as high as 92% (1952-53) and as low as 28% (1988-90). This observation was first reported in an op-ed I wrote for this newspaper in March 1993. A wit later dubbed this "Hauser's Law."
- William Hauser, Wall Street Journal, 26 Nov 2010.
W. Kurt Hauser: There's No Escaping Hauser's Law - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703514904575602943209741952.html)

If this is statistically true, then the question isn't so much how you raise revenues or even if you do but how you remove taxation loopholes and to be honest, neither the Republicrats or Democrans (hooray-boo - keep yelling at each other, there's no actual difference between the two parties) are prepared to do anything about it because the people who own them, won't let them.

US Taxation Policy is needlessly complicated, mostly because the components of the DJIA demand it.

[chuck34]

I'm not going to quote the full text because your case lies on this point.

This is your opinion and not a fact. Spending isn't an issue if you have revenue, and revenue isn't an issue if you're not spending too much. We're always going to be spending and raising revenue. The posturing as you call it is simply politics, which is a compromise on the best balance of the two. The problem Republicans have had lately is their inability to make any kind of agreement based on an absolutist opinion similar to your own rather than trying to identify areas for compromise. That along with the political intent of denying Obama a second term. One Republican position down, one to go.

No. It is a fact that the US government has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

That is unless you have a magical way to raise $1,200,000,000,000 in new taxes.

[chuck34]

You are assuming people did not vote for Obama on an economic basis. Romney didn't exactly do a great job to convince people that he would do better. His proposed policy was vacuous and devoid of detail, which stopped at "I know how to create jobs", while at the same time wanting to increase military spending by $2 trillion and giving the impression of being very enthusiastic about a war in Iran. I think it is apparent why some people would be less than convinced.

I will agree with you that Romney wasn't the best candidate ever. That being said, after 4 years of stagnant at best economics, why vote for the status quo? I suppose that's why the President got way less votes this time around.

[chuck34]

How were Romneys economic plans any better?

Because his plan would grow the economy. It wouldn't be a cure all, but better than this.


Cut taxes for the rich,

Which grows the economy, even if only slowly.


squeeze more tax from the middle classes

How's that?


and pray for economic growth?

Every time we have cut taxes in the past it has spurred economic growth. Why would it be different this time?


To balance the books with his tax cuts he would need to drastically cut spending or hope for GDP growth on a level not far from China's (6%+).

Agreed we need to drastically cut spending.


The current situation in the UK is a fine example of how cutting spending is the best way to stagnate your economy.

I don't know enough about the UK situation, but I would suggest they have not cut spending nearly enough, nor cut enough tax burden to really spur the economy.


The US ecomomy seems to be on the road to recovery thanks to Obama's sensible approach. If growth continues you will have the money to pay for the this stuff and invest in further growth.

If 8% unemployment and 1.x% economic growth with looming inflation is your idea of recovery .....

[chuck34]

This has been disproven many times already but you keep ignoring. So here again:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/90/Revenue_and_Expense_to_GDP_Chart_1993_-_2008.png/800px-Revenue_and_Expense_to_GDP_Chart_1993_-_2008.png
Yes spending is higher than ever, but revenue is also lower than ever. To say that there is no revenue problem is ignoring facts.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/Tax_Revenue_as_Share_of_GDP_for_OECD_Countries_in_ 2009.jpg/368px-Tax_Revenue_as_Share_of_GDP_for_OECD_Countries_in_ 2009.jpg
This might also be interesting. The US has the third lowest tax revenue of all developed countries.

I don't really care what taxes are as a % of GDP. I don't have the time right now to post the numbers, but Federal revenue is up over inflation compared
to '99. That "magic" year when we had a "surplus" everyone is so nostalgic about.

[Malbec]

I don't know enough about the UK situation, but I would suggest they have not cut spending nearly enough, nor cut enough tax burden to really spur the economy.

Hmmm Ok.

The treasury calculated that for every pound of government spending cut, total economic activity would only drop by 40p.

It turns out that the first round of spending cuts resulted in a 1:1 ratio between spending cuts and drop in economic activity. The private sector was unable to make any headway to make up the loss. This of course has lead to a drop in tax revenue which means we are no longer on course to balance our books. All this despite a massive drop in the value of the Sterling meaning our exports are far more competitive than they used to be, and near-zero rates of interest in an effort to free up cashflow in the economy and encourage investment and growth.

You can learn from other countries' mistakes or decide they magically don't apply to the US.

[F1boat]

I suppose that's why the President got way less votes this time around.

Didn't Romney gain less votes than McCain as well? Correct me if I am wrong, please.

[DBell]

No. Human rights are fundamental and for me even more important than the economy. For this matters to not mean "a damn" the GOP should abandon it's loonie religious positions.

That's the trap the Republicans have put themselves in when they became the "Religous Party". To go along with their fiscal ideas, you also have to go along with social ideas. I can't stomache that either.

A couple of quotes from an old time conservative Senator from my native state of Arizona.



Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.
.....
The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom.... I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are?... I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."

- Barry Goldwater, (1909–1998), five-term US Senator, Republican Party nominee for President in 1964*, Maj. Gen., US Air Force Reserves, author of The Conscience of a Conservative.


["If they succeed in establishing religion as a basic Republican Party tenet," he told U.S. News & World Report in 1994, "they could do us in." In an interview with The Post that same year, Goldwater observed, "When you say 'radical right' today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye."



When Sandra Day O'Connor was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1981, some Religious Right leaders suspected she might be too moderate on abortion and other social concerns. Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell told the news media that "every good Christian should be concerned." Replied Goldwater, "Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's ass."

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Because his plan would grow the economy. It wouldn't be a cure all, but better than this.



Which grows the economy, even if only slowly.



Every time we have cut taxes in the past it has spurred economic growth. Why would it be different this time?


There is no evidence that this happens. It is a myth.

After Bush's tax cuts in 2003 the rate of growth in the US started to slow down.

[Rollo]

Every time we have cut taxes in the past it has spurred economic growth.


Do you have a statistical basis for this? I would like to read your workings. I do not see the above statement as having any real grounding in reality, unless of course you'd like to show otherwise.

[Tazio]

Robert Frost I approve :up:

[chuck34]

Posting from my phone now, so it's a bit tough to post links and stuff. Perhaps someone could prove that tax increases will raise the $1,200,000,000,000 needed to balance the budget, spur economic growth, and reduce unemployment.

[race aficionado]

Didn't Romney gain less votes than McCain as well? Correct me if I am wrong, please.

Romney and Ryan got 2 million LESS than McCain and Palin. Says a lot, eh?

The Republican hierarchy is still reeling and hoping to wake up from this nightmare of theirs.
Beck, Rush, Trump and so many more are blabbering incoherently . . . .
They never saw the early knock out punch coming. I'm still smiling.

[Gregor-y]

In Arizona they take politics seriously:
Holly Solomon Blames Husband for Obama's Re-Election, Allegedly Rams Him With Her Car - Phoenix - News - Valley Fever (http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2012/11/obama_reelection_mitt_romney_holly_solomon_gilbert .php)


Mesa resident Holly Solomon thinks it's her husband's fault that President Obama was re-elected last week, because he didn't vote.

Not only does Solomon, 28, have a thorough misunderstanding of our nation's electoral system, she also ran over her husband with her car because of this, according to Gilbert police.

In an e-mail to media, Gilbert police Sergeant Jesse Sanger says the argument started in a parking lot Saturday morning over Daniel Solomon's lack of voter participation.

"According to Daniel, Holly believed her family was going to face hardship as a result of President Obama's re-election," Sanger says.

Witnesses told police that there was a lot of yelling before Holly Solomon hopped in her Jeep, and started chasing her husband around the parking lot.

Her husband tried to use a light pole to shield himself, and Solomon drove around the light pole several times as she continued to yell at him.

Eventually, her husband made a run for it, but Solomon hit him, pinning him under the car and on a curb, according to police.

Daniel Solomon's currently in critical condition at a hospital.

Holly Solomon was booked into jail on charges of domestic violence and aggravated assault, and there are no indications she was impaired by alcohol or drugs at the time, according to Sanger.

It should be noted that President Obama won a grand total of zero of Arizona's 11 electoral votes, so it wouldn't have helped if Daniel Solomon had voted for Romney 1,000 times.

[Rollo]

Things just got weirder:

In total, more than 20 petitions have been filed. One for Texas has reached the 25,000-signature threshold at which the White House promises a response.
BBC News - US election: Unhappy Americans ask to secede from US (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20301477)

I wonder what would happen if Confederacy II did happen. Places like Texas and the southern states would suddenly find that they'd have all sorts of legal implications like defence, taxation and welfare to work out.

[Tazio]

In Arizona they take politics seriously:
Holly Solomon Blames Husband for Obama's Re-Election, Allegedly Rams Him With Her Car - Phoenix - News - Valley Fever (http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2012/11/obama_reelection_mitt_romney_holly_solomon_gilbert .php)LMAO
Thanks G'-y

[Roamy]

they should just put a national sales deficit tax on. everybody pays. don't take forever to pay this off just get er done.

[chuck34]

Don't think you quite understand the scale of the debt/deficit/spending problrm. Our GDP is $15,000,000,000,000, our deficit is $1,200,000,000,000, and our debt is $16,000,000,000,000. That means that to balance the books with some sort of national sales tax, you would have to tax the entire GDP 8%. Do you really think that won't have an impact on the economy?. And that's just the deficit, what about the debt? Well let's pay that off over say 10 years. So all another 10% "sales tax". Now we're up to 18% tax. And that's using static analysis which isn't the right thing to do. And surely we can all agree a tax hike that high wouldn't be too conducive to economic growth?

[Mark]

So you are talking about 18% sales tax? That sounds about normal to me. The UK was at 17.5% now 20%.

[Starter]

So you are talking about 18% sales tax? That sounds about normal to me. The UK was at 17.5% now 20%.
That would be 18% on top of all of the already existing taxes (including the hidden ones) we already have. An economy killer for sure.

Oh, wait, we'll just tax the rich people and it'll all go away. :rolleyes:

[Tazio]

Leagalize "Herb" on a national level and tax the bejeezus out of it, that would put a dent into it. Of course the "Prisons for Profit" may lose some customers. :crazy:

[Gregor-y]

The entire war on drugs (of which prisons are only a part) is a massive economy all by itself. And of course completely reliant on federal money. Get them and chunk of military spending (particularly Afghanistan) off the budget and things will look a lot better. It's bad enough we're going to be paying for all the veterans these wars have messed up. We need to budget for that for the next 40 years or so.

[Mark]

That would be 18% on top of all of the already existing taxes (including the hidden ones) we already have. An economy killer for sure.

Oh, wait, we'll just tax the rich people and it'll all go away. :rolleyes:

Ah right. That's always been the thing here, you can't be seen to be putting income tax up, so we have loads of 'stealth taxes' instead.

[Roamy]

Don't think you quite understand the scale of the debt/deficit/spending problrm. Our GDP is $15,000,000,000,000, our deficit is $1,200,000,000,000, and our debt is $16,000,000,000,000. That means that to balance the books with some sort of national sales tax, you would have to tax the entire GDP 8%. Do you really think that won't have an impact on the economy?. And that's just the deficit, what about the debt? Well let's pay that off over say 10 years. So all another 10% "sales tax". Now we're up to 18% tax. And that's using static analysis which isn't the right thing to do. And surely we can all agree a tax hike that high wouldn't be too conducive to economic growth?

yes we understand the problem - so could you pls bring the solution- I think we all need to pitch in and a national sales tax is the only way I can see to get money from all.
Well tariffs would be nice as well.

[Roamy]

That would be 18% on top of all of the already existing taxes (including the hidden ones) we already have. An economy killer for sure.

Oh, wait, we'll just tax the rich people and it'll all go away. :rolleyes:

well paybacks are a bitch - bring a solution

[Starter]

The entire war on drugs (of which prisons are only a part) is a massive economy all by itself. And of course completely reliant on federal money. Get them and chunk of military spending (particularly Afghanistan) off the budget and things will look a lot better. It's bad enough we're going to be paying for all the veterans these wars have messed up. We need to budget for that for the next 40 years or so.
I couldn't agree more. The "War On Drugs" is one of the stupidest things we have ever done on the national level.

[Starter]

well paybacks are a bitch - bring a solution
There is no easy solution. This problem has been building for many years. You probably won't like some of my solutions either.

1) Yes, some tax rates need to be raised. This is tricky as you don't want to squash the economy while doing so.
2) Spending cuts, almost across the board. However, Social Security and Medicare - no changes for those whose ages put them within five years of drawing on the programs.
3) Dramatic reductions in programs. Keep the "have to have" and dump the "nice to have". Lots of room for interpretation here though.
4) Revise the tax code. EVERYBODY pays something. Even those already on government assistance. NO exceptions. My point here is not the money raised because the amount from those now not paying taxes won't amount to much more than the "millionaire" tax will produce. It's to put all those people who now don't care about the subject so long as they get theirs (gov't. payment, tax credit, what ever) into the "I pay taxes and I do give a s**t about how you spend my money" group. In other words, they'll have a dog in the fight. The "me" class becomes the "what the heck are you spending my money on" class.
5) Revise the tax code part two. Keep the current rates (or only adjust them slightly) but eliminate almost all of the deductions for everybody.
6) Slash all government subsidies for various industries, this includes farming. Let the market determine pricing.
7) Slash almost all foreign aid.

I have more too, but this is plenty to get everybody all riled up. :p

[chuck34]

Basically I would have to say ditto to Starter. MASSIVE spending cuts across the board coupled with some modest increase in revenue brought about by real tax reform, ie flattening it out.

[Jag_Warrior]

I will agree with you that Romney wasn't the best candidate ever. That being said, after 4 years of stagnant at best economics, why vote for the status quo?

Perhaps voters determined that Romney's policies represented the same staus quo that helped to land us in the deepest recession since the 1930's. Had Romney articulated a position or a plan on the economy (one plan, not a different one every other week - and not one which was simply parroting the GOP's tired "deregulate and cut taxes" line), perhaps he would have gained more traction with voters. At least under Obama, the bleeding has largely stopped and we do have growth, albeit stagnant. Congress and the Fed also have a hand in this. We need to realize who does what. Monetary policy is determined by the Fed, not by the President and not by Congress - which is why I've always been amused by those who claim that "Reagan whipped inflation." Reagan had as much to do with whipping inflation as I did. Thankfully, the Fed is not quite as political, and not nearly as partisan as Congress and the Executive Branch. I don't agree with everything that Bernanke has done. But he's really about the only one who isn't just sitting on his thumbs and humming.



I suppose that's why the President got way less votes this time around.

And yet, he got more votes than Romney. So there's always that. :D

[Rollo]

I can instantly save $830m from the US Budget and it would cost literally nothing; also save possibly billions in wasted time, thus increasingly productivity.

Kill the penny and nickel.

It costs roughly 2.4c to make a penny and 11c to make a nickel. As far as I can tell, they serve no utilitarian function anymore and are just a hinderance. A Wheat Cent when it came out in 1909 had roughly the same buying power as $1.50 now.
I can see no sensible reason for either the penny or nickel's continued existence.

[Lousada]

I can instantly save $830m from the US Budget and it would cost literally nothing; also save possibly billions in wasted time, thus increasingly productivity.

Kill the penny and nickel.

Same argument can be made about the one dollar bill vs. the one dollar coin. Stop printing the one dollar bill in favour of coins and it would save 5.5 billion dollars over 30 years, or roughly 180 million a year. Do the same for the two dollar bill and you'll save millions again.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Basically I would have to say ditto to Starter. MASSIVE spending cuts across the board coupled with some modest increase in revenue brought about by real tax reform, ie flattening it out.

Sounds about right. I'm no expert on how national economies work, but with my family economy the story is simple. If expenses exceed revenues, we are in trouble and need to cut spending. Or else...

[Alexamateo]

Sounds about right. I'm no expert on how national economies work, but with my family economy the story is simple. If expenses exceed revenues, we are in trouble and need to cut spending. Or else...

I used to think this way, also, but now I think it is a mistake. A government is not a household. If it were a household though, why are we worried?

$16 trillion debt, on a $15 trillion income, my banker would say, go on and get that $45 trillion house you've always dreamed of :p . In real life, I have done just that. Essentially I have only mortgage debt, and I bought a house last month without selling my previous house. I went from my total debt being 1/2 of my annual income to being 2.7 times my annual income in one fell swoop, yet I easily qualify, not to mention my income increases next Sunday when I lease my old house to a renter.

Now, it behooves me as a household to get out of debt because I would eventually like to stop working someday and there is risk involved in debt, but those situations don't apply to government who also can devalue their currency and inflate their way out of crisis by just printing money when all else fails. So unless the US is planning on going out of business anytime soon, I have decided not to worry about the debt.

[Rudy Tamasz]

those situations don't apply to government who also can devalue their currency and inflate their way out of crisis by just printing money when all else fails.

Sounds familiar. First they inflate, then devalue and leave it to the taxpayers to figure out how to survive.

We had that situation in Belarus two years ago. The gov't used the model of inflationary growth and kept salaries higher than they should have been. That continued until the incumbent pres won another election in late 2010. Then with his need for votes gone he devalued the national currency by some 2.7 times. Many people instantly became poor.

Given the fact, that politicians are same shameless populists everywhere it can happen in the U.S., too. Get ready, folks. This was Obama's last election. He no longer needs your votes.

[Starter]

I used to think this way, also, but now I think it is a mistake. A government is not a household. If it were a household though, why are we worried?

$16 trillion debt, on a $15 trillion income, my banker would say, go on and get that $45 trillion house you've always dreamed of :p . In real life, I have done just that. Essentially I have only mortgage debt, and I bought a house last month without selling my previous house. I went from my total debt being 1/2 of my annual income to being 2.7 times my annual income in one fell swoop, yet I easily qualify, not to mention my income increases next Sunday when I lease my old house to a renter.

Now, it behooves me as a household to get out of debt because I would eventually like to stop working someday and there is risk involved in debt, but those situations don't apply to government who also can devalue their currency and inflate their way out of crisis by just printing money when all else fails. So unless the US is planning on going out of business anytime soon, I have decided not to worry about the debt.
The flaw in that reasoning is that the US government is buying a new house every year and not either selling the old one(s) or renting them either.

[Malbec]

Sounds about right. I'm no expert on how national economies work, but with my family economy the story is simple. If expenses exceed revenues, we are in trouble and need to cut spending. Or else...

The big difference is that if your household cuts its spending it will have no impact on your income. If a government cuts spending then because it is such a significant part of the economy, output falls and tax revenue drops too. If the economy shrinks because of government spending, then the government has to spend more on certain things like unemployment benefit. There is little saving to be made from sacking a government employee to pay them benefits the very next day.

The proponents of massive tax cuts seem in denial about that. Greece, Spain and the rest of Europe is finding out the hard way that this is the case.

[Mark]

Most of Europe including the UK is being taught that national finances are not at all like household finances!

[Jag_Warrior]

Sounds about right. I'm no expert on how national economies work, but with my family economy the story is simple. If expenses exceed revenues, we are in trouble and need to cut spending. Or else...

That's an entirely good and common sense way of looking at this issue. But as you cut expenses at home, wouldn't the problem be addressed even more quickly and effectively if you also were able to increase your income?

Successful business remain successful, even when they hit bumps in the road, by keeping an eye on expenses and revenues. It is seldom, if ever, just an either/or option.

[Rollo]

The big difference is that if your household cuts its spending it will have no impact on your income. If a government cuts spending then because it is such a significant part of the economy, output falls and tax revenue drops too. If the economy shrinks because of government spending, then the government has to spend more on certain things like unemployment benefit. There is little saving to be made from sacking a government employee to pay them benefits the very next day.

The proponents of massive tax cuts seem in denial about that. Greece, Spain and the rest of Europe is finding out the hard way that this is the case.

This is why:
GDP = private Consumption + gross Investment + Government spending + (eXports − iMports).
GDP = C + I + G + (X-M)

If G falls, then GDP falls unless there is a corresponding increase in either C or I (unless you of course magically start exporting more or importing less, or both). Real wages peaked in 1979, meaning that net private consumption (C) has also, in real terms been falling. The two biggest drivers of I are growth in C (which is in the long term falling) and the cost of borrowing, which are changes in the interest rate; both of which represent the expected returns to firms.

If a nation wants to maintain GDP and C is falling, and I isn't occurring in that nation due to external factors, then the only option is a corresponding increase in G to make the shortfalls, otherwise you have a shrinking economy, which is what a lot of European nations are finding out; Britain especially.

[Rollo]

That's an entirely good and common sense way of looking at this issue. But as you cut expenses at home, wouldn't the problem be addressed even more quickly and effectively if you also were able to increase your income?


219 Representatives and 39 Senators of the 113th Congress are committed to voting against any proposed increases through legislation:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/atrfiles/files/files/111212-113thCongress(1).pdf

One, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for
individuals and/or businesses; and
Two, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless
matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.

The "Taxpayer Protection Pledge" is in part why the 112th Congress was so unproductive and why the 113th Congress will also be one of more mind-numbing gridlock.


Successful business remain successful, even when they hit bumps in the road, by keeping an eye on expenses and revenues. It is seldom, if ever, just an either/or option.

Great chunks of both houses are committed to refusing to accept an either/or option. They demand an our way or screw everyone approach... which is precisely what they're doing and why the very notion of debt reduction remains unsuccessful.

[Jag_Warrior]

219 Representatives and 39 Senators of the 113th Congress are committed to voting against any proposed increases through legislation:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/atrfiles/files/files/111212-113thCongress(1).pdf

One, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for
individuals and/or businesses; and
Two, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless
matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.

The "Taxpayer Protection Pledge" is in part why the 112th Congress was so unproductive and why the 113th Congress will also be one of more mind-numbing gridlock.



Great chunks of both houses are committed to refusing to accept an either/or option. They demand an our way or screw everyone approach... which is precisely what they're doing and why the very notion of debt reduction remains unsuccessful.

It is truly, truly a shame that elected members of U.S. Congress would sign a pledge to a man who has, AFAIK, never held an elected office in his life: shadowy, creepy Grover Norquist.

[Starter]

That's an entirely good and common sense way of looking at this issue. But as you cut expenses at home, wouldn't the problem be addressed even more quickly and effectively if you also were able to increase your income?

Successful business remain successful, even when they hit bumps in the road, by keeping an eye on expenses and revenues. It is seldom, if ever, just an either/or option.
The problem here is that every time there is increased revenue, Congress spends it to buy more votes. That's why so many of us are adamant that the spending reductions be put in place before any tax increases. Quite frankly, when it comes to politicians - they lie.

[Rudy Tamasz]

wouldn't the problem be addressed even more quickly and effectively if you also were able to increase your income?


It would. Except I have some limitations. Right now I get the max salary there is for a man of my experience and qualifications at our domestic labor market. I know I can instantly raise my value by moving to a better paying market if I resolve the issue of getting a work permit. But where do you move a whole country to raise its revenues?

Sorry if I sound simplistic, but this is my level of economic expertise. ;)

[Dave B]

That's an entirely good and common sense way of looking at this issue. But as you cut expenses at home, wouldn't the problem be addressed even more quickly and effectively if you also were able to increase your income?

Successful business remain successful, even when they hit bumps in the road, by keeping an eye on expenses and revenues. It is seldom, if ever, just an either/or option.
Indeed in times of recession it can be a good time for businesses and governments to invest for the future. Labour is in plentiful supply and therefore relatively cheap, property prices are depressed, and a sensible investment plan could pay dividends in later years. Cutting spending on its own isn't a wise plan.

[Starter]

Indeed in times of recession it can be a good time for businesses and governments to invest for the future. Labour is in plentiful supply and therefore relatively cheap, property prices are depressed, and a sensible investment plan could pay dividends in later years. Cutting spending on its own isn't a wise plan.
I think all of you are missing the real issue. There is plenty of corporate money (by all accounts) that is sitting on the sidelines and not being invested. Why do you think that is?

Now that you've asked, I'll tell you why. It is because no one in their right mind is going to invest significant amounts of money when there is a high expectation that the government is going to soon change the rules soon. It seems like every year Congress tweaks the tax (and other) regulations. There is NO continuity on which a business plan can be based. It's even worse now with the looming debt crisis. The very first order of business for Congress MUST be to decide what the new tax and spending landscape will be. Then lock it in with an assurance there will be no changes for, say, five years. I believe you will then see a lot of money entering the economy in a positive way. It almost makes little difference what the new landscape looks like, just so long as it's stable and not constantly changed.

[Mark]

Then lock it in with an assurance there will be no changes for, say, five years.

5 year plan! Sounds familiar ;)

[Malbec]

I think all of you are missing the real issue. There is plenty of corporate money (by all accounts) that is sitting on the sidelines and not being invested. Why do you think that is?

Now that you've asked, I'll tell you why. It is because no one in their right mind is going to invest significant amounts of money when there is a high expectation that the government is going to soon change the rules soon.

Corporations are taxed mainly on income with allowances for R/D in most countries so they are not hoarding money because of concerns about future tax changes. In fact most tax regimes promote corporate spending as much of it can be written off against tax.

Its more due to lack of confidence in the recovery of the global economy in the near future and they are rebuilding cash piles that were blown in the first credit crunch 4 years ago. After all we're looking at a potential Euro crash, war in Iran threatening global oil supply and the credit bubble in China bursting. If any of them (or more) happens we're looking at yet another global recession. Thats what companies are preparing themselves for, not future tax changes.

[Starter]

Corporations are taxed mainly on income with allowances for R/D in most countries so they are not hoarding money because of concerns about future tax changes. In fact most tax regimes promote corporate spending as much of it can be written off against tax.


That is not correct in the US. Our tax code is completely corrupted with special exceptions, industry perks, "incentives", etc. Further, the unknown tax rates, or even what will be taxed, going forward is a big disincentive to invest. It has not been a case of make X amount of dollars and pay Y taxes for a very, very long time.

[Tazio]

Sorry to change the subject, but if I could I would just like to interject this:

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/s480x480/230015_494200867268450_1373155004_n.jpg

[Rollo]

I think all of you are missing the real issue. There is plenty of corporate money (by all accounts) that is sitting on the sidelines and not being invested. Why do you think that is?

How much income did you make last year? I bet it was more than $732.

"Africans want to work, and its workers are willing to work for less than $2 per day. Such statistics make me worry for this country's future."
- Gina Rinehart, as quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald, Sep 6 2012.
Gina Rinehart's African miners' $2 a day comment panned | Hancock (http://www.smh.com.au/business/worlds-media-pan-rineharts-2-a-day-african-miner-comments-20120906-25fpq.html)

Business if it could get away with it, wants to reduce costs where ever possible.

If you were GM, would you prefer to have a factory in Australia where the average earnings of a full-time worker are A$69,000 a year or in Argentina it's about 78,000 Pesos or about A$15,900 a year?
This is GM's answer:
GM to Invest $450 Million in Argentina (http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2012/Oct/1024_GM_AR_Investment.html)

Taxes are mostly an irrelevant question; especially when 26 of the fortune 500 have paid no tax since 2008 and when all of them have a lower effective average tax rate than you. The argument that the tax code is somehow to blame is quite frankly bunk.

[Starter]

(Point A)Taxes are mostly an irrelevant question; (Point B)especially when 26 of the fortune 500 have paid no tax since 2008 and when all of them have a lower effective average tax rate than you. The argument that the tax code is somehow to blame is quite frankly bunk.
Go back and rethink what you said in "A" and then "B", particularly how they cancel each other out. . Taxes, or at least the hodge podge way they are applied and collected, are exactly the point.

[Rollo]

Go back and rethink what you said in "A" and then "B", particularly how they cancel each other out. . Taxes, or at least the hodge podge way they are applied and collected, are exactly the point.

I did rethink what I said in "A" and then "B" and the conclusion I draw is that I'm still correct.

When companies aren't actually paying tax in the first place, you can not very well claim that it is a hindrance to investment can you?
Income tax especially is calculated after the fact, at the end of the sausage machine; if you reduce the expenses going into the grinder in the first place, that has far more of a bearing on the overall position at the end.

[race aficionado]

Senator John McCain is a twirp.

[Gregor-y]

Senator John McCain is a twirp.

Ever since he took the lead in the 2008 primaries. Over the early favorite; what was his name?

[race aficionado]

Senator John McCain


the guy that brought us Sarah Palin
the guy that lost his presidential bid against president Obama and is still pissed off and is carrying his grudge where ever he can open his mouth.
the guy that whines in front of reporters because he is demanding answers on Benhgazi and at the same time he is missing a classified briefing that was being held before the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee of which he is a member.
McCain's 'scheduling error' - The Maddow Blog (http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/11/15/15194696-mccains-scheduling-error?lite)

and more . . . .

[Starter]

Senator John McCain


the guy that brought us Sarah Palin
the guy that lost his presidential bid against president Obama and is still pissed off and is carrying his grudge where ever he can open his mouth.
the guy that whines in front of reporters because he is demanding answers on Benhgazi and at the same time he is missing a classified briefing that was being held before the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee of which he is a member.
McCain's 'scheduling error' - The Maddow Blog (http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/11/15/15194696-mccains-scheduling-error?lite)

and more . . . .
You missed the most important one. He is the elected Senator from his state.
And you are??

[BDunnell]

You missed the most important one. He is the elected Senator from his state.
And you are??

As the old saying goes, one should salute the man, not the rank. Given that, criticism, too, is entirely appropriate. Yes, he's an elected Senator — frankly, so what?

[Starter]

As the old saying goes, one should salute the man, not the rank. Given that, criticism, too, is entirely appropriate. Yes, he's an elected Senator — frankly, so what?
I'll be the first to say that he is not the best Senator we've ever had. Far from the worst, but not the best for sure. It's the "Senator John McCain is a twirp." that I take exception to. Senator McCain served his country in war and spent time in a prison camp because of that service. He ran for office and has served the people of his state, whether you like his positions or not, he gets reelected by those people. Perhaps we should consider just who is the twirp here.

[race aficionado]

Be as it may, serves as he may have, his present actions concerning the Benghazi incident caused me to say what I said.

He has to remember to be a patriot again and stop his feeble disrespectful posturing.

Got me in a foul mood. So there.

[race aficionado]

Oh, and Strarter, you actually called me a twirp.

Wow....

[race aficionado]

You missed the most important one. He is the elected Senator from his state.
And you are??

Starter, if you notice I addresed him as Senator McCaine.

And who am I?
A citizen of the United States of America who is celebrating the fact that our democracy has re elected our 44th president of the United States Barack Hussein Obama and I am fed up with this partisan crap that insists in slugging the process down because things did not go the way they wanted it to be.
Yes, let's have different opinions and let's address them properly, but not in the way that, in my opinion, that is not appropriate, respectful nor responsible.
Let's move on dang it!

:s mokin:

[chuck34]

A citizen of the United States of America who is celebrating the fact that our democracy has re elected our 44th president of the United States Barack Hussein Obama and I am fed up with this partisan crap

And why is it that the only way many on the left see to stop "this partisan crap" is for the Republicans to completely give up any and all of their principals and convictions just to go along with the Dems? Why is it that conservative Republicans, who have been duly elected to represent people in their districts, many who ran (and won) on platforms against Obamacare, against new taxes, on rolling back regulation, etc, must be the ones that change in the name of stopping "partisan crap"?


that insists in slugging the process down because things did not go the way they wanted it to be.

And Dem's didn't do any of that under Bush? They aren't doing that now in statehouses across the country, remember the walkouts in Indiana and Wisconsin last year? But yeah, it's just the Republicans that are being partisan. :rolleyes:


Yes, let's have different opinions and let's address them properly, but not in the way that, in my opinion, that is not appropriate, respectful nor responsible.
Let's move on dang it!

:s mokin:

But only if they agree with you right?

[race aficionado]

And why is it that . . . .
But only if they agree with you right?

Chuck. You may have some points there but I was addressing a particular incident which is the posturing and conspiracy theory mongering, Watergate comparing, that is happening concerning Benghazi.
An investigation is taking place and we should allow the process, which is happening, to take it's course without making it a political issue that looks like post election whinnying.

That's all.

[race aficionado]

This is what I'm talking about . . . .

Soledad O (http://front.moveon.org/soledad-obrien-makes-this-guy-repeat-himself-until-his-bullsh_t-sounds-dumb-even-to-him/?rc=daily.share)

[loowisham]

Senator John Kerry presidential opponent to George Bush. Swift Boated by a bunch of liars and had a bunch of liars like Hannity and O'Reilly and most at Fox news cheering on the liars.
I lost respect for John McCain when he did not protect his own daughter from the vile attacks of Rove acting on behalf of Bush.

[Rollo]

Is it time to close this thread yet? In the light that the Election is over bar the shouting.