2012 Election Thread

[Adami]

I refuse to consider anyone who really wants to be president.

[TL]

I will say, I legitimately don't understand the mindset one would have to have to actually want to be president. It's difficult, stressful, and a large portion of the country will automatically hate you.

Anyway, I've updated my 'most likely' projection. I jumped the gun a bit with NC, and I'm not really sure what I was thinking with Missouri.


I still feel that Arizona is more of a wildcard than it seems to be. It will almost certainly stay red, but I think it will be closer than most people would expect.
Indiana could still be a surprise too, like it was in 2008.

[hefdaddy42]

So, the jobs info today sounded great.  Something else to blame Obama for, right?

Barack Obama is the anti-Christ.

It all seriousness, its a step in the right direction, but he'll need a few weeks of growth like this in order to stick it to Romney on jobs. Only one week of good news isn't enough in a sea of bad news (or reports that show no growth or loss in jobs). He needs positive numbers like today over the next month and then its game over. You can't argue with the numbers and I'm sure that will be a main talking point for Obama if that were to happen. We shall see.

It wasn't a good week, it was a good month.  And also, the last several months' numbers were revised, so that there has been more job growth over the last 3 months than was previously thought.

[El Barto]

I will say, I legitimately don't understand the mindset one would have to have to actually want to be president. It's difficult, stressful, and a large portion of the country will automatically hate you.

Yeah, I never got it either.  There are certainly a lot of perks, but they've made it so that you're not allowed to enjoy any of them anymore. 

[Cedar redaC]

Please. Tick, I beg you. Watch this 1 minute 43 second video and tell me how this isn't important...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgeuCgODgv4

Bahahahaha!

[theseoafs]

Hey, if anybody else is sick of my less-than-serious responses in this thread then I can stop making them.

[Scheavo]

So, the jobs info today sounded great.  Something else to blame Obama for, right?

It all seriousness, its a step in the right direction, but he'll need a few weeks of growth like this in order to stick it to Romney on jobs. Only one week of good news isn't enough in a sea of bad news (or reports that show no growth or loss in jobs). He needs positive numbers like today over the next month and then its game over. You can't argue with the numbers and I'm sure that will be a main talking point for Obama if that were to happen. We shall see.

Well, it comes at the end tail of most of Obama's presidency seeing job growth - though not large job growth - and it sorta does away with the idea that the American economy is in a disastrous "crisis," as Romney is trying to make out the economy to be.

http://news.yahoo.com/romney-cites-job-crisis-despite-employment-gains-073045105--election.html

"By any rational measure, it's crystal clear we're in the middle of a jobs crisis," Romney said in a fundraising message to supporters. "My priority is jobs. And from Day One of my presidency, I will lead us out of this crisis."

No really. By any rational measure, i.e. all the economic ones, we're not in a "crisis." We were in a crisis 4 years ago.

[hefdaddy42]

[Sigz]

PBS's budget is so infinitesimally small that it's not even a good example of making small cuts to save money. Snapple brought up cutting out dinners out to his family money, but let's put this in perspective: if your family's budget is 1000 thousand dollars a month, cutting PBS would be the equivalent of saving 12 cents a month. It's simply irrelevant.

[Orthogonal]

Not sure why Romney picked PBS out of the air like he did, but I also don't see what the hubbub is all about. What's wrong with PBS standing on its own financially? Even if the savings are miniscule in the grand scheme of things, there's no reason we should be robbed to support them when they could easily stand on their own.

To be fair, it's pretty much impossible for a politician to actually name something to be cut. It makes great soundbites for conservatives when they say we need to reign in spending and make cuts, but if you put them on the spot to actually name the program to be defunded, they usually draw blanks. It's because of exactly what you are seeing here with the PBS comments. Regardless of what the program is and what it supports, the politician is immediately blasted by those who get the handouts and they're labeled haters who want to "harm" whatever cause it is the program supports. It's all a bunch of non-sense and the government will just continue to grow and grow and bleed money to special interest groups.

If Romney had a spine or any conviction for spending cuts, he wouldn't be talking small fruit like PBS, but instead tabling the discussion on his $2T military expansion and proposing significant cuts to the over sea's operations, but we all know that isn't going to happen and I think most people can see through his BS.

[snapple]

PBS's budget is so infinitesimally small that it's not even a good example of making small cuts to save money. Snapple brought up cutting out dinners out to his family money, but let's put this in perspective: if your family's budget is 1000 thousand dollars a month, cutting PBS would be the equivalent of saving 12 cents a month. It's simply irrelevant.

My thing is, it can add up. 1.44 over a year. Yeah, it doesn't seem like much. But it can really add up. Plus, when it's beyond thousands and we're in the tens of thousands, that percentage adds up. Yes, it's damn near negligible. But they don't really need the money. So why continue to give it to them?

[Nick]

Why waste our breath (or typed words) debating this when there is MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH bigger financial issues to discuss?

[GuineaPig]

Well, it's kind of emblematic of the way Republicans approach fiscal policy.  It seems they'd much rather stop 1 person from abusing food stamps than 1 rich person evading their taxes.  They're not "fiscally conservative"; what they want to cut and what they want to spend on is determined by their ideology.

That's why Romney thinks it's OK to boost military spending by a couple billion, but cutting PBS makes him fiscally conservative.

[kirksnosehair]

PBS's budget is so infinitesimally small that it's not even a good example of making small cuts to save money. Snapple brought up cutting out dinners out to his family money, but let's put this in perspective: if your family's budget is 1000 thousand dollars a month, cutting PBS would be the equivalent of saving 12 cents a month. It's simply irrelevant.

My thing is, it can add up. 1.44 over a year. Yeah, it doesn't seem like much. But it can really add up. Plus, when it's beyond thousands and we're in the tens of thousands, that percentage adds up. Yes, it's damn near negligible. But they don't really need the money. So why continue to give it to them?

So you agree with ending subsidies to Exxon Mobile as well?  Because after all, they don't need the money, right? 

[snapple]

PBS's budget is so infinitesimally small that it's not even a good example of making small cuts to save money. Snapple brought up cutting out dinners out to his family money, but let's put this in perspective: if your family's budget is 1000 thousand dollars a month, cutting PBS would be the equivalent of saving 12 cents a month. It's simply irrelevant.

My thing is, it can add up. 1.44 over a year. Yeah, it doesn't seem like much. But it can really add up. Plus, when it's beyond thousands and we're in the tens of thousands, that percentage adds up. Yes, it's damn near negligible. But they don't really need the money. So why continue to give it to them?

So you agree with ending subsidies to Exxon Mobile as well?  Because after all, they don't need the money, right?

You familiar with the term "holding a wolf by the ears"?

[kirksnosehair]

Was a "yes" or "no" question, really.  You either favor those subsidies or you do not favor them.  Exxon Mobile is one of the most profitable businesses on earth, they have also the largest corporate profit on record ever, by any company in the history of civilization.  And we still give them subsidies.




You'd strip the Corporation for Public Broadcasting of it's federal funding but keep giving money to Exxon Mobile?  Yes or No?

[snapple]

Was a "yes" or "no" question, really.  You either favor those subsidies or you do not favor them.  Exxon Mobile is one of the most profitable businesses on earth, they have also the largest corporate profit on record ever, by any company in the history of civilization.  And we still give them subsidies.




You'd strip the Corporation for Public Broadcasting of it's federal funding but keep giving money to Exxon Mobile?  Yes or No?

If the public didn't get fucked over by doing it, yes. But, that's where my counter-question came in.

edit: isn't the % profit actually quite "small"? I know in 2008 it was around 4%, which is fairly normal, despite the large number.

[The King in Crimson]

Well, it's kind of emblematic of the way Republicans approach fiscal policy.  It seems they'd much rather stop 1 person from abusing food stamps than 1 rich person evading their taxes.  They're not "fiscally conservative"; what they want to cut and what they want to spend on is determined by their ideology.

That's why Romney thinks it's OK to boost military spending by a couple billion, but cutting PBS makes him fiscally conservative.

Exactly.

Republicans aren't really fiscal conservatives anymore, they just want to cut stuff they don't like or agree with and fund stuff they do, deficit be damned,

Which makes them exactly like Democrats.

What makes me laugh (and cry) is that they still identify as fiscal conservatives even though every Republican president has presided since Reagan has presided over ballooning deficits due to tax cuts and out of control military spending.  How is that fiscally conservative?

[Orthogonal]

Was a "yes" or "no" question, really.  You either favor those subsidies or you do not favor them.  Exxon Mobile is one of the most profitable businesses on earth, they have also the largest corporate profit on record ever, by any company in the history of civilization.  And we still give them subsidies.




You'd strip the Corporation for Public Broadcasting of it's federal funding but keep giving money to Exxon Mobile?  Yes or No?

Technically, Exxon Mobile is not being given a subsidy. There is no appropriation from the Federal Government. They are just being extended a tax credit to allow them to pay less in taxes than they would otherwise.

It's apples and oranges. PBS is funded by an appropriation, money is handed over to them.

I see no reason why a company shouldn't be allowed to keep the money they earn fairly (Not saying The Oil industry has earned all their money fairly) so I have no problem with tax credits.

On the other hand, PBS doesn't deserve any money from the public, there's no reason why they can't stand on their own financially. They have enough quality programming that there's no reason to believe that they wouldn't be successful like the hundreds of other television stations that aren't afforded the same privilege.

[theseoafs]

Technically, Exxon Mobile is not being given a subsidy. There is no appropriation from the Federal Government. They are just being extended a tax credit to allow them to pay less in taxes than they would otherwise.

Logically speaking, that's indistinguishable from them paying their fair share of taxes with a subsidy from us.

[Orthogonal]

Receiving money is the same as paying less? Not sure how that logic works, but ok.

It's still not clear what "fair share" even means or how it is a "subsidy from us".

[Scheavo]

Receiving money is the same as paying less? Not sure how that logic works, but ok.

It's still not clear what "fair share" even means or how it is a "subsidy from us".

"Fair share" means at least what other people or other corporations have to pay, with the exception of poverty. As a result, other companies and corporations have a higher overhead compared to these oil companies, and it can help stifle competition.

It amount to a subsidy from us, because it has the same effect upon the federal governments budget as if it were. It's not "receiving money is the same as paying less" its "paying less is the same as paying more and being given some back," or, "Receiving less is the same as receiving more and paying out some." It's purely mathematical.

700-200=300+200

[snapple]

The point KNH is making is not the point of the discussion at all. Plus, I don't really agree with what he said as a whole. Oil companies don't really need any sort of break. But, fuck. We're screwed either way.

[Super Dude]

You learn something new everyday it seems; a Tweet I found describes precisely the danger of this whole idea of privatizing PBS.



What makes me think lightning will strike twice? Well, shows like that are simply responses to market forces, right?

[rumborak]

Two words: History Channel.

[TL]

Ortho, the whole point of PBS is that it isn't a for-profit organization. It's a public service, not a for profit company.

It provides educational programming to a wide audience, and in the scope of the US federal budget, it's an incredible bargain.

[rumborak]

Well, I think if PBS was more right-leaning it would be considered an invaluable contribution to Merca's freedom. Or something.

[j]

You learn something new everyday it seems; a Tweet I found describes precisely the danger of this whole idea of privatizing PBS.



What makes me think lightning will strike twice? Well, shows like that are simply responses to market forces, right?

Two words: History Channel.

The History Channel is what came to my mind as an example of this, but I never knew that about TLC!   Seems to me like a clear instance of the market forces undermining our real best interests, or more likely I'm just too uncivilized to appreciate the subtle genius of honey boo boo.

-J

[ResultsMayVary]

Well, I think if PBS was more right-leaning it would be considered an invaluable contribution to America's freedom. Or something.

FTFY

[El Barto]

Conceivably, PBS would still remain a non-profit organization, so I'm not concerned about them going the way of the cable infotainment networks.  The bigger concern would be if PBS had to make up the 10% of their funding by running commercials.  I don't much care for the notion of Sesame Street being cut down to 42 minutes to allow three dozen ads for McDonalds and Coca Cola.  Since I think it's largely beneficial as it is now, the trifle spent on the CPB is money well spent.

The Electric Company will be right back after these words from Abercrombie & Fitch. 

[Super Dude]

Two words: History Channel.

Tbh, I didn't even know THC was publicly funded. That does explain a lot.

Well, I think if PBS was more right-leaning it would be considered an invaluable contribution to America's freedom. Or something.

FTFY

Why was that even necessary?

[rumborak]

Tbh, I didn't even know THC was publicly funded. That does explain a lot.

Oh, that wasn't my intent to insinuate. I mentioned THC as an example how down into the crapper an educational channel can go if it is forced to appease the market.

[soundgarden]

I miss Modern Marvels  =(

[Chino]

Conceivably, PBS would still remain a non-profit organization, so I'm not concerned about them going the way of the cable infotainment networks.  The bigger concern would be if PBS had to make up the 10% of their funding by running commercials.  I don't much care for the notion of Sesame Street being cut down to 42 minutes to allow three dozen ads for McDonalds and Coca Cola.  Since I think it's largely beneficial as it is now, the trifle spent on the CPB is money well spent.

The Electric Company will be right back after these words from Abercrombie & Fitch.

The lack of commercials is one of the main reasons why I love PBS.

[rumborak]

Romney appeases the war base:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/08/politics/romney-foreign-policy/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

It is our responsibility and the responsibility of our president to use America's great power to shape history

Uhm, no.

In Syria, I will work with our partners [...] and ensure they obtain the arms

Please, no.