What you said wasn't a correction, it was an affirmation of the exact attitude Rand and I find unbelievable. It's no more a "possible personality problem" than Clinton's "I did not inhale" was, or the hysteria about Bush Jr's drinking.Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
An hour a day workout is not being able to adjust? Boggle. Athleticism is never frowned upon in American politics. Never.
You're confused. You think I'm attacking being fit or having a stable routine. I was pointing out the poor reporting calling Paul skinny and quoting his workout as insanity and labeling it as fierce. No hwere in the article, or the article it links to, or the articles that those link to give the full story on what he does, or for how long, to stay in shape. If I wanted to talk about simple athletism someone smarter than yourself would have called me on Obama's basketball love by now.
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 08-14-2012 at 03:15 AM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I'm fairly certain they are referring to the actual workout routine, Insanity.
I also think you are projecting more than a little bit here. I don't think anyone here had the same interpretation of the article that you did.
I think the problem is that what was clearly a silly jokey article was read through the hate-filled-goggles OG's wearing.
Paul Ryan grew up near Madison, WI -- home to University of Wisconsin and their "liberal" ideology that focuses on communitarianism (and collective collaboration), origin of the early workers' rights movement, and ultimately "unions". The Region was heavy on agriculture (dairy, grains and hogs especially), that grew into manufacturing (food and beverage conglomerates) and distribution (railway, trucking).
His family made their business success (and wealth) in a paving/construction company --- including government contracts to pave state roads. His father and grandfather died in their 50's from heart disease, making him an early fitness buff for health reasons. When his dad died, he benefited from SS survivor's benefits. He majored in economics and wanted to become an "Economic Entrepreneur". He became an avid Ayn Rand acolyte, with that philosophy driving much of his political opinions. He's also a devout Catholic, pro-life, supports Personhood Amendments that give full rights to fertilized embryos, and would ban all abortions with no exceptions for rape/incest or maternal health.
He's worked in Washington politics his entire adult life, in some capacity or other. He's made proposals like "The Path To Prosperity" and his own Tax Plan. He wants to 'change Medicare as we know it' and turn it into a voucher-coupon system. He would privatize SS. He'd also end any federal tax on capital gains or dividends, cut $700 billion in discretionary spending, and increase Defense spending.
In other words, he's the poster boy for conflicted Republican ideology, and a political party in the midst of an identity crisis. Small Government with personal responsibility....while making money from gov't contracts, working in/with government, cashing SS benefits checks, even learning of his cardiac risks thanks to gov't R & D in medicine. Pushing a non-interventionist gov't....while supporting religious-based laws governing womens' bodies and reproductive health decisions. Fiscal restraint that means slashing public services like health, education, and welfare.....but doesn't include cuts to pentagon, military or defense spending.
I'm not familiar with his immigration stance, but it almost doesn't matter. Ryan was chosen for his youth, religiosity, connections to the Heartland, and history of working in government policy as a conservative. He's one of the few who didn't bash Romney during the primaries, so he doesn't have to shake the Etch-a-Sketch. He represents the GOP's vision of how to keep the Anglo-Saxon model of political power, with trickle-down supply side economics and military superpower empire building still at play, even though that model is unsustainable.
They chose to double-down on (IMO) appealing to severe conservatism instead of tacking to the moderate middle. That probably made 'the base' feel better about Romney indirectly, but it won't appeal to swing voters, independents, moderates, or undecideds.
Brilliant.
Do you prescribe the same things for the UK, Rand? Are you prepared to care for your parents in their dotage, without using the NHS, public pension plans, or social services? You'd remove taxes on capital gains, meaning the top 10% who make millions that way would pay ZERO income taxes? You'd double your military and defense spending while cutting tax revenue?
Particularly his constant budget work. He's probably the most knowledgeable and experienced federal budget wonk the GOP has in campaign-politics right now.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
True. In that sense Ryan is a technocrat, combining his Economics background with math and budgets. Not sure how that makes him a good choice for VP, instead of staying in the legislative branch.In some ways, at least outside the GOP machinery, a technocrat that obsesses on numbers in/numbers out --- without a corresponding "human element" that connects policy to the people it will affect --- can be seen as a huge flaw.
He can't counter Romney's criticisms to date; being out of touch with "regular folk", not understanding "workers", not connecting with the larger population. Now there are two (white men) who've been raised in circles of privilege and wealth, groomed within political conservative echo chambers...and don't even see when their hypocrisy rears its ugly head.
If the debates go the way they should, and as everyone claims to want (by addressing philosophical differences) RomneyRyan will have to explain how their ideas aren't Bush Redux, and why repeating Rove-Cheney v 2.0 or Nordquists anti-tax/anti-revenue tried-and-failed policies would work now. They'll be pressed to explain their mantra that "job creators" are hiding among the wealthy, and why returning to 90's tax rates for the wealthy would be "killing jobs"....when it's been proven that the wealthy can do just fine in any economy, and that doesn't trickle down to JOBS for others. They'll have to explain how they can jumpstart growth and create millions of new jobs, despite the global slowdown and structural 'new normal'. And how cutting spending on things that benefit the low-middle classes and grow opportunity (health, education, welfare) will make a better economy, when our nation operates from the middle and expands outward.
I hope the debates distinguish between corporate and/or private wealth Trickle-Down voodoo economics, and public/tax dollars that can, and do, actually Trickle-Down in productive ways. I mean, if they're serious about growing our way out of debt and into prosperity, those growth theories have to actually work, taxes will still have to collect revenue, and real peoples' real lives must be considered. Otherwise, we could just elect an accountant-in-chief, and have a computer program do the dirty work.
Eh? You think the government in general - using taxation to redistribute wealth specifically, is a particularly productive/efficient way to grow the economy? Do you have any sources for this?I hope the debates distinguish between corporate and/or private wealth Trickle-Down voodoo economics, and public/tax dollars that can, and do, actually Trickle-Down in productive ways. I mean, if they're serious about growing our way out of debt and into prosperity, those growth theories have to actually work, taxes will still have to collect revenue, and real peoples' real lives must be considered. Otherwise, we could just elect an accountant-in-chief, and have a computer program do the dirty work.
I see a value and purpose for government, and its taxation via representation. Using certain terminology (redistribution of wealth) doesn't change the fact that large national projects helped expand our economy, connected 50 states as part creating of a more perfect Union, and accomplished things no private entities or single-acting states could. Beginning with roads and electricity generations ago, connecting rural with urban, and the rest of the world.
I'm surprised you're even asking for sources.
So what's up with this Ohio early-voting business?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Ohio is screwed up. When there's a tie vote in bipartisan election committees, the (R) Secretary of State makes the tie-breaking decision. No surprise it ended up with predominantly (R) districts expanding voting times, but predominantly (D) districts lost the ability to vote on the last Sunday before the election (when Take a Soul to the Polls, a tradition in black church communities, made that last Sunday of voting very important).
edit---Ohio (R) had originally wanted early voting available ONLY to active military. There's a fight now and some law suits about early voting available to everyone.
PA is screwed up, too.
Nobody said the government couldn't build large projects and public works.I see a value and purpose for government, and its taxation via representation. Using certain terminology (redistribution of wealth) doesn't change the fact that large national projects helped expand our economy, connected 50 states as part creating of a more perfect Union, and accomplished things no private entities or single-acting states could. Beginning with roads and electricity generations ago, connecting rural with urban, and the rest of the world.
I'm surprised you're even asking for sources.
What was said was this:
I have never been terribly impressed by the governments ability to prevent cronyism and corruption, promote efficiency, and minimize pork. I don't even think there are many Democrats who would publicly say that the way out of these troubled economic times is through growing the government as opposed to growing the private sector.You think the government in general - using taxation to redistribute wealth specifically, is a particularly productive/efficient way to grow the economy?
I already told Rand that his desires for US fiscal policy would have rather better chances if Ryan wasn't Vice-President. As Romney's running mate, Ryan does one thing besides the typical balance for the ticket: he indicates Romney intends to wail on the economy and fiscal policy during Obama's term as his major themes for the election.Not sure how that makes him a good choice for VP, instead of staying in the legislative branch.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
And I've never said we don't have cronyism, corruption, inefficiencies, or pork. The answer is to clean it up and drain the swamp....and demand more efficiency.
"Growing government" is another loaded term. We don't have to "grow" government in order to make it work better. If regulations/regulators aren't working properly, the answer isn't to De-Regulate...but to make the rules/laws better, clearer, less conflicted, and give them real teeth. If our tax code isn't up to snuff, the answer isn't simply to NOT tax, or slash ALL taxes...but to target, allocate, and organize taxes better. Etc.
(During Obama's administration the public sector has shrunk, while the private sector has grown, btw).
Great. And has either party done anything
Oh, the answer is to make perfect laws, lawmakers, and constituents. Why hasn't anybody else thought of that?"Growing government" is another loaded term. We don't have to "grow" government in order to make it work better. If regulations/regulators aren't working properly, the answer isn't to De-Regulate...but to make the rules/laws better, clearer, less conflicted, and give them real teeth. If our tax code isn't up to snuff, the answer isn't simply to NOT tax, or slash ALL taxes...but to target, allocate, and organize taxes better. Etc.
That's both a gross simplification and an awful analysis of what actually happened.(During Obama's administration the public sector has shrunk, while the private sector has grown, btw).
Never mind the fact that the vast majority of jobs have been lost in the private sector and local/state governments - not the federal government, and that the number of public sector jobs have skyrocketed in the last ten years.
Which really has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 08-15-2012 at 01:23 AM.
President Obabma is a wizard: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/08...ter_dailyintel
You don't have to be a wizard to use a palantirPresident Obabma is a wizard: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/08...ter_dailyintel
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Another reason to change the two-party dominance and campaign funding.
No need to be snarky. Expecting gov't to work better, and be more efficient, doesn't mean "perfection" is the goal. Don't twist what a more perfect Union means.Oh, the answer is to make perfect laws, lawmakers, and constituents. Why hasn't anybody else thought of that?
Okay, a more comprehensive picture includes going back to Bush's two terms in office. There are reasons federal gov't expanded after 9/11, with more jobs in defense, security, immigration. 'Nuff said there. Digitizing the IRS meant more jobs too. Some of that expansion is necessary for a growing population, more complexities in 'markets', and switching platforms from paper-pushers to computer experts....eventually needing fewer employees to do higher quality/faster work.That's both a gross simplification and an awful analysis of what actually happened.
Never mind the fact that the vast majority of jobs have been lost in the private sector and local/state governments - not the federal government, and that the number of public sector jobs have skyrocketed in the last ten years.
The job loss at state level was a direct hit from the housing bubble bursting, less property tax revenue to pay teachers, cops, firefighters. The policies that led to that began 20-30 years ago, culminated in de-regulation of financial/banking sectors, lots of Kool-Aid drinking, and a ten year hangover. Let's not forget we were bleeding 800,000 jobs per month beginning in '07, trillions of wealth vanished from retirement accounts, and Stimulus began under Bush.
Then don't use loaded terminology, or cherry-pick words from posts and run with it. I said the presidential debates would hopefully distinguish the candidates' views -- on Trickle Down theories, growing our economy, creating jobs -- and the role of the government. I hope they don't get bogged down with the same kind of rhetoric or baited words that we do here. Growing Government. Wealth Redistribution. Job Killing Taxes. etc That would be as bad as promising $2/gallon gas, or creating 20 million jobs if elected. Or saying Obama has 'failed' to right the ship in 3 1/2 short years, that's been sinking for more than a decade.Which really has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Adding this link on federal spending, as a contrast to federal employment. FYI:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...-barack-obama/
Last edited by GGT; 08-15-2012 at 04:01 PM.
Damn fool of a Took!
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Okay, but wailing against the incumbent as a "theme" for election doesn't mean substance. Those who despise Obama would vote for Joe The Plumber, or anyone with enough digits to sign the bills we [Republicans] send to his desk. That's been the coordinated strategy from the GOP since day one, when Mitch McConnell vowed the Republican Party main goal was to ensure Obama was a one-term president. By hook or by crook, they were determined to create failure, refused to negotiate in good faith, abused filibusters and other procedural methods....not so much to advance their own policies, or even govern....but to block any success for Obama. Negotiation and compromise became anathema. That's twisted. Unfortunately, that attitude and atmosphere has resulted in losing legislators who'd cross the aisle, come up with bipartisan solutions, and leant an air of admirable diplomacy to elected office.
RomneyRyan have a long row to hoe, it's not enough to say "Vote for us, we're better than Obama". Why should being on the Republican ticket mean they're automatically "better"? Because Bush's two terms was such a great example of success, and repeating that would mean even more success?
*sighs* This is going to be pedantic but we all know me so deal with it. I didn't say "wail on the incumbent." The democratic process the whole world over uses an oppositional framework. That you're going to be insisting your opponent is/was wrong and you can do better is a given. I said the Ryan selection indicates the campaign will probably be focused heavily on the economy and on fiscal policy over the last 4 years *TARP, the fiscal footprint of healthcare reform, the large deficits, etc* And yeah, we could say "well duh" but the GOP has put a lot of focus on foreign policy this last decade. Bush Jr. didn't spent that much time on it during his first campaign but some of his major first pushes as President were still on that front (like his push to reform the Iraqi sanctions regime in the summer of 2001). Back early during the primary campaign process I remember you complaining to Loki how Romney didn't have a plan for dealing with the economy. Well he does now. Ryan always seems to have one even if it's one you don't like.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Always good when plans get more specific, of course, good to know what you're voting for (or against).
Speaking of incumbent, how big is that advantage anyway? Does it really matter much? I do remember speaking some Americans around the time of Bush' re-election, two of them literally said "yeah, he screwed up a lot of things, but I think he deserves a second chance". Of course, that's anecdotal, so I'm curious how big of an advantage it is. Over here it's less, because you vote for parties not people, usually, and government parties often do worse in the next election, because the opposition can criticize them on everything that went wrong, even unavoidable things that those opposition parties would also have done, if they had power - but they didn't have power so they can complain.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
The incumbency advantage for Congress can be as high as 5-10%. Less data points for the presidency, but presidents do tend to get reelected barring extreme circumstances (LBJ didn't want to run again but would have probably won, Carter was terrible and had the Iranian hostage crisis going on during election season, and Bush Sr. had a recession and a serious third-party candidate). Everyone else since 1932 either got reelected or died in office.
Hope is the denial of reality
I knew what you meant, Fuzzy.Was just jumping off your post to comment about their strategy.
More in that vein --- I still don't think Romney has a real plan for dealing with the economy. He put out 57 points early on, rather short on actual numbers, sounding more like repeating Bush stuff, or *yawn* trite bumper sticker slogans. Cut taxes, shrink government, let freedom ring. He tried to sound tough on China as a currency manipulator, but I suspect that was more of a lame appeal to Trump's pet peeve than anything real. He tried the 2012 version of Drill, Baby Drill --- but the Keystone pipeline isn't going to accomplish much, when the oil goes onto open markets and the jobs are temporary; ignoring the environmental impact of natural gas fracking isn't going to help him during a 70 year drought (when that process requires tons of water) and folks see their kitchen water taps ignite, or little earthquakes are popping up around fracking sites.
It's rather late in the game for Romney to say he finally awoke to what "heavy responsibility" means, after a grown man pleads for help in keeping his coal mine job. Especially after Romney spent decades in private equity, closing companies and factories, leaving families without a job OR benefits, choosing to pocket multiple millions without leaving some scraps for those left behind. Looks like nothing more than a coordinated photo-op, or his handlers and marketers trying to paint a picture of "compassion" for workers that Romneybot doesn't really have.
It's also late in the game for Romney to convince voters that he's the right man for the job....based on his pick for VP. Because he chose a "fiscal conservative" (who voted for every unfunded Bush proposal that increased the deficit). A guy with a fairly draconian budget, that doesn't balance out for 30 years. But wait, it won't be Ryan's budget, it'll be Romney's. But Romney likes Ryan's. But they haven't really run the numbers yet, so we'll just have to trust them. After they're elected.
And then there's Medicare....
Luckily there are ways to shift it the other way.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/th...block-the-vote
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/th...-s-voting-laws
I mean, seriously America, WTF
PS not meant as a partisan thing, if Democrats do the same thing it's just as bad. But for a democracy, this kind of stuff is pathetic. I don't know any other way to describe it..
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Yes, it's that bad. Seriously.Luckily there are ways to shift it the other way.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/th...block-the-vote
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/th...-s-voting-laws
I mean, seriously America, WTF
PS not meant as a partisan thing, if Democrats do the same thing it's just as bad. But for a democracy, this kind of stuff is pathetic. I don't know any other way to describe it..
At my PA DMV there are five stacks of paper, meant to outline the new voting ID rules, and explaining voters' rights. There was some complicated language about those without valid birth certificates getting temporarily assigned photo ID....but it didn't really explain how those ballots would be checked or counted, or how they differ from absentee voting ballots that are mailed (without photo ID).
Also: ask Dread
http://www.theworldforgotten.com/sho...ghlight=voting
This is an area in which the left in the US is being absolutely ridiculous. The idea that it's racist or evil or discriminatory to require photo identification to vote is beyond absurd.Luckily there are ways to shift it the other way.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/th...block-the-vote
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/th...-s-voting-laws
I mean, seriously America, WTF
PS not meant as a partisan thing, if Democrats do the same thing it's just as bad. But for a democracy, this kind of stuff is pathetic. I don't know any other way to describe it..
The issue isn't really fraud. Fraud is hard to spot. The issue is we have an extremely vast and confusing number of electoral districts here, with about 3,000 counties that run and manage their own elections. Most of which don't have a solid way to verify the identify voters. In a country where you need photo ID to do so many things and which doesn't have a national ID system, it's totally reasonable to put voting on the list of things that requires a state-level photo ID.
No one is being "disenfranchised". Not being able to identify yourself at the polls doesn't count as "disenfranchisement".
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
