When President Obama is re-elected!!

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Sat Oct 20, 2012 6:20 pm

Alex, here's the first one I came across:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... -benghazi/

I can look this all up for you or you can just google it if you like. It's really everywhere and has been for weeks.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sat Oct 20, 2012 8:45 pm

Fox News poll has Obama up by 3 in Ohio.
Exit polling for early voting is going heavily in favor of Democrats, not a surprise.
Can Obama hold what appear to be razor thin leads in OH, IA, WI?
It feels like it is slipping away from him.
Romney is conquering the map: winning Florida. Winning Virginia.
Closing in on Pennsylvania.

Which way will those final percentages break?
Probably towards the challenger.
It just doesn't "feel" good for Obama.
He doesn't seem to have gotten any bounce out of his strong second debate.

Obama JHEPI down to 50.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sat Oct 20, 2012 11:05 pm

How about this for a scenario. Crazy.

http://mobile.slate.com/blogs/spitzer/2 ... ident.html

Tom In DC · Post by **Tom In DC** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 1:26 am

Have we ever been at a place where both sides were so terrified of the outcome of the other side winning?

Seriously, the entire world goes into the toilet if one's preferred party doesn't take the current election???

I recall a book about the John Adams/Thos. Jefferson days where those founding fathers thought the fate of the nation was in the hands of those idiots, the electorate. Somehow, we're still here.

As this thread winds its way to twenty plus pages, the vitriol and hyperbole seems plentiful, and almost exclusively from the folks who claim the high moral ground. (Which oddly enough seems to NOT point to one party or the other!) Somehow, I observe both sides of the debate moving so far to their own extreme orientation that each group can be justified saying that compromise is impossible.

The end of the world as we know it? Probably, but I feel fine...

Tom In DC · Post by **Tom In DC** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 1:35 am

JimHow wrote:How about this for a scenario. Crazy.

http://mobile.slate.com/blogs/spitzer/2 ... ident.html

Bottom line, did Joe seem presidential during that Veep debate, or more like some bully that we all recall from middle school? Maybe his friend "Bibi" will back him up at recess. He's a heart-beat away.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 4:12 am

Sitting here with my father in an emergency room at the hospital at midnight on a Saturday night, being treated for his latest spell. Luckily he has the Democratic Party created Medicare!

Joe Biden had one mission. Just win. It didn't matter how ugly it was. Peggy Noonan was her usual pious self today, bemoaning how unpresidential, how ugly the Obama Chicago machine has been. This from the party that has embraced Donald Trump, and the Birthers, and Sarah Palin, and the Tea Party, and Swift Boat, and Willie Horton. Riiiight. Let's be under no illusions: This is every bit as vile as we expected, but there is plenty of ugliness to go around from both sides.

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 5:13 am

Yes, there is and will be grotesque ugliness in many quarters and on both sides. Trying to back away from that after my last somewhat snarky comments...

I'm curious to hear what Jim and JScott, or any others who feel the accumulation of massive debt was a major error, would have done differently economically over the past 4 years. The results of any course other than the one that was actually taken would have to be argued hypothetically. What would your alternative to taking on tons of debt have been? Do nothing? Cut spending? Cut corporate taxes and eliminate capital gains taxes? Do conservatives still believe in trickle-down economics? Is there evidence that it actually works? Seems to me it failed, so why do it again? Then again, economists, like statisticians, are expert at making numbers say whatever they want. Maybe we are just buying the stories of different economists and spinmeisters. Would you have argued for letting the banks or the auto industry fail? There was a time when I would have been happy to let them go to hell in a handbasket. Probably a good thing I wasn't in charge... Do you think we got our money back on those deals? Did we get enough in return - in dollars and behavioral change within those industries? Would you have bailed out banks and automakers but not shot as big a wad indiscriminately into the rest of the economy (pardon the screwed/unsafe sex metaphor)? What about the theory that says starving a recession gets you a 30s-style depression? Don't believe it? Believe it but think that's the sort of stern medicine we needed to get back on the road to prosperity? There are arguments that can be made for just about any approach. We'll never know what might have been, but I'd like to hear why you think a particular alternative would have been better.

And then there's healthcare - JScott I agree that is the 800 pound gorilla, and it's growing by leaps and bounds. We've actually started to bend the spending growth curve, but that might only be a secondary effect of the poor economy. Payment for medical services is so grossly distorted by our third-party system that dismantling it to get to a sane and logical system, where stuff actually costs what it's worth, would likely be cataclysmic. On a micro/personal boots-on-the-ground level, my 4 month old electronic health record system that I was "incentivized" to purchase by PPACA locked up on me Friday afternoon. I spent an hour that should have been dedicated to patient care being instructed by customer support on how to perform CPR on the server. The laughable(?) part was that after all of their instructions that got us nowhere, what finally worked was my own initial suggestion to push and hold the damn power button to reboot the f-ing thing. And the incentive itself? Well, I also found out on Friday that it can't be paid to us because the govt payment system that has all our information about paying us for medical services isn't communicating properly with the govt payment system that should pay us the incentive. Now if I could only find their damn power button...

AlexR · Post by **AlexR** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 7:57 am

JScott,

Thanks for the link. I have read all 1,279 words of it. Never let it be said that I never listen to the other side of an argument! I thank you for giving me more background information that was not in the reports I read over here. You are indeed right, specific requests *were* made for increased security by US diplomats. And denied. But where your earlier statement falls down completely are your assertions that this was a “policy” and, especially that the “administration” was responsible. Don’t you realize that this was just a wrong decision made by some State Department wonk – a civil servant who keeps his job whoever’s in power? It takes a giant leap of faith, or should I say of ill will and partisanship, to extrapolate from this that the chief executive is directly responsible for what happened.
I think it is very base, and proof that politics can indeed be very ugly, that the Republicans have tried to make political capital out of this tragedy. When you think for a moment of the war started on false pretences by George W. Bush, and the tens of thousands of ensuing deaths, you can only shake your head at the lack of objectivity in the Republican camp and their low blows.

All the best,
Alex R.

robertgoulet · Post by **robertgoulet** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 11:38 am

Joe Biden=a clown

Obama GM bail out=had to go down if he wanted the union vote in four years

Obamacare=too expensive yet I know our current system is a mess

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 11:45 am

I don't think it's fair to tar Romney with George W's foreign policy record (I know I brought it up earlier, I take it back). But Romney's tough talk does make one wonder what his threshold for starting another war might be. He has no record on which to base an opinion, and for that very reason non-incumbents often talk tougher than they really are when they get into office. I still have reservations over not really knowing who would show up in the White House if he were elected. I would be a lot less concerned about (I wouldn't say "terrified") of the Governor of Massachusetts version than of the primary campaign version or the general election campaign version. I realize that shifting positions is part of the political game, but as I said before I don't recall any past candidate being this dramatically different on so many issues.

Robertgoulet - would you have let the car companies fail? How do you think that would have affected the economy today? I think, with the benefit of hindsight, that we got a better ROI on the car companies (considering both $$ and behavior) than we did on the banks, though letting them fail would have been disastrous as well.

robertgoulet · Post by **robertgoulet** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 12:16 pm

Doctors only have around 15 min. to spend with each patient

Obamacare would lead to increase patient load, problem is many docs r already at their limit, so now doctor has even less time with patients

Next problem, reimbursement, that's changing more to an outcomes/metrics type system
Question: how do u improve outcomes when now u have limited time with the patients solving medical issues??

Especially with more unemployment...people r eating more fast food...so in contrary, a1c's and blood pressure will be on the rise...that's not improving outcomes

I'd like to hear some physicians perspective

robertgoulet · Post by **robertgoulet** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 12:18 pm

Here is the video to where Paul Ryan discusses the cost curve and then proceeds to tell Obama that Obamacare is fraudulent.

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=zPxMZ1Wd ... PxMZ1WdINs

robertgoulet · Post by **robertgoulet** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 12:20 pm

David? Let gm fail? Depends on if u want too be president in four years, if yes-Do a bail out

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 12:21 pm

With social security, I don't understand why the tax stops at $110,000 each year. The rich should pay more.
And the bdnefit should be based on means.

As for the stimulus, I guess I'll answer the question with a question: At what point DO we stop this exponential rise in the debt? There will always be needs, crises, bank and auto bailouts, wars, etc. If not now, when? When do we start addressing the debt? When does someone finally say no? Both sides are equally to blame. We need less wars and more taxes on the wealthy. I've just never bought the argument that throwing trillions of borrowed money into the economy creates long term resolutions to the employment problem.

robertgoulet · Post by **robertgoulet** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 12:39 pm

Didn't they prove long ago, that taxing the rich does not work and it's actually counter productive. When u cut spending and lower their taxes money flows back into the system and increase gov't revenues. Though initially the opposite will happen in order to achieve this senario

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 12:56 pm

Wow, lot's of questions on a lot of topics! Good discussion, though! My take....

The auto bailout was unnecessary. It was simply what would have happened in bankruptcy only the rules were re-written in favor of the union at the expense of the preferred bond holders. Had nothing been done, the preferred bondholders would've gotten their money first and the unions would've lost their pensions most likely, but GM would be in business today with less debt and we wouldn't be out $24B. We can debate whether that would be a better outcome, but before you weigh in on the bond holders, two things: it fundamentally changed the rules of investing. Why would anyone now pay extra for a preferred bond when you no longer get the protection you are paying for? Second, among those preferred bond holders that got screwed were the pensions of the state teacher's union and the police and fire union of the state of Indiana.

Regarding healthcare, David I feel your pain. I have not gone to electronic records and won't for many of the reasons you cite. It is slow, inefficient, and I predicted years ago the incentive payment would never happen. There are more than 600 systems that don't talk to each other - tower of Babel - despite the claim that it was intended to do the opposite. I know offices on their third system, having spent millions for nothing. Starting next year, I will get fined for not doing it, but it is neither in my best interest nor my patient's in my view. I could go on....

Regarding the debt and the crisis, hindsight is always 20-20, but I was not in favor of the stimulus in real time. Would it have been better or worse? As you say, we'll never know, but it does not appear to have done much of anything. I think I would have allowed much of it to unfold. May have been calamity, who knows? But it would be over now. Looking across the Atlantic, does anyone doubt that Greece will eventually fail? It has been a slow motion train wreck. They have spent billions more down a black hole and are still in misery. Easy to say when I'm not on the street there, but coldly and objectively, it would've been better to have the collapse and re-build, because it's going to happen any way. I'm not saying we're Greece, but we are very close to it, frankly, except for the advantage of a dollar based world.

AlexR · Post by **AlexR** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 1:01 pm

Robert Goulet,

There is what you would probably call socialized medicine where I live. You know what? It was voted the best health care system in existence by the World Health Organization.
It works!

The American system only provides "freedom" to those people with money, but is hardly a just and equitable one...
But above and beyond that, health care in the US just costs too darn much. Not only is it unfair, It is also grossly inefficient and overpriced, as well as heavily beaureacratic. It is hard to imagine a public system being any worse!

These figures are from Wiki. Are they wrong?

- The U.S. Census Bureau reported that 49.9 million residents, 16.3% of the population, were uninsured in 2010 (up from 49.0 million residents, 16.1% of the population, in 2009 (I suppose it's they're own damned fault for being poor - let 'em die!)
- According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the United States spent more on health care per capita ($7,146), and more on health care as percentage of its GDP (15.2%), than any other nation in 2008
- A 2001 study in five states found that medical debt contributed to 46.2% of all personal bankruptcies and in 2007, 62.1% of filers for bankruptcies claimed high medical expenses.[4] Since then, health costs and the numbers of uninsured and underinsured have increased

No one is doubting the actual quality of medical care in the USI is surely among the best of the world. What is unworthy of a developed country is the obscene cost of it all, and the closing of doors to citizens with health problems because they don't have enough money.

It costs 23 euros to go to a general practitioner where I live. They make housecalls day and night.
I put my back out 3 weeks ago. I pay 16 euros and something to so the physical therapist for half an hour. *And*, if I didn't have enough money, the state would pay for me.
What could be more normal than that?
Sure, my taxes are high, but I still pay a great deal less than if I had to finance a private health plan!

Governor Romney introduced a revolutionary (for America) health care program in Massachusetts, and has since done a 180° U-turn to deny every principle of what he had previously championed!
As Obama says, a bad case of "Romnesia"...

Best regards,
Alex R.

robertgoulet · Post by **robertgoulet** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 1:08 pm

People in the media could also benefit by seeing how the “tax cuts for the rich” demagoguery collapses like a house of cards when you subject it to logic and evidence
.
Those who argue that “the rich” should pay a higher tax rate, and that the revenue this would bring in could be used to reduce the deficit, assume that higher tax rates equal higher tax revenues. But they do not.

Secretary Mellon (us treasury secretary 1920's pointed out that previously the government “received substantially the same revenue from high incomes with a 13 percent surtax as it received with a 65 percent surtax.” Higher tax rates do not mean higher tax revenues.

High tax rates on high incomes, Mellon said, lead many of those who earn such incomes to withdraw their money “from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities” or otherwise find ways to avoid receiving income in taxable forms.

That is even easier to do today than in Andrew Mellon’s time. The very same liberals who complain that Mitt Romney — among thousands of others — puts his money in the Cayman Islands nevertheless act as if raising the tax rates automatically raises tax revenues. It can instead drive money out of the country and drive jobs out of the country with it.

The United States has long been a place where foreigners from around the world have sent their money to be invested, more than offsetting the money that Americans invested abroad. But, in recent years, the net flow of investment has been out of America to places overseas that don’t tax as much.

Mellon cited statistics that showed the opposite of what the high-tax advocates claimed. Although incomes in general were rising from 1916 to 1921, the taxable income of people earning $300,000 and up dropped by about four-fifths.

That didn’t mean that “the rich” were becoming poor. It meant that they had arranged to receive their incomes in forms that were not taxable. Mellon asked where the money of these high-income earners went. He answered: “There is no doubt of the fact that much of it went into tax-exempt securities.” In today’s global economy, much of it can also easily be sent overseas — much more easily than workers can go overseas to get the jobs this money creates in other countries.

After Mellon finally succeeded in getting Congress to lower the top tax rate from 73 percent to 24 percent, the government actually received more tax revenues at the lower rate than it had at the higher rate. Moreover, it received a higher proportion of all income taxes from the top income earners than before.

Something similar happened in later years, after tax rates were cut under presidents Kennedy, Reagan, and G. W. Bush. The record is clear. Barack Obama admitted during the 2008 election campaign that he understood that raising tax rates does not necessarily mean raising tax revenues.

Why, then, is he pushing so hard for higher tax rates on “the rich” this election year? Because class-warfare politics can increase votes for his reelection, even if it raises no more tax revenues for the government.

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 1:13 pm

Jim, regarding Social Security, I think that's exactly what will happen - higher taxes at the top and means testing. The reason there is currently a cap on the tax is because there is a cap on the benefit. When you means test, and tell those at the top to pay considerably more while at the same time tell them they are no longer eligible for the benefit, it becomes a completely different program. Instead of essentially a government-directed forced pension, it becomes a new tax and welfare of sorts. The rebuttal I always hear about the top end paying all the income tax is that those at the bottom are paying Social Security and Medicare. They have been two separate things to date. I don't get credit for contributing to the general welfare for putting money in my IRA. Social Security is currently a program where virtually everyone takes out more than they put in, which is of course the problem.

I can't tell you how many people come in wanting me to fill out disability forms. Had a gal in who is 26, gets an occasional boil under her arm and wants me to file forms for permanent disability. She works at a credit card call center. Sits and makes phone calls. I asked her what she would do differently at home were she permanently disabled. Like virtually every government program in existence, there is also a massive amount of fraud, abuse and inefficiency.

No other country has such an acutely progressive structure as the U.S. and furthermore, in almost every other country everyone participates in every program. When these changes are inevitably made, the tax structure in this country may start to become so completely lopsided it will be unsustainable. That said, I don't see an easy alternative with Social Security, but I think that simultaneous with this change there needs to be a broadening of the base, where everyone is paying more income tax.

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 1:20 pm

Alex, I also believe the quality of the U.S. medical system is second to none; it is the cost structure that is the problem. It's not as if the uninsured do not get care; they get care in an inefficient and expensive way. I have always had a peeve about the WHO rankings, which in my view are not instructive. The WHO decides how they will weight certain factors arbitrarily in their scores, where I could as easily change the weightings and come up with very different results. Also, it is in my view a testament to our system that we do as well as we do with the population we have. Life expectancy here is a constant battle against fast food, obesity, lack of exercise, gun violence, etc. Let's see this population dropped on any other country's medical system and then compare healthcare systems! All that said, your point is very well taken - we have a lot of room for improvement here and certainly don't have all the answers.

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 1:25 pm

One more note that ties much of this together and dovetails -- as Alex mentions we spend more per capita on healthcare, education and a lot of other things with no clear benefit. Back to David's point, it seems clear that more money doesn't solve these issues, and really only creates more trouble. I believe there is plenty of money in the system. Regarding medicine, it has less to do with payments being out of line with value (the percentage of spending that actually ends up in the hands of providers is surprisingly small as I recall, something like 18-20%?) and more to do with middlemen, fraud, abuse and waste.

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 1:38 pm

Tom, last and not least, it is hyperbole to say that anyone thinks the world is going to end if their guy doesn't get elected; just civilization!

AlexR · Post by **AlexR** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 2:01 pm

JScott, Robert Goulet, and anyone else who may be reading page 23 of this thread...

As an ex-pat, I necessarily had a peculiar point of view. I like to think I'm eclectic i.e. see - and assimiliate - what's best in different places I have lived.
I come down on the US, my country, for some reasons, but defend the US wholeheartedly in many other ways.
Believe it or not, I try to see, and explain to my foreign friends, some of the nuances. The death penalty in America is roundly condemned. But most people do not realize that capital punishment is "actively practiced" by no fewer than 58 countries around the world according to Wiki - not just the US!
Or, that one third of American states have dispensed with it.

I am pained at what many see as the decline of America's role in the world and especially its abandoning of the moral high ground.

What needs to be done is to think ahead to at least a medium-term strategy.
Which of the candidates has really offered us that, much less "a vision" to inspire us...?
Worse still, issues that smack of the 19th century ("states' rights") have been raised to cloud the issue.
Proponents seem to say "Let us be backward, but autonomous, let no one interfere with our ignorance".

I, too, tend to think of ecologists as pie-in-the-sky people. And yet... If we wake up one day to a world that's unhealthy and polluted, can we really act as though we didn't see it coming?
Improving education is the opposite of a quick fix. It takes time and money. And yet... training America's youth to excell in the professions of tomorrow is vital so as not to be outdistanced. America's scientists used to be the envy of the world, but science teaching is going down the tubes
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-12/us/e ... s?_s=PM:US
It's so much easier to wheel and deal, shuffle money around, and earn a good salary...

Governor Romney has said that as a successful businessman, he has the skills to manage the country. Leaving aside the way in which he made his fortune and where he stashes it, should a country really be run like a corporation?
Should the "uncompetitive", the unemployed, the sick, the poor, the handicapped be left to their own (meager) resources and forgotten?
Should we consider people who are down and out as artisans of their own sorry situation and leave them to pick themselves up by the bootstraps - or rot?
Should we bail out companies and banks that are "too big to fail", but not show the slightest consideration, other than occasional lip service, to people whose jobs have been transferred overseas, or whose houses have been reclaimed by their bank?

Yes, American business needs to be helped and encouraged. But so do America's people, including the ones who were not born with a silver spoon in their mouth.

Best regards,
Alex R.

AlexR · Post by **AlexR** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 3:05 pm

2012 presidential campaign:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... TopStories

You know what would be poetic justice? If Romney won the popular vote and Obama won the electoral college vote!

Alex R.

robertgoulet · Post by **robertgoulet** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 3:13 pm

Reagan was down huge to carter at this point in their election

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 3:20 pm

I don't think Obama is going to hang on.
The headline in that WSJ poll is a little misleading though.
If I'm reading that chart properly, it looks to me like Obama has actually gained in the last two or three days, rather than the other way around, as he headline implies.
Another fascinating surprise: Obama campaign + Democratic super pacs have out raised Romney and the Republicans.
So much for Citizens United!

robertgoulet · Post by **robertgoulet** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 3:36 pm

Obama does his job and puts forth his budget:

In early 2011, Barack Obama received a report from the Simpson-Bowles deficit commission he himself launched that outlined a series of significant cuts and new taxes that would have at least lowered the rate at which the country added to its debt. Obama ignored the report completely and instead proposed a budget with nearly $1.5 trillion in deficit spending, with no serious attempts to cut spending. It was so embarrassing that Republicans had to force the Democrat-controlled Senate in May 2011 to bring it up for a vote, where it failed unanimously, 0-97.

Empty suit

My stance is if the election is of social issues then I lean dem, if its fiscal I lean conservative

This election is of a strict fiscal nature

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 4:33 pm

I wonder why we haven't heard anything about Zogby's polls this year?
He has Obama up by 6 in Florida.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 4:47 pm

An interesting analysis of the polls and Obama's electoral college firewall of OH, IA, WI, NV:

http://m.newyorker.com/online/blogs/joh ... -just.html

RDD · Post by **RDD** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 8:36 pm

Man am I glad I spent all weekend riding around Kerr lake on the VA/NC border with my two brothers.
I saw more Obama signs out that Romney.

robertgoulet · Post by **robertgoulet** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 8:44 pm

I was in Tavares fl. Last week and was astounded... i had to stop counting all the Romney signs and zero for Obama, here in college park downtown Orlando it looks to be about 60/40 in favor of Romney.

RDD · Post by **RDD** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:02 pm

robertgoulet wrote:I was in Tavares fl. Last week and was astounded... i had to stop counting all the Romney signs and zero for Obama, here in college park downtown Orlando it looks to be about 60/40 in favor of Romney.

I was in a very isolated rural area.
It means nothing.
There weren't many signs period.

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Mon Oct 22, 2012 12:22 pm

Jim, I think the JHEPI needs an adjustment. This one's in the bag......

http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/21/cbs-n ... z29zidtm00

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Mon Oct 22, 2012 12:27 pm

Ha ha. Obama is in a heap of trouble. Based on today's poll numbers and tonight's debate, I'm expecting an adjustment downward for the Obama JHEPI. The only question is how much. Like the 538.com guy, I expect heavy amounts of volatility in the final two weeks. He still has Obama with a 67.6% chance of winning. I think he is high on crack.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Mon Oct 22, 2012 3:47 pm

First piece of data going into today's JHEPI:

Obama up 50-45% in Ohio in today's CBS/Quinnipiac poll.
According to polls, Obama has been swamping Romney in the early voting in Ohio, by almost a 54-39% margin.
Something like a fifth of the Ohio vote has already been completed.

Next thing to look for: The trends in today's Gallup, Rassmussen, and any other polls.

And finally, tonight's debate.

Hang onto your hats, we is in crunch time!

Chateau Vin · Post by **Chateau Vin** » Mon Oct 22, 2012 4:41 pm

Geez, Whether republicans or democrats, the overall picture does not change. Each side is pandering to their 'bases'. I hate to break it, but having a 'base' is the real big problem. Each party can take their 'base' for granted, and just work on the really small slice of independents. I mean, all the issues (economy, healthcare, foreign policy, etc.) affects everyone equally whether republican or democrat. But the parties choose to bring the wedge issues to hold on tight to their 'bases'. If there are no 'bases', then the problems we have would be of much less magnitude, and subsequently easy to solve.

Yeah, I hear the argument about taxes and revenue. And oh yeah, I come from Chicago free market school of thought. Yes, I believe in it, because that is the best we have! Well, but in the process people forget that its efficacy comes with certain preconditions. The politicians (and people likewise) easily forget on creating and having those conditions, and just concentrate on the those DUMB theories (I call 'dumb' because without those conditions, they are pretty much useless)...Yeah, Taxes vs Revenue is a big thing and no one knows the balance. Some people might point out Laffer Curve (Yeah, it's more like a laughable curve to me) to point out the optimum tax rate...It's a joke, and even though theoretically it might exist, IMO it is not fixed!!!

Talk about spending like drunken sailors...It does not matter whether democrats or republicans...The republicans spend on defence (and some of it questionable), corporate welfare, earmarks, wars, etc. The democrats spend on bureaucracy, public welfare, earmarks, etc. So what's the difference? Spending is spending...Just reign in on spending. Scrap and replace the pay as you go system for SS - It's a drag on future generations as well as UNFAIR; Increase the SS benefits qualification age to atleast 62. The 59.5 was created when the life expectancy was around 70. Get real. Now people live 20 yrs more. I have a long list, but it's a good start...

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Mon Oct 22, 2012 5:26 pm

Obama picked up two points in the weird Gallup poll among registered voters, and one point among "likely" voters. This is more good news for Obama. He remains two points behind in Rasmussen. So far, it has been a moderately good day for Obama in the polls. Tonight's debate could be pretty big. Undecideds and what I will refer to as "swayables" are starting the process of crystallizing their decisions.

Houndsong · Post by **Houndsong** » Mon Oct 22, 2012 5:37 pm

Take profits!

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Mon Oct 22, 2012 6:20 pm

Chateau Vin wrote:Geez, Whether republicans or democrats, the overall picture does not change. Each side is pandering to their 'bases'. I hate to break it, but having a 'base' is the real big problem. Each party can take their 'base' for granted, and just work on the really small slice of independents. I mean, all the issues (economy, healthcare, foreign policy, etc.) affects everyone equally whether republican or democrat. But the parties choose to bring the wedge issues to hold on tight to their 'bases'. If there are no 'bases', then the problems we have would be of much less magnitude, and subsequently easy to solve.

I half agree and half disagree. I agree in principal, but the politicos seem to feel that energizing the base is important to actually get out the vote. Yes both sides can count on their base in a poll. But the base has to be motivated enough to actually go out and vote. Not all of the base are raving liberals or conservatives. And even some of those that are may feel "why bother" if they don't think their guy will toe the line. How much of this is true? I have no idea. That's the theory anyway, and it's what creates much of the silliness and flip-flopping.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Mon Oct 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Obama up 50-47% in this weekend's Washington Post/Zogby poll.
The prez up by five in FLA, which seems hard to believe.