Magox

Pretty self-explanatory, I'm sure you are bright enough to figure it out.

Just makes you wonder how they've won 5 out of the last 8 presidential elections and won one of the largest historice "thumpings" in the 2010 midterms with this observation of yours? I suppose they are a monolithic bunch.

Your friend is in the minority, there will be alot more people who voted for Obama that will switch to the GOP than people who voted for McCain switching to Obama.

I'm a 36 year old Latino, Im very socially liberal and fiscally conservative. What was the point of this comment?

I am a political junkie and policy wonk, so I like keeping up with these sort of things. But yeah, it is a bit early, however I do believe it does reflect the success and/or failures of each election campaign and does guage how each campaign is performing so that they can either continue to keep going along with their present strategy or if that they need to change course.

Last three polls show Walker up 5,6 and 9 points, and now the DNC/Obama campaign are abandoning the Walker recall election by not sending in funds for the Barret election efforts. I'd say that this race is slipping away. Prediction Walker wins by 7 points in a landslide.

So out of the last 10 polls released, Romney is up anywhere from 5 to 13 points with independents, with the FOX poll registering with the lowest. So, probably Romney is up somewhere between 7-10 points with independents, and the undecided independents tend to break away from the incumbent, so I'd say Romney is doing much better than what many would of expected this soon after the bruising primaries. Also, new polls that came out yesterday show Romney and Obama tied in Wisconsin (appears Walker recall is really helping ROmney out) and ROmney up 8 in North Carolina. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/elections/ N.C is most likely gonna switch back to the GOP unless the economy really improves from here and Wisconsin is the shocker. Even a PPP/Daily Kos poll that was just taken this week shows Romney only down one, and the PPP polls have historically favored Democrats by a to 3-5% average and in some cases much more than that. It appears that Romney can make a real race out of WIsconsin, Bush only lost it by .5% and they did win an overwhelming amount of seats in the 2010 election, and by all accounts, Walker is going to spank Barret. If Romney were to win Wisconsin, his path to victory becomes considerably easier. I also saw a poll released showing Romney down in Michigan by only 5, I don't believe he'll win it, but if he does, then without a doubt Romney becomes the next president, and the surprisngly close distance between the two in the Michigan race probably means that Obama wll have to expend more resources than he wanted to here. I always felt that ROmney would win over he independents, but at one point during the primaries he was losing independents by an average of 5-7%, now he's up an average of 7-10%. That is a remarkable turnaround of 12-15% in just a period of 6 weeks. I suspect this trend will continue, unless the economy markedly improves. My guess is that ROmney will win the independent vote by the time its all said and done by around 10-15%. Another point that I'd like to make, I predicted that Romney would run a much better general election campaign because this would be closer to his natural core. So far that has been the case, they have put the Obama administration on the defensive,they have been punching back, it's been quite impressive. I am very impressed with the campaign that they have been running so far. To be winning the independents by this margin in such a short time period is a sign of the anxiety independents feel about Obama.

Sure why not? Thats what the people of California want, higher taxes.

Google up Bain Capital, and ignore the political sites and blogs. He's a tremendously accomplished man. Everywhere he went, he succeeded.

No you dipshit, first and foremost it helps the company, then the investors. You see in your little tard-filled world, private equity firms are "vulture capitalists", they exist to destroy companies and make middle-aged white guys rich as hell at the expense of poor shleps like yourself. Whereas that couldnt be further from the truth. Private equity firms are created to help companies that are already on the verge of bankrupcy, that are in dire need of cash infusions and also help start up new companies. Mitt Romney was one of the best, he turned around many companies that were on the verge of failing and he helped start up some really successful companies. Some of the companies were in such bad shape they werent able to emerge stronger, in more cases than not they were able to. Only in dumbassville would someone believe that The Salt Lake City Olympic committee would tap Gordon Gekko to turn around the Olympics. Nevermind that they were riddled with inefficiences, scandals and on the verge of it becoming an embarrassment for the US in the eyes of the world. But you go ahead and keep believing that Mitt Romney got subsidies, in the meantime we'll just continue to mock you. Fair enough?

Dude, the steel company got subsidies, not Mitt Romney.

Ok, I'll take DC Tom and New Bills you can have Marcel on your team.

I don't know if I'd say its "impossible", depends on how you quantify or judge the outcome. If you spent a trillion dollars and raised taxes some, Im almost certain that over the short to possibly medium term you'd have more growth. However, spending alone doesn't solve our economic structural woes. I wrote alot about this here on PPP and about the healthcare law. I'll give you an example, look at the first stimulus bill under Obama. Basically it was comprised of very little "shovel ready" infrastructure projects, but alot of keynesian short-term tax cuts and bailouts for state and local governments so there wouldn't have to be so state/local government layoffs. Well, those layoffs occured after the stimulus ran out anyway, and we're still seeing them occur now. Those layoffs had to occur, simply because most states are obligated to balance their budgets. If it wasn't for the pressure of the public sector unions, coercing lawmakers in exchange for campaign funds, then you wouldn't have all these obscenely ridiculous unfunded pension benefits, massively overemployed public sector workforce (before the 'great recession') and crappy educational standards that we've seen over the past few decades, all at the expense of the taxpayer. So of course there is alot of anger out there against the public sector unions and the corrupt politicians who bend over their constituencies in order to protect these entities. Do you think its fair to use Federal Taxpayer money to bail out these individuals? What happens when the stimulus money runs out, ask for another bailout again? Of course when the money runs out, liberals, the very same ones who crafted these backroom deals with these public sector unions, cry foul that conservatives don't want to bail out their corrupt deals. I gotta tell you, I absolutely loathe the politicans and public sector bosses who put all these states in the dire situation that they are in today. Just look at Chris Christies approval rating in the blue state of NJ, a state where there constituency is notoriously tough on their elected leaders. To your second point, "direct cause and effect?" If you raise taxes in this economy, is that the question? Yes, I mean obviously it depends how much and to who. You raise it on everyone, then yeah, it would have a profound effect. If you raise taxes slightly on the "wealthy", it still would apply, but not nearly as much. Why would anyone want to raise taxes on anyone in this economy? Why would you want to, for what purposes? Do I think it's overblown? What, raising taxes in a down economy? No, I don't. Our structural debt issues have more to do with spending than revenues. Im not advocating that we start hatcheting away at spending now. What the hard right doesn't understand is that if you start cutting massively now, the economy will certainly fall back into a recession. The economy is too weak to pull back now. The debt markets will most likely continue to give us breathing room, IF: 1) They believe we are going to begin to start growing at an adequate enough, sustained pace without short-term keynesisan programs. 2) If we put in a credible medium-long term deficit reduction plan that includes addressing the entitlement programs, which president Obama has no desire to do. We need structural solutions to repairing this economy and this president doesn't have any of the tools in his toolbox to get the job done. He doesn't understand business, I don't care how much you protest and dislike this comment, but that is the absolute truth. He is a creature of the "community", he places the concepts of "fairness" over economic prosperity. He believes that wealth distribution should be included in economic policy. ANd I hate to break it to you, that scares the **** out of many small businesses and corporations. Small businesses cite regulations as the number one impediment to job hiring. http://www.gallup.com/poll/152654/health-costs-gov-regulations-curb-small-business-hiring.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/150287/gov-regulations-top-small-business-owners-problem-list.aspx This is what small-businesses are saying, the engine of economic job growth, not those dastardly corporations. I lost my career because of Dodd Frank. Im one of the victims of this regulation, and there were many others as well that were personally connected. Turn on CNBC, its business after business after business that cite regulations as the main roadblock they face. That's why when you hear the saying from small businesses owners, " I don't need assistance from the government, just let me keep a little more of what I earn and stay out of the way", that's all they are looking for. Corporations right now are sitting on over $2 Trillion, just sitting there. If you want a powerful stimulus plan, that doesn't cost the taxpayer a dime, then all one would need to do is sit with these corporations and figure out a way how they can unleash that into the economy. And again, this president doesn't have the innate sense to make that happen. These corporations are looking for a friendlier business climate and more certainty, if you provide it to them, they will unload some of that, and it will be ALL funded by private sector dollars. That's what the administration should be obsessing about day after day. How do I get these corporations to unleash all that money? But nope, they would rather go out campaigning on the Buffet rule, which would do nothing to grow the economy and pay for about 9 hours of government service.

First I would say there is no immediate sustained beneficial outcome for the long-term. Having said that, first and foremost it begins with the body. 1) How do we promote healthier living, better eating habits and more exercise and effectively filter this into the economy? There needs to be an emphasis on this, if we can smoke less cigarettes, eat less unhealthy foods, and exercise more as a society bending the cost of health care will go down over time. 2) There needs to be more medical file sharing. A central database for all medical providers would be helpful, it would promote more efficiency. 3) Tort Reform. There is a tangible impact and then there is an unquantifiable psychological impact. We do know that Doctors are scared shitless about getting sued, it is hard to judge exactly how many wasted and useless tests are performed by doctors simply because they dont want to get sued, but Id venture to guess that it isnt a negligible overall cost. 4) What about moving more towards a pay-for-performance sort of structure as opposed to the traditional fee-for-service system. Lets concentrate more on quality rather than quantity of care. 5) More preventative health care programs. Those are a few ideas.

I don't know. But what I do know is that the answer wouldnt be north of what it is today, considering how anemic economic growth is.

Of course those elements of the health insurance bill poll well, those are the benefits. Who doesnt like benefits? However, once you factor in the unintended consequences of the conglomeration of those benefits and the rest of the bill, people dont like it. Im sure if you took a poll that asked: 1) Do you like that the bill will cost over a trillion dollars over the next 10 years? 2) Do youlike that the bill will end up causing some people to have to drop their own doctor for another one? 3) Do you like that the bill will cause more uncerainty in the economy, therefore possibly slowing the economy down? 4) Do you like that the bill will cause an even larger shortage of primary care doctors, therefore making your doctor visits even longer than what they are today? 5) Do you like that the bill will add to the deficit? (and dont bring that CBO score that was based on input provided by Democrats in order for it to not add to the deficit, we all know that it will) 6) Do you like that the bill will raise taxes? People wouldnt respond favorably. I could go on and on. The point is that those poll tested portions that you linked is a bit silly to bring up. I mean think about it, who is going to say that they don't like benefits? Also, THENEWBILLS says Sure, I believe its necessary, but that doesn't mean any legislatively crafted Healthcare reform is necessary. It needs to be done right, and other than the total cost of the bill and the potential economic risks it poses to the economy, the biggest area where this bill fails is bending the cost curve of health care. People and businesses need relief with the cost of health insurance premiums, and no, that does not mean more subsidies to offset those rising premiums. If there is one thing that rational thinking people have learned about increased subsidies, is that it adds to the price of the underlying subsidized product. The way you bend the cost curve is by addressing the cost of health care, not by reforming the health insurance industry, which is what this bill attempts to do. It was a horrible piece of legislation, that struck out on cost, premiums and the potential negative impacts on the economy. I'd much rather scrap this bill and start over.

No, you are wrong. At this time we need growth, and raising taxes in this economy is a bad idea. However, at some point in the future, when growth comes back, raising taxes I would say will have to be part of the solution.

The Laffer curve isn't static. It variates relative to economic growth and dynamism, a certain tax code at a specific point in time may generate more tax revenues but at another point in time it may generate less. Right now, as slow as the economy is, lower tax rates would be more beneficial for our economy since we are in dire need of growth. It's not the be all and end all determining factor in how to reinvigorate this economy, but it certainly is a part of the equation. Under Bill Clinton, as a result of the Dot com bubble we had a booming economy, higher marginal tax rates (lowered capital gains taxes) didn't negatively impact the economy simply because there was so much growth, the economy could absorb those higher rates. Right now, we have below historic trendline growth, any increases in taxes would simply hamper growth more so than what we are already seeing.

I agree, but thats not what this thread has "evolved" into.

If there is one thing that this thread has proven, is that some people who have religious views are intolerant, and that some people who dont hold those religious views are equally intolerant. Both sides that hold these views suck.

I was basing it off of the assumption of the case that JA made, which was the falling price of oil. To answer your question, I dont believe so. I believe that the natural rate of this economy is anywhere between 1.5% - 3% growth. I don't see any sort of systemic risks occuring in this economy without external factors occuring in the short to medium-term. Banks appear to be on solid footing and they are certainly well capitalized. I suppose there could be some risk in the exposure of foreign debt they are holding if there were to be a run on European bonds. The risks the way I view it would be more of a result of collateral impact from Europe. Global funds are so intertwined, a rush for the exits from Europe would undoubtedly produce a similar reaction over here. If that occured, then consumer sentiment would drop, despite the fall in oil prices, which would of course lead to less consumer spending, more uncertainty, less growth and hiring. Im not saying this is going to happen, its hard to predict what the newly elected politicians of Greece will do and how Hollande and Merkels relationship will develop. Im simply pointing out the risks

I don’t believe so JA. On one hand, yes, the price of gasoline dropping does give Obama some political relief, in regards to that issue. But a strengthening dollar as a result of the European issue would have all other sorts of implications attached to it. The correlation between rising oil and stock prices exists, I would say that if you see the oil market drop, the likelyhood of seeing stocks drop as well would be extremely high. Just look at what stocks and oil have done over the past week, all one would need to do is pull up a chart of each and you’d see that they have mirrored each other. The only reason why the value of the dollar has been increasing is for one reason and one reason only. Fear! When people get panicky, they flee risk assets and go into US treasuries. Direct inflows into the US treasuries in many cases results in a stronger dollar. The way I see it, the US is on the shakiest ground that we’ve seen in at least 5-6 months. Lots of economic indicators are beginning to trend down, including Chicago PMI, factory orders, Durable goods orders, Non manufacturing ISM and recent labor reports. Now will it pick back up soon? Maybe. But what I do know is that any sort of external risks could tip what is 2% growth to sub 1%. I think its quite likely that we’ve already have begun to see a slowdown in China and Europe rest assure, will continue to get weaker. The biggest risk I see is some sort of systemic mini meltdown. The risks of that occurring is very possible, specially considering how far apart Hollande and Merkel appear to be and how incredibly chaotic the Greek situation is. Its populism run amok over there, the loudest voices are for breaking away from dastardly EU German meanies, so that they can print trillions of drachmas to lead them to the holy land of eternal inflation. Just the fear of them breaking apart, could pose Sovereign bonds to skyrocket, the risks of contagion are there and certainly would be felt over here. I really don’t know how this is going to play out, but the risks do exist. So back to your point of oil, if you see oil prices lets say get down to the mid 80’s, I would say that would be a reflection of how dire the situation over in Europe is, which of course would be reflected in our stock market. And when people see stocks go down for an extended period, it does dampen consumer sentiment not to mention plans of hiring from small businesses and corporations.

This falls way down the list of priorities for independents. While the mental midgets obsess on this issue, the vast majority of the swing voter independents will vote on the economy,jobs, debt and energy policy.

Considering the "locked down" states, Obamas path is wider. However that RCP has a number of tossups, and the poll that you were responding from Docs link polls all the tossup states. If you look at the polls that have been coming out this past month, which is more important because that shows the race post Santorum, the trends have been moving swiftly in ROmneys Favor. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html The only polls that have shown Obama with a decent lead for the most part has been the PPP polls. The PPP polls are using a polling methodology based off of the 2008 elections. There are many problems with basing it off of 2008 results. One is enthusiasm. There isnt nearly the enthusiasm that there was then, specially for people below the age of 30. Second is the voter registrations are way down based on the 2010 census. The WAPO just wrote a piece about the other day. We're talking double digit percentage drop offs. The reasoning they cited was that the economy effects minorities and the youth disproportionately, which effects vote registrations. SO between the voter registration dropoffs, the bad economy, the huge independent turnaround and the lack of enthusiasm, this race as of right now is a tossup. The BATTLEGROUND POLITICO poll shows Romney with a 48% to 38% lead with independents. And all pollsters know that the vast majority of undecided independents break away from the incumbent. So the 10% lead is most likely at least 15%. That same poll a little over a month ago showed Obama with a 7% lead. So thats a huge turnaround in a short period of time. The turnaround is for two main reasons. 1) The economy has hit a snag over the past two job reports (which could change again) 2) The bruising primaries is over with. If obama doesnt get those numbers up with independents, he'll lose.

Wow! That was a Royal ass whooping handed down by Anderson Cooper.