jjamie12

That is the definition of the Presidency.It's his JOB to work with the other side. It's stunning that you think it's somehow different when a Republican is President. Not to mention the fact that the Democrats had control of 1) The White House; 2) The Senate and 3) The Congress for 2 full years of this administration. But it's GOP hostility that's holding President Obama back from creating jobs for everyone. Good Lord.

I think the majority of this thread can be summed up this way: If you're on the right, the middle looks left to you -- consequently anywhere left of center looks loony left to you. If you're on the left, the middle looks right to you -- consequently anywhere right of center looks loony right to you. How you guys can have a 5 page thread about this boggles the mind. It's like some of you are just completely incapable of putting yourselves in someone else's shoes for even a second.

Is having a (hands-free) conversation on a cell phone more or less distracting than having a conversation with the person in the passenger (or back) seat?

Looking forward to the "Ban on Kids yelling and being annoying in the back-seat" and the "Ban on having a conversation with your wife" bills that are undoubtedly on their way soon.

I like most of your post. This part, I can't get behind, though. They will always do a poor job 'investing', because there isn't real accountability to be 'right'. Since they don't have to be 'right', the 'investments' will ALWAYS end up being political favors rather than the vetting process you've described. Always.

52

I don't know anyone serious who thinks that raising tax rates won't raise revenue. The (narrowly defined) issue is that the increase in tax revenue is always lower than the projected increase -- which, when budgets are created based on higher than projected revenues, inevitably leads to ever increasing deficits. Which still doesn't address the ever larger issue of relying on an ever smaller percentage of people to fund the working of the government. The 'rich' don't have enough to bail the gov't out of its self-dug hole.

Fair enough. I'm interested in hearing thoughts about whether or not you think this is a deliberate campaign strategy (to sort of not pay attention to the fervent base) or if you think they are trying to appeal to the base, but just don't know how.

And that $1.76 Trillion number is STILL the CBO number, which requires the CBO to suspend reality and assume that every single thing in the legislation will happen exactly as it is written. Which includes many, many ridiculous things, the only one I can recall right now is the Medicare Doc Fix. The CBO is required to assume that the Medicare 'Doc Fix' won't happen under the current legislation (I think this amounts to $500 million a year? Is that right?). Of course the Medicare 'Doc Fix' will, of course, happen every year and add at least $5 billion to that total. A billion here and a billion there; pretty soon we're talking about real dollars! I think Magox has a really good handle on more details about this...

I have been a Mitt Romney supporter since 2008, so I am certainly biased. However. A part of me was very happy that he lost Alabama and Mississippi (although, to be fair, he really did pretty well at 29% and 31%). It seems to me that Mitt Romney would have to say things that would almost assuredly make him unelectable in the General Election in order to win those types of Primaries, which leads me to an interesting question -- Is this a brilliant campaign strategy, or is it really going to be a tough, terrible, debilitating slog on through to the convention? It would certainly take a lot of chutzpah to 'intentionally' lose in places that, in order to win, you'd have to really do things that would alienate Independents. That sort of strategy requires you to risk losing momentum and not being able to build your own. I think the campaign has done a really masterful job of not panicking, sticking to their gameplan and using their money advantage to dull the momentum swings from the, ahem, Conservative CandidatesTM. On the other hand, you can also argue that they're 'doing their best' but he just doesn't have what it takes to truly win the Primary and, by extension, the General. Thoughts?

I don't ever remember calling her an idiot. In my opinion, she's not good enough for the job she was nominated for -- and I was thrilled with the choice at the beginning. Turns out I was wrong.

OK. You were referencing a post that was comparing the two, so I just assumed you were comparing, too. Also, you made the claim that he "never got grilled by anyone" -- I was simply making the point that no one gets 'grilled' on this stuff.

Maybe you should re-read my post.

Who does get grilled? Sarah Palin got 'grilled'? By Katie Couric? I mean, she did ask her what newspapers and magazines she read so, yeah, that's a real tough question. Charlie Gibson? By asking her about the Bush Doctrine? If she was even remotely able to answer that question, she should have taken Charlie's head off with it, because his understanding of what the 'Bush Doctrine' was completely superficial, if not flat-out wrong. Perhaps everything Obama said was fairly basic. Even if it was, Palin couldn't/didn't even get the basics right.

Senior Advisor level or intern? Or was that a double, double entendre?

After going through the campaign process, very, very few people actually think Sarah Palin should have been considered for the job. I don't actually know even one single person who thinks she should be considered Presidential material. It is such a red-herring to bring this up over and over. Oh just stop it. Then-Senator Obama could articulate his positions (such as they were) clearly and articulately, as well as demonstrating a strong command and understanding of what was happening in the world. It was clear that he knew what the issues were (it was always less clear that he understood whether or not they were realistic -- see Guantanamo Bay and the Patriot Act for example). Sarah Palin, for whatever reason, was not able to demonstrate that she had an understanding of what was happening in the world, let alone being able to have us trust her judgment with regard to those issues.

You continue to inter-change 'markets' with 'institutions'. People keep trying to tell you the difference, but either through ignorance or stubbornness you continue to conflate the two. Please listen to them. The short-term markets were completely gone. Good company, bad company, good bank, bad bank. All of them were treated equally --> no credit. The government stepped in and provided the liquidity the system needed (and that would have been there had the times been 'normal'), at a very steep price. The banks made it through that crisis and paid back their loans. The Fed made money. The banks didn't die. Taxpayers (citizens) got their paychecks every two weeks. Investors lost billions (at least). What, again, is the problem with this? Ideology?

I've watched the entire thing and have watched large chunks of it probably 3-4 other times. It 'seems' just WAY over the top. For example: I have a hard time believing that a Governor would have ZERO idea of what the Fed is. I'm sure she couldn't tell you exactly how they conduct monetary policy, (For the record: It was clear to me during the campaign that John McCain had NO idea what he was talking about with respect to the economic crisis.) but the movie made it seem like she never heard of it before (thinking the 'Fed' was short for the Federal Government). I didn't find the movie 'partisan'. I thought John McCain came off extremely well in the movie, as did the major senior advisers. I felt it made Palin look like a decent person who got caught up in something she was absolutely not ready for -- It would have taken a remarkable amount of self-awareness (and confidence) to turn down the VP nominee if you were Palin. I hadn't heard or read about the independent confirmation from the 24 (or whatever) advisors verifying the scenes. I wouldn't be shocked to find out that the two main advisors in the movie (Steve Scmidt and Nicole Wallace) would 'lie' to make Palin look as bad as possible, since it that 'helps' them. I also wouldn't be shocked if the movie were an absolute dead-on-balls-accurate portrait of Gov. Palin during that time. Did you guys know that Alaska's population is smaller than Erie County (Personally, I was shocked to find that out)? Anyone think Chris Collins or Mark Poloncarz should be given the legitimacy Palin was given? Think either of them are qualified to be VP?

That's your problem right there. Every and any institution that is/was large enough to do that couldn't. Because the short-term markets were no longer pricing 'risk'. Those markets stopped existing. Good company, bad company, good bank, bad bank -- Everyone was treated the same (no short-term credit) because no one had any idea who the "next Lehman" was. Gov't came in and said "Don't worry -- no more Lehman's" and gave liquidity and capital (at a very steep price) to most of the banks in the country. And it worked. Fed made money. Banks didn't die. People got their paychecks. Investors lost billions. What's the problem?

What is your problem? Ahh... forget it. Not worth the effort. Congratulations.

Are you out of your mind? Were you sleeping when the HHS gave waiver after waiver after waiver to other businesses with respect to certain (other) provisions of Obamacare? Why the big fuss over this one? Were those businesses 'abolishing the constitution and implementing their own'?

Sometimes people just say the dumbest things. Just think about this statement for 30 seconds and see if you want to take it back.

In good faith, I'll try again. From your first post: So concern #1 is that A) a CEO makes decisions in the morning that transparently and directly lead to either a profit or loss in the next day, week, or year. B)Gov't doesn't work that way. Therefore: C)Is this difference an impediment to Romney's success? And Concern #2 is that Business folks don't show well as President. Since I believe your concern #1 to be completely inaccurate: No. They're not related. That's what people keep trying to tell you. Concern #1 does not reflect reality. Business is not nearly as transparent as you're attempting to make it. In my opinion.

Right. That *totally* sounds just as easy as saying: "Mr. VP, we're moving in a different direction and I don't think you can take us there. Pack your things, we're getting rid of you." If you think that's true, then you and I will just have to agree to disagree. You think it's just as hard for CEO's to fire their upper managers as it is for the President to 'fire' Congress. I disagree. I think it's pretty darn easy for the CEO to get rid of people when he wants to, and I think it's much more difficult for the President to get rid of people in Congress. Agree to disagree? Hope you had fun last night -- It was a pretty lame Saturday for me in CT. At least I got to watch a really bad SNL, though -- so I've got that going for me. You go to Allentown? I sincerely apologize about keeping you from booze, though -- there is no way that this conversation is worth that! [Edited for re-thinking the personal nature of the post.]

It must be really hard to fire upper managers, since the President has no power at all to 'fire' Congress. OK, though, maybe you have some good points backing this up. Let's see! Wait -- So CEO's can actually fire upper managers? But, OK, only when they first start, I guess, so OK, I'm still with you, maybe. Let's see what other points you have (Still waiting to see how the President can 'fire' Congress) Right. A CEO can fire people. Wait. That can't be right. I'm confused. Which member of Congress is the low-mid level employee that the President can fire? Is that like the junior Senator from Wyoming (who cares about that guy -- AMIRIGHT!?!?) Right! Sort of like Congress! Wait-- That's what I said! Now I'm REALLY confused. I *totally* "Get it" now. CEO's can fire people. Even people who "cannot be fired under any circumstance" Wait! That can't be right! You said up above that it's harder to fire 'upper managers' than it is for the President to fire Congress -- now I'm just lost. Why do you keep telling me how CEO's can do the thing you say they can't do? See, I don't think it's a faulty comparison at all. CEO's need their upper managers to buy into their strategery in order to be successful. A President needs Congress to buy into his/her strategery (grossly simplified -- I'm aware of the simplification I'm making) to be successful. The difference is that the CEO has direct ways to get rid of, or minimize the influence of, the people who aren't buying in to his vision. (Even if he isn't firing people, he's doing re-orgs, he's giving people crappy bonuses (to try and get them to leave), he's putting them on projects that are not useful (again, trying to get them to leave), etc...) A President doesn't have that direct ability to get rid of those in Congress who don't, or won't, buy in. I'm really curious about one thing right now, though. Will you try to defend the whole "It's harder to fire upper managers than it is to fire Congress." line? Or will you walk it back to something more realistic. I'm betting on your ego being too big to walk it back. (BTW -- I'm with you on Romney. I think his type of executive experience lends itself extremely well to the type of things you need to do as President. I suppose we BOTH could be wrong about what type of skills you need to be President, though)