Romney or Santorum? - Printable Version
+- Roosh V Forum (https://rooshvforum.network)
+-- Forum: Main (https://rooshvforum.network/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Everything Else (https://rooshvforum.network/forum-7.html)
+--- Thread: Romney or Santorum? (/thread-9510.html)
+- Roosh V Forum (https://rooshvforum.network)
+-- Forum: Main (https://rooshvforum.network/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Everything Else (https://rooshvforum.network/forum-7.html)
+--- Thread: Romney or Santorum? (/thread-9510.html)
Romney or Santorum? - Hooligan Harry - 01-26-2012
Quote: (01-26-2012 12:50 AM)gringochileno Wrote:
It's a commission he gets from managing other people's money. There's no principled reason to treat it any differently from ordinary income, and the only reason why it is treated as capital gains is because lobbyists for hedge fund managers had it written into the tax code for their benefit.
If he chooses to reinvest that income then it's the same thing as if you or I earned a wage and then invested it instead of spending it. It shouldn't get special treatment.
Good god man.
1) Interest received in investments is not a commission. Comprende? Its a return paid to an investor to encourage deposits and investment. Those deposits provide the capital you need to borrow money to buy cars, buy houses and fund your credit cards. Where else is it going to come from if your government takes most of it and decides where its going to be spent?
2) Its not a wage. He has invested POST TAX INCOME, not pre tax income. Understand? HE PAID TAX ON IT ALREADY! In the process, he has not bought any fixed assets with it and he has tied the money up. He should be paying zero tax on it.
This belief that interest should now be taxed at income tax rates has to be the dumbest fucking thing I have ever heard of in my life.
With low interest rates and 15% taxes, is there any wonder why Americans are spending their way into a black hole? There is no incentive to save, and with fewer savings the banks cant lend as much. When the banks cant lend, industry dies because it has no capital to grow.
You want more of this do you?
You are currently experiencing massive capital flight because its too expensive to save at home. Think about what that is doing to your economy and country while you dream of ways to spend other peoples money.
Quote:Quote:
Do you have any evidence that economic losses from the current level of US investment taxes due to these disincentive effects is greater than the amount of revenue raised? I'm sure that could be true for some marginal tax rates in some circumstances but it's equally absurd to think that it has to be true always and everywhere.
Let me ask you a question: say you were primarily concerned with maximizing the welfare of the poor rather than protecting wealthy people's property. How would you set tax rates in order to accomplish that objective? Would you argue that we should not tax the rich at all because doing so would impair their ability to reinvest their wealth and ultimately be too harmful to the poor to justify the revenue raised? What do you think would be the effect on poor people's standard of living of failing to have enough revenue to fund things like public infrastructure and a robust welfare state? (sorry, that was several questions.)
You want to improve the situation of the poor and the middle class? Remove regulations and open up markets. For some reason people think that regulation protects the little guy, when in reality is just raises the barrier to entry. Regulation is a dream for big business because it puts up all these roadblocks only they have the capital to navigate. Its how monopolies form, consolidate and expand power and control.
You have to be blind not to see this. EVerything from companies using lobbyists to pass laws that protect their monopolies to politicans passing into law restrictions on how you can employ people. It all works in the favour of big business.
The poor need jobs and the middle class need purchasing power. That is never going to happen with high taxes, highly regulated industry and big government. You do not empower people this way, nor do you do them any favours and no matter how many votes that may win for you it still does incalculable damage. This is not the 40's anymore, its 2012.
Compete and offer business a reason to stay or see it move abroad taking jobs and industry with them. Those are your choices. And the USA is no longer competitive, its why industry is running away and investors are fleeing in the first place.
Your solution is not to make the business environment and investment more favourable, its to punish the fuck out of them and force them to share whats left so you can prop up a growing poor and lower middle class?
This does not make you a humanitarian, it makes you a fool.
Quote:Quote:
See, I think people get misled by adopting this kind of black-and-white attitude. Just because you favor (from what I gather) what amounts to a radical libertarian view of how society should be structured doesn't mean that everyone who disagrees with you wants the government to seize control of the means of production, put everyone on collective farms, and start liquidating the Kulaks. I think you and I have different opinions on what the main goals of economic policy should be (although I suspect they're broadly similar in some respects), and it's not surprising that we subsequently favor different policies to the extent that they would have the effect of promoting those goals. I think the evidence is that the US is able to tolerate reasonably high marginal tax rates without too large of an effect on economic growth, and up to a point the social welfare benefits that can be derived from using that revenue outweigh the costs that are incurred. I wouldn't expect that argument to persuade you because you seem to see property rights as a more fundamental concern than social welfare or distributive justice. But don't go saying that people who disagree with you are being incoherent when in all probability they just don't share your priorities.
Im clearly dealing with a typical left wing, socialist academic here, and for that reason I cant take you seriously. You live in dreamland and have no idea what is really happening at ground level or in boardrooms. I have seen first hand what your sort of ideology leads to and I am not going to even bother entertaining it or respecting it.
America does not need to become more like Europe, Scandinavia, Australia or Canada. They are all on borrowed time. It needs to go back to what what made it the economic powerhouse it is and it needs to adjust for a modern global economy to make sure it remains competitive.
As for distributive justice? You are not entitled to anyones hard work, ingenuity, creativity, network, success or balls. You dont deserve any of it just because you breathe the same oxygen.
Romney or Santorum? - Deluge - 01-26-2012
Quote: (01-26-2012 03:31 AM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:
As for distributive justice? You are not entitled to anyones hard work, ingenuity, creativity, network, success or balls. You dont deserve any of it just because you breathe the same oxygen.
I consider myself on the left, but that statement is spot on.
HH, in regards to deregulation specifically, what's your opinion on the repeal of America's Glass-Steagal Act (and the resulting undoing of the separation between commercial and investment banking) and its contribution to the Global Financial Crisis?
EDIT: To clarify, I'm left wing on social issues eg. pro-choice, pro gay rights, anti-moral crusading. I also believe that everyone has the right to free health care and education (including free tertiary education) so that everyone in society has a safety net and every body in society has a chance to become successful.
Beyond that, business and economics wise I'm for the survival of the fittest, there should be no safety net for businesses. Any business or industry that needs subsidies or tarriffs to operate doesn't deserve to survive. Those trade barriers breed inefficiency.
At the same time, I don't believe that paper money or central banks are going to cause apocalyptic Weimar Germany levels of hyperinflation. And I think that government should only intervene in the economy to stabilize booms and busts over the business cycle.
Romney or Santorum? - worldwidetraveler - 01-26-2012
Quote: (01-26-2012 03:31 AM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:
Good god man.
1) Interest received in investments is not a commission. Comprende? Its a return paid to an investor to encourage deposits and investment. Those deposits provide the capital you need to borrow money to buy cars, buy houses and fund your credit cards. Where else is it going to come from if your government takes most of it and decides where its going to be spent?
2) Its not a wage. He has invested POST TAX INCOME, not pre tax income. Understand? HE PAID TAX ON IT ALREADY! In the process, he has not bought any fixed assets with it and he has tied the money up. He should be paying zero tax on it.
This belief that interest should now be taxed at income tax rates has to be the dumbest fucking thing I have ever heard of in my life.
No, gringochileno is talking about when he was paid for managing a fund.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carried_interest
The money he made in compensation for services was considered capital gains when it really should be considered earned income. He wasn't investing his money but getting paid to manage the fund.
Romney or Santorum? - gringochileno - 01-26-2012
Quote: (01-26-2012 03:31 AM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:
Quote: (01-26-2012 12:50 AM)gringochileno Wrote:
It's a commission he gets from managing other people's money. There's no principled reason to treat it any differently from ordinary income, and the only reason why it is treated as capital gains is because lobbyists for hedge fund managers had it written into the tax code for their benefit.
If he chooses to reinvest that income then it's the same thing as if you or I earned a wage and then invested it instead of spending it. It shouldn't get special treatment.
Good god man.
1) Interest received in investments is not a commission. Comprende? Its a return paid to an investor to encourage deposits and investment. Those deposits provide the capital you need to borrow money to buy cars, buy houses and fund your credit cards. Where else is it going to come from if your government takes most of it and decides where its going to be spent?
2) Its not a wage. He has invested POST TAX INCOME, not pre tax income. Understand? HE PAID TAX ON IT ALREADY! In the process, he has not bought any fixed assets with it and he has tied the money up. He should be paying zero tax on it.
This belief that interest should now be taxed at income tax rates has to be the dumbest fucking thing I have ever heard of in my life.
With low interest rates and 15% taxes, is there any wonder why Americans are spending their way into a black hole? There is no incentive to save, and with fewer savings the banks cant lend as much. When the banks cant lend, industry dies because it has no capital to grow.
You want more of this do you?
You are currently experiencing massive capital flight because its too expensive to save at home. Think about what that is doing to your economy and country while you dream of ways to spend other peoples money.
worldwidetraveler gets it right above. I'm talking about the portion of his income that he was paid for managing a fund. It's not a return on an investment, it's money that someone paid him to do a job. There was no profit tax paid on it. The only reason it's taxed like capital gains is because a bunch of hedge fund managers got together and got their lobbyists to get Congress to change the law so they could pay lower taxes on the money they get paid to manage their funds.
Quote:Quote:
Quote:Quote:
Do you have any evidence that economic losses from the current level of US investment taxes due to these disincentive effects is greater than the amount of revenue raised? I'm sure that could be true for some marginal tax rates in some circumstances but it's equally absurd to think that it has to be true always and everywhere.
Let me ask you a question: say you were primarily concerned with maximizing the welfare of the poor rather than protecting wealthy people's property. How would you set tax rates in order to accomplish that objective? Would you argue that we should not tax the rich at all because doing so would impair their ability to reinvest their wealth and ultimately be too harmful to the poor to justify the revenue raised? What do you think would be the effect on poor people's standard of living of failing to have enough revenue to fund things like public infrastructure and a robust welfare state? (sorry, that was several questions.)
You want to improve the situation of the poor and the middle class? Remove regulations and open up markets. For some reason people think that regulation protects the little guy, when in reality is just raises the barrier to entry. Regulation is a dream for big business because it puts up all these roadblocks only they have the capital to navigate. Its how monopolies form, consolidate and expand power and control.
You have to be blind not to see this. EVerything from companies using lobbyists to pass laws that protect their monopolies to politicans passing into law restrictions on how you can employ people. It all works in the favour of big business.
The poor need jobs and the middle class need purchasing power. That is never going to happen with high taxes, highly regulated industry and big government. You do not empower people this way, nor do you do them any favours and no matter how many votes that may win for you it still does incalculable damage. This is not the 40's anymore, its 2012.
Compete and offer business a reason to stay or see it move abroad taking jobs and industry with them. Those are your choices. And the USA is no longer competitive, its why industry is running away and investors are fleeing in the first place.
Your solution is not to make the business environment and investment more favourable, its to punish the fuck out of them and force them to share whats left so you can prop up a growing poor and lower middle class?
This does not make you a humanitarian, it makes you a fool.
I actually agree with more of this than you think. It's obvious that the political and regulatory processes are very often abused to benefit moneyed interests that wield political power (the bogus treatment of carried interest as capital gains actually being a prime example of this). Regulation for regulation's sake is a profoundly stupid idea. One of the main challenges for policymaking in the US is that the regulations that get passed tend to either be inadequate or of the type that allows established players to put up barriers to entry in their respective industries, as opposed to, say, the type that prevents them from dumping toxic chemicals into the environment without paying for the externalities they're causing.
Regulations ought to do the minimum required to accomplish their goals, be resistant to industry manipulation, and focus on aligning incentives so that firms serve the social good when they pursue their economic interests. That's obviously very far from how things usually turn out, at least in the US.
What I disagree with is the statement that dismantling the welfare state (which I assume is what you mean by "big government") would be in the interests of the poor. Historically, countries that have cut back on safety net spending have experienced increased rates of poverty, lack of access to basic services like healthcare, and broad-based decreases in other measures of well-being.
Quote:Quote:
Im clearly dealing with a typical left wing, socialist academic here, and for that reason I cant take you seriously. You live in dreamland and have no idea what is really happening at ground level or in boardrooms. I have seen first hand what your sort of ideology leads to and I am not going to even bother entertaining it or respecting it.
I guess I'm dealing with a typical unreflective libertarian who doesn't consider that there are actual tradeoffs with real winners and losers involved in bringing about his Ayn-Rand-wet-dream vision of utopia.
Quote:Quote:
As for distributive justice? You are not entitled to anyones hard work, ingenuity, creativity, network, success or balls. You dont deserve any of it just because you breathe the same oxygen.
I suspect that this attitude is the real reason why you've taken the deeply implausible position that dismantling the welfare state, one of the pillars of the most decent economic system ever devised, would actually be in the interests of the people who benefit from it most. The world does not always work the way you think it should work. Classic just-world bias.
Romney or Santorum? - vinman - 01-26-2012
Quote: (01-26-2012 03:45 AM)P Dog Wrote:
Quote: (01-26-2012 03:31 AM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:
As for distributive justice? You are not entitled to anyones hard work, ingenuity, creativity, network, success or balls. You dont deserve any of it just because you breathe the same oxygen.
I consider myself on the left, but that statement is spot on.
HH, in regards to deregulation specifically, what's your opinion on the repeal of America's Glass-Steagal Act (and the resulting undoing of the separation between commercial and investment banking) and its contribution to the Global Financial Crisis?
EDIT: To clarify, I'm left wing on social issues eg. pro-choice, pro gay rights, anti-moral crusading. I also believe that everyone has the right to free health care and education (including free tertiary education) so that everyone in society has a safety net and every body in society has a chance to become successful.
Beyond that, business and economics wise I'm for the survival of the fittest, there should be no safety net for businesses. Any business or industry that needs subsidies or tarriffs to operate doesn't deserve to survive. Those trade barriers breed inefficiency.
At the same time, I don't believe that paper money or central banks are going to cause apocalyptic Weimar Germany levels of hyperinflation. And I think that government should only intervene in the economy to stabilize booms and busts over the business cycle.
There's no such thing as free P-Dog. Someone is being deprived of their money to redistribute it to someone else.
Romney or Santorum? - Deluge - 01-26-2012
Quote: (01-26-2012 10:44 AM)vinman Wrote:
Quote: (01-26-2012 03:45 AM)P Dog Wrote:
Quote: (01-26-2012 03:31 AM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:
As for distributive justice? You are not entitled to anyones hard work, ingenuity, creativity, network, success or balls. You dont deserve any of it just because you breathe the same oxygen.
I consider myself on the left, but that statement is spot on.
HH, in regards to deregulation specifically, what's your opinion on the repeal of America's Glass-Steagal Act (and the resulting undoing of the separation between commercial and investment banking) and its contribution to the Global Financial Crisis?
EDIT: To clarify, I'm left wing on social issues eg. pro-choice, pro gay rights, anti-moral crusading. I also believe that everyone has the right to free health care and education (including free tertiary education) so that everyone in society has a safety net and every body in society has a chance to become successful.
Beyond that, business and economics wise I'm for the survival of the fittest, there should be no safety net for businesses. Any business or industry that needs subsidies or tarriffs to operate doesn't deserve to survive. Those trade barriers breed inefficiency.
At the same time, I don't believe that paper money or central banks are going to cause apocalyptic Weimar Germany levels of hyperinflation. And I think that government should only intervene in the economy to stabilize booms and busts over the business cycle.
There's no such thing as free P-Dog. Someone is being deprived of their money to redistribute it to someone else.
Unless they make so little they cannot be taxed, EVERYONE is being deprived of their money.
No matter what circumstances you're born into, you deserve a chance at success. That's the American Dream right? As compared to Europe's hereditary nobility.
Everybody deserves free healthcare and a free education. If you want to go private, that's your choice (I know I would education wise, hell I currently am as a matter of fact).
Romney or Santorum? - vinman - 01-26-2012
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/72000.html
Romney or Santorum? - Tail Gunner - 01-26-2012
Quote:Quote:
Unless they make so little they cannot be taxed, EVERYONE is being deprived of their money.
That is exactly where the problem lies. Nearly fifty percent of the U.S. population pays no income tax. Everyone should pay some income tax (no matter how little), so that everyone feels some pain. It is easy to elect politicians who want to perpetually raise taxes when you are not paying any yourself. This is a perverse system that rewards non-producers at the expense of producers. Such a system is not sustainable because capital will flee.
Romney or Santorum? - Brian - 01-26-2012
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.
The earliest known appearance of this quote was December 9, 1951, in what appears to be an op-ed piece in The Daily Oklahoman under the byline Elmer T. Peterson[2]. The quote has not been found in Tytler's work. It has also been attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville.
Romney or Santorum? - bengalltigerr - 01-28-2012
The way Romney say's "OUR FRIEND ISRAEL" makes me think he is getting paid by them. Romney vows to stand by Israeli people and doesn't give two hoots about Palestinians. Romney actually seems to care more about Israel than America. I used to think highly of Romney but now I don't really know.
Romney or Santorum? - Hencredible Casanova - 01-28-2012
Quote: (01-28-2012 02:25 PM)bengalltigerr Wrote:
The way Romney say's "OUR FRIEND ISRAEL" makes me think he is getting paid by them. Romney vows to stand by Israeli people and doesn't give two hoots about Palestinians. Romney actually seems to care more about Israel than America. I used to think highly of Romney but now I don't really know.
You HAVE TO profess unyielding support for Israel in order to gain a major party nomination and to win the general election in the US. It's just a fact of life.
Obama spoke before an AIPAC conference the very day after capturing the Democratic nomination in that epic battle against Hillary Clinton. Very telling, but his presidency has marked a nadir in White House-Israel relations.
The Israel rhetoric is best to be left ignored if you're looking to evaluate a major candidate.
Romney or Santorum? - Hencredible Casanova - 02-07-2012
Looks like Santorum has pulled a huge upset against Romney tonight. Damn, this thing could drag on for a LONG TIME.
Romney or Santorum? - bengalltigerr - 02-07-2012
Yea Santorum just won Missouri and he is also leading in Minnesota, this race is far from over!
Romney or Santorum? - gringochileno - 02-07-2012
I'll bet you $10,000 Romney still wins.
Romney or Santorum? - bengalltigerr - 02-08-2012
GringoChileno, make sure you have 10k ready for me , Santorum also ended up winning MN and CO.
Romney or Santorum? - gringochileno - 02-08-2012
Quote: (02-08-2012 12:58 PM)bengalltigerr Wrote:
GringoChileno, make sure you have 10k ready for me , Santorum also ended up winning MN and CO.
It won't matter, there's absolutely no way Rick fucking "frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter" Santorum is gonna get the nomination (although I would welcome it--it would make the election a cakewalk for Obama). I was referencing this, by the way.
Romney or Santorum? - JayMillz - 02-09-2012
Rick Santorum's top 10 problems
By: Tim Mak
February 8, 2012 11:05 AM EST
Hey, Newt - you’re not the only one in the race with some serious baggage. Man-of-the-hour Rick Santorum, riding high after his Tuesday hat trick of wins in Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado, has said and done plenty of things that could come back to bite him in the primaries or general election if he gets that far. Here are POLITICO’s top 10:
1. Losing Big in 2006: Despite being elected twice as a congressman, then twice again as a senator from Pennsylvania, Santorum’s last race ended in a landslide defeat in his homestate that raises questions about his national electability. Indeed, he was trounced in 2006 by 18 points by Bob Casey Jr., at the time the largest margin of defeat for an incumbent since 1980.
2. Lobbying, D.C. Background: Santorum did work for Universal Health Services and other lobbying groups after he left the Senate, which he has defended as consistent with his “values.” But Mitt Romney has already started pounding him on this issue, saying Tuesday evening in Denver that “Washington will never be reformed by someone who has been compromised by the culture of Washington.”
3. Endorsed Romney in 2008: In the last presidential cycle, Santorum endorsed Romney, now his competitor, for president. “Governor Romney is the candidate who will stand up for the conservative principles that we hold dear,” Santorum said in a statement.
4. Backed Arlen Specter: In 2004, Santorum endorsed Specter (liberal) over Pat Toomey (conservative) in the Pennsylvania Republican senatorial primary, a nod that has since come to haunt him. Specter defeated Toomey, but would switch parties in 2009.
5. Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit: Santorum voted for Medicare Part D, an big expansion in the size of government, which has irritated some conservatives. In fact, the senator played a key role in urging his colleagues to vote for the costly plan.
6. Popularity in the Senate?: Some have suggested that Santorum was not very popular in the Senate, and wonder if an alleged lack of collegiality says something about how he works (or doesn’t) with people. “You were not considered among your Republican colleagues to be the most popular member of the class in the Senate, I don’t think that’s an understatement,” said journalist Carl Bernstein on MSNBC Wednesday. Santorum countered that he was respected enough to be in the Senate’s number three leadership position.
7. Racial Sensitivities?: Santorum drew fire earlier this year when he told an audience he doesn’t want to “make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money.”
8. ‘Man on Dog’: In 2003, Santorum offended many when he appeared to draw a connection between homosexuality and “man on dog” relationships. “In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be,” he said at the time.
9. Polygamy and Same-Sex Marriage: Asked at a New Hampshire college why he opposed same-sex marriage, Santorum said, “So, everybody has the right to be happy?” he said. “So, if you’re not happy unless you’re married to five other people, is that OK?”
10. The Google Problem: His previous comments on homosexuality and other social issues have motivated a campaign against him, including organized efforts to connect his name to a sexual neologism through Google search results. But that’s not all – the same disdain for his views has led him to be the target of multiple ‘glitter bombs,’ most recently on Tuesday.
Romney or Santorum? - Menace - 02-09-2012
Rick Santorum is not electable in a general election. I appreciate that conservative R's want someone they believe to more accurately represent their views, but the point is to win the national election, not just the primary. What is his plan to appeal to more moderate independent voters given his present positions? He can't win the presidency with only R voters.
Romney or Santorum? - gringochileno - 02-09-2012
I think this dust-up over birth control is going to end up benefiting Obama by reinforcing the notion that we can afford to turn to other issues now that the unemployment situation is improving. I've already heard people on TV say stuff like "well maybe the economy is getting better because we're having this culture war fight now." Not to mention that it gives Santorum the ability to drag out the nomination fight by talking about stuff that plays to his strengths rather than Romney's.
Romney or Santorum? - blurb - 02-09-2012
Quote: (01-26-2012 10:51 AM)P Dog Wrote:
No matter what circumstances you're born into, you deserve a chance at success. That's the American Dream right?
Everybody deserves free healthcare and a free education.
There's a reason why most politicians and every U.S. president since Jimmy Carter has sent their children to private schools instead of public schools.
Politicians are hypocrites when they talk about strengthening the public school system but send their own children to private schools.
Hmm. Something sounds fishy.
Romney or Santorum? - Bigscreen5050 - 02-10-2012
Does anyone really think that either one of them make any difference?
I would pick neither one, but it looks like Romney might be the the chosen one for the republic nomination.
Romney or Santorum? - Enfant_Terrible - 02-10-2012
Delegates guys, delegates are the ones who decide the nominee.
Caucuses and primaries are glorified straw polls.
http://people.howstuffworks.com/primary.htm
Yes I know it can all be rigged, but I'd rather be active than watch helplessly.
Looking to be a Ron Paul delegate in my state
![[Image: smile.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/smile.gif)
Romney or Santorum? - Tail Gunner - 02-10-2012
Quote: (02-09-2012 12:28 PM)Menace Wrote:
Rick Santorum is not electable in a general election. I appreciate that conservative R's want someone they believe to more accurately represent their views, but the point is to win the national election, not just the primary. What is his plan to appeal to more moderate independent voters given his present positions? He can't win the presidency with only R voters.
At this point, almost anyone could beat President Obama. He has shown himself to be the worst President in the last one-hundred years. He is also increasingly politically tone deaf, as evidenced by the recent healthcare controversy regarding Catholic institutions.
There was no practical or political upside to that move, except to jab people in the eye for no reason. Not only is birth control cheap and easily available -- but often free. I spoke to liberal Catholics this week who voted for him, who will not vote for him again. He excels as a stellar campaigner -- and nothing more.
Romney or Santorum? - Tail Gunner - 02-10-2012
Quote: (02-09-2012 10:06 PM)gringochileno Wrote:
I think this dust-up over birth control is going to end up benefiting Obama by reinforcing the notion that we can afford to turn to other issues now that the unemployment situation is improving. I've already heard people on TV say stuff like "well maybe the economy is getting better because we're having this culture war fight now." Not to mention that it gives Santorum the ability to drag out the nomination fight by talking about stuff that plays to his strengths rather than Romney's.
That is wishful dreaming. People are thinking -- as they have for the past three years -- why is President Obama fiddling with these partisan fights, when we have record deficits and unemployment levels?
Just wait until it becomes common knowledge that the government is lying about unemployment levels -- and that unemployment levels are almost triple what the government claims. This is something that everyone knows in their gut and by everyday experience. But just wait until it goes mainstream.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_dat...ent-charts
Romney or Santorum? - gringochileno - 02-10-2012
Quote: (02-10-2012 05:44 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:
Quote: (02-09-2012 10:06 PM)gringochileno Wrote:
I think this dust-up over birth control is going to end up benefiting Obama by reinforcing the notion that we can afford to turn to other issues now that the unemployment situation is improving. I've already heard people on TV say stuff like "well maybe the economy is getting better because we're having this culture war fight now." Not to mention that it gives Santorum the ability to drag out the nomination fight by talking about stuff that plays to his strengths rather than Romney's.
That is wishful dreaming. People are thinking -- as they have for the past three years -- why is President Obama fiddling with these partisan fights, when we have record deficits and unemployment levels?
Just wait until it becomes common knowledge that the government is lying about unemployment levels -- and that unemployment levels are almost triple what the government claims. This is something that everyone knows in their gut and by everyday experience. But just wait until it goes mainstream.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_dat...ent-charts
You don't think it benefits Obama to have the Republicans trying to score points on this kind of niche social issue stuff (especially when they're arguing for the minority position)? I can easily see him pivoting off of this by casting the Republicans as not serious about the economy and adopting a narrative like "they don't want to talk about the fact that we've had xyz months of job growth and employment has declined and the auto industry is doing well and they don't have a plan to put Americans back to work etc etc, so instead they've turned to the same old distractions to try and divide the American people." This shit practically writes itself.