|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 29, 2011 7:39:18 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 29, 2011 7:59:10 GMT -8
It may or may not come down to those States, but it is sure to be pretty close. Lets us hope that people will see what is right often enough to overcome the vote of the "takers" of promised benefits.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on May 29, 2011 8:58:45 GMT -8
This gets back to my other thread. Unless the Republicans nominate somebody who is electable -- meaning moderates -- then at best they will lose 55-45. And if they nominate a real ideologue -- which to me seems likely -- then they will lose 60-40, 62-38, something like that. States won't matter.
It happened with Goldwater and it happened with McGovern. And as long as the ideologue's control the Republican Party, it will happen in 2012 as well.
Yoda out...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2011 9:11:42 GMT -8
Obamacare is "the principal threat to liberty?" Now THAT'S funny!
|
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on May 29, 2011 10:08:28 GMT -8
This gets back to my other thread. Unless the Republicans nominate somebody who is electable -- meaning moderates -- then at best they will lose 55-45. And if they nominate a real ideologue -- which to me seems likely -- then they will lose 60-40, 62-38, something like that. States won't matter. It happened with Goldwater and it happened with McGovern. And as long as the ideologue's control the Republican Party, it will happen in 2012 as well. Yoda out... Well, I think the Left considered Reagan an Idealogue, I certainly did, and his results were a little different. The Right could easily elect an idealogue, the question is competance. Put in a competant leader and he/she will garner an electable majority. You keep forgetting there are TWO candidates in the election and are ignoring where Obama will be at election time. If he can't fix the economy and listens to the left for his guidance on that issue, he could easily lose it. Two candidates. |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on May 29, 2011 12:37:27 GMT -8
This gets back to my other thread. Unless the Republicans nominate somebody who is electable -- meaning moderates -- then at best they will lose 55-45. And if they nominate a real ideologue -- which to me seems likely -- then they will lose 60-40, 62-38, something like that. States won't matter. It happened with Goldwater and it happened with McGovern. And as long as the ideologue's control the Republican Party, it will happen in 2012 as well. Yoda out... Well, I think the Left considered Reagan an Idealogue, I certainly did, and his results were a little different. The Right could easily elect an idealogue, the question is competance. Put in a competant leader and he/she will garner an electable majority. You keep forgetting there are TWO candidates in the election and are ignoring where Obama will be at election time. If he can't fix the economy and listens to the left for his guidance on that issue, he could easily lose it. Two candidates. Regan was a Democrat. He passed the first "too big to fail" bank bailout and he took us from being the biggest creditor nation the world had ever known to being the biggest debtor nation the world had ever known -- in the first three years of his first term. The spending proposals in the budgets that he sent to Congress were actually REDUCED by the Democrats. Yoda out... . |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 29, 2011 17:09:23 GMT -8
Well, I think the Left considered Reagan an Idealogue, I certainly did, and his results were a little different. The Right could easily elect an idealogue, the question is competance. Put in a competant leader and he/she will garner an electable majority. You keep forgetting there are TWO candidates in the election and are ignoring where Obama will be at election time. If he can't fix the economy and listens to the left for his guidance on that issue, he could easily lose it. Two candidates. Regan was a Democrat. He passed the first "too big to fail" bank bailout and he took us from being the biggest creditor nation the world had ever known to being the biggest debtor nation the world had ever known -- in the first three years of his first term. The spending proposals in the budgets that he sent to Congress were actually REDUCED by the Democrats. Yoda out... . Complete hog wash! Donald Regan was never President. Even if you meant Ronald Reagan, your facts are wrong for the most part. You must remember that tax revenue and federal expenditures were pretty much in balance and overall he accomplished more than any modern President. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on May 29, 2011 17:31:42 GMT -8
Regan was a Democrat. He passed the first "too big to fail" bank bailout and he took us from being the biggest creditor nation the world had ever known to being the biggest debtor nation the world had ever known -- in the first three years of his first term. The spending proposals in the budgets that he sent to Congress were actually REDUCED by the Democrats. Yoda out... . Complete hog wash! Donald Regan was never President. Even if you meant Ronald Reagan, your facts are wrong for the most part. You must remember that tax revenue and federal expenditures were pretty much in balance and overall he accomplished more than any modern President. Reagan raised taxes 4 times between 1982 and 1984: www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0301.green.htmlIf he were President today and tried to do that, the right would be vilifying him. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on May 29, 2011 17:41:55 GMT -8
Well, I think the Left considered Reagan an Idealogue, I certainly did, and his results were a little different. The Right could easily elect an idealogue, the question is competance. Put in a competant leader and he/she will garner an electable majority. You keep forgetting there are TWO candidates in the election and are ignoring where Obama will be at election time. If he can't fix the economy and listens to the left for his guidance on that issue, he could easily lose it. Two candidates. Regan was a Democrat. He passed the first "too big to fail" bank bailout and he took us from being the biggest creditor nation the world had ever known to being the biggest debtor nation the world had ever known -- in the first three years of his first term. The spending proposals in the budgets that he sent to Congress were actually REDUCED by the Democrats. Yoda out... The right has created such a cult of personality around Reagan that writing anything like the above is considered heresy. I think it's over the top to describe him as a Democrat. The best description would be that of a mix between Goldwater and Rockefeller Republicanism. And I will give him this - he understood how to negotiate inside the Beltway - the stories about Tip O'Neil dropping by the White House for drinks and policy discussions aren't urban legend. Can anyone imagine Boehner or Boner or whatever his name is doing the same with Obama? =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on May 29, 2011 18:00:48 GMT -8
Complete hog wash! Donald Regan was never President. Even if you meant Ronald Reagan, your facts are wrong for the most part. You must remember that tax revenue and federal expenditures were pretty much in balance and overall he accomplished more than any modern President. During Jimmy Carter’s term in office, public debt, as a percentage of GDP, was down 3.3%. In Reagan’s first term, public debt as a percentage of GDP was up 11.4% and in his second term, it was up another 9.3%. In George H.W. Bush’s term, public debt as a percentage of GDP was up another 15%. In Clinton’s two terms, it was down 0.7% and 9.0%, both as a percentage of GDP. Then George W Bush came aboard and public debt was back up again – 7.1% in his first term and 20% in his second term – again, as a percentage of GDP. You notice a pattern? All five of the last five Democratic Presidents have reduced public debt as a percentage of GDP and all four of the last four Republican Presidents have increased it. Supply side economics is a fraud that does nothing more than transfer wealth from future generations to people that are already rich. And yet the extreme right embraces it as if it were the salvation of the nation. There's your hogwash, aw. Don’t believe me? Look it up. Pretty easy to Google that kind of stuff. Yoda out… . |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 29, 2011 23:11:09 GMT -8
This gets back to my other thread. Unless the Republicans nominate somebody who is electable -- meaning moderates -- then at best they will lose 55-45. And if they nominate a real ideologue -- which to me seems likely -- then they will lose 60-40, 62-38, something like that. States won't matter. It happened with Goldwater and it happened with McGovern. And as long as the ideologue's control the Republican Party, it will happen in 2012 as well. Yoda out... Yoda, your reasoning is something short of impressive. You say that the best the GOP can do is lose 45% to 55%. That margin qualifies as a landslide. Come on; Obama has lots of problems, many of his own making. There are plenty of negatives that will depress his chances, yet you predict that his worst showing will be a landslide?  Goldwater lost badly partly because he was (unjustifyably) labeled a dangerous extremist. A greater factor leading to his defeat was that the nation was still mourning the death of JFK. That gave the Dems a big boost. Also, there was no war (yet) and the economy was pretty good. I give Obama a better than 50/50 chance of winning, but only a one in four chance of winning by a larger margin than last time. It is more probable that the election will be closer than that of '08. Still lots of time for events to push the trend in either direction. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on May 30, 2011 3:58:25 GMT -8
Yoda, your reasoning is something short of impressive. You say that the best the GOP can do is lose 45% to 55%. That margin qualifies as a landslide. Come on; Obama has lots of problems, many of his own making. There are plenty of negatives that will depress his chances, yet you predict that his worst showing will be a landslide? Goldwater lost badly partly because he was (unjustifyably) labeled a dangerous extremist. A greater factor leading to his defeat was that the nation was still mourning the death of JFK. That gave the Dems a big boost. Also, there was no war (yet) and the economy was pretty good. I give Obama a better than 50/50 chance of winning, but only a one in four chance of winning by a larger margin than last time. It is more probable that the election will be closer than that of '08. Still lots of time for events to push the trend in either direction. AzWm I didn't say that the best the Republicans can do is lose in a 55-45 landslide. What I said was that, unless they nominate a moderate, then the best that they can do is lose in a landslide. Big difference. I don't really disagree with you about Goldwater. He was pro choice, pro gay rights and pro environment but, today, the father of conservatism would not be welcome at a Republican Party convention. While retaining the label of "conservative", his party replaced Goldwater's libertarian principals with religious principals that are, in many cases, “anti-libertarian”. Gone is a strict adherence to the constitution; replaced by a strict adherence to the bible. I had great respect for Goldwater and my signature on most boards is a Goldwater quote: "The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. To retreat from that separation would violate the principles of conservatism." There is a battle for the soul of the Republican Party between the libertarian conservatives and the biblical conservatives and, until the libertarians prevail, the Republican Party will be anathema to too many moderates to be consistently effective at the national level. That’s why John McCain lost – in gaining the nomination and in selecting his VP, he cow-towed to the biblical conservatives and lost the moderates in both parties as a result. And that’s why I asked in a different thread if the Republicans have anybody who is electable. I don’t think that they do because I don’t think it is possible to get the Republican nomination without, at once, cow-towing to the biblical conservatives while losing the moderates and independents of all parties. In 2012, in my opinion, the Republicans will not nominate a moderate and so they will end up losing in a landslide. And frankly, I kind of hope it happens because I think it will take a dramatically devastating loss -- a wake up call -- for traditional, libertarian Republicans to be able to wrestle control of the party back from the biblical Republicans. Yoda out… . |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 30, 2011 6:45:26 GMT -8
Complete hog wash! Donald Regan was never President. Even if you meant Ronald Reagan, your facts are wrong for the most part. You must remember that tax revenue and federal expenditures were pretty much in balance and overall he accomplished more than any modern President. During Jimmy Carter’s term in office, public debt, as a percentage of GDP, was down 3.3%. In Reagan’s first term, public debt as a percentage of GDP was up 11.4% and in his second term, it was up another 9.3%. In George H.W. Bush’s term, public debt as a percentage of GDP was up another 15%. In Clinton’s two terms, it was down 0.7% and 9.0%, both as a percentage of GDP. Then George W Bush came aboard and public debt was back up again – 7.1% in his first term and 20% in his second term – again, as a percentage of GDP. You notice a pattern? All five of the last five Democratic Presidents have reduced public debt as a percentage of GDP and all four of the last four Republican Presidents have increased it. Supply side economics is a fraud that does nothing more than transfer wealth from future generations to people that are already rich. And yet the extreme right embraces it as if it were the salvation of the nation. There's your hogwash, aw. Don’t believe me? Look it up. Pretty easy to Google that kind of stuff. Yoda out… . You forget some important facts. Republicans have been faced with huge problems and they solved them. Democrats were faced with the same problems but chose to ignore them. Those are things that can't be measured with the type metrics that you quote but don't cite. Carter left us with a misery index and Reagan fixed all that and ended the Cold War. You can find similar patterns with most Presidents if you are not so blinded by some kind of DemLib worship. All of the glory you folks like to heap on Clinton were the result of Newt's Contract with America. Clinton was just along for the ride. I will grant you that Bush II left us with a large debt problem. It was mostly our response to the Terrorists attacks and threats ran up our debt. The things that Clinton chose to ignore were faced by a Republican. Now we have the most irresponsible President in our history spending money in the most ineffective way possible. It will take decades to dig out of this Obama mess and you had better hope that it starts in 2012. |
|
|
|
Post by inevitec on May 30, 2011 7:38:02 GMT -8
During Jimmy Carter’s term in office, public debt, as a percentage of GDP, was down 3.3%. In Reagan’s first term, public debt as a percentage of GDP was up 11.4% and in his second term, it was up another 9.3%. In George H.W. Bush’s term, public debt as a percentage of GDP was up another 15%. In Clinton’s two terms, it was down 0.7% and 9.0%, both as a percentage of GDP. Then George W Bush came aboard and public debt was back up again – 7.1% in his first term and 20% in his second term – again, as a percentage of GDP. You notice a pattern? All five of the last five Democratic Presidents have reduced public debt as a percentage of GDP and all four of the last four Republican Presidents have increased it. Supply side economics is a fraud that does nothing more than transfer wealth from future generations to people that are already rich. And yet the extreme right embraces it as if it were the salvation of the nation. There's your hogwash, aw. Don’t believe me? Look it up. Pretty easy to Google that kind of stuff. Yoda out… . You forget some important facts. Republicans have been faced with huge problems and they solved them. Democrats were faced with the same problems but chose to ignore them. Those are things that can't be measured with the type metrics that you quote but don't cite. Carter left us with a misery index and Reagan fixed all that and ended the Cold War. You can find similar patterns with most Presidents if you are not so blinded by some kind of DemLib worship. All of the glory you folks like to heap on Clinton were the result of Newt's Contract with America. Clinton was just along for the ride. I will grant you that Bush II left us with a large debt problem. It was mostly our response to the Terrorists attacks and threats ran up our debt. The things that Clinton chose to ignore were faced by a Republican. Now we have the most irresponsible President in our history spending money in the most ineffective way possible. It will take decades to dig out of this Obama mess and you had better hope that it starts in 2012. I disagree. It is quite the opposite. The Democrats are always forced to clean up Republican profligacy, as they are forced to do now. The budget was in surplus when Bush took office and his tax cuts, his wars and his recession ruined all that. Now, the Republicans want to make the rest of us pay for what they themselves did. Take away the tax cuts, the wars and the recession and we would be near surplus. Debate that fact with me. Conservatives don't debate this, and try to misdirect, because they cannot win the argument. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 30, 2011 7:43:03 GMT -8
You forget some important facts. Republicans have been faced with huge problems and they solved them. Democrats were faced with the same problems but chose to ignore them. Those are things that can't be measured with the type metrics that you quote but don't cite. Carter left us with a misery index and Reagan fixed all that and ended the Cold War. You can find similar patterns with most Presidents if you are not so blinded by some kind of DemLib worship. All of the glory you folks like to heap on Clinton were the result of Newt's Contract with America. Clinton was just along for the ride. I will grant you that Bush II left us with a large debt problem. It was mostly our response to the Terrorists attacks and threats ran up our debt. The things that Clinton chose to ignore were faced by a Republican. Now we have the most irresponsible President in our history spending money in the most ineffective way possible. It will take decades to dig out of this Obama mess and you had better hope that it starts in 2012. I disagree. It is quite the opposite. The Democrats are always forced to clean up Republican profligacy, as they are forced to do now. The budget was in surplus when Bush took office and his tax cuts, his wars and his recession ruined all that. Now, the Republicans want to make the rest of us pay for what they themselves did. Take away the tax cuts, the wars and the recession and we would be near surplus. Debate that fact with me. Conservatives don't debate this, and try to misdirect, because they cannot win the argument. If that is the depth of your reasoning and ability to think then I am wasting my time even talking to you. Republicans try to address problems and Democrats kick them down the road. That causes financial hiccups. Not all that difficult to comprehend. |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on May 30, 2011 8:02:12 GMT -8
You forget some important facts. Republicans have been faced with huge problems and they solved them. Democrats were faced with the same problems but chose to ignore them. Those are things that can't be measured with the type metrics that you quote but don't cite. Carter left us with a misery index and Reagan fixed all that and ended the Cold War. You can find similar patterns with most Presidents if you are not so blinded by some kind of DemLib worship. All of the glory you folks like to heap on Clinton were the result of Newt's Contract with America. Clinton was just along for the ride. I will grant you that Bush II left us with a large debt problem. It was mostly our response to the Terrorists attacks and threats ran up our debt. The things that Clinton chose to ignore were faced by a Republican. Now we have the most irresponsible President in our history spending money in the most ineffective way possible. It will take decades to dig out of this Obama mess and you had better hope that it starts in 2012. Seriously? You're going with that? So you contend that Democrats haven't faced, or at least haven't dealt with, any issues and that Republicans have had to do so. And you further contend that Republicans have been unlucky enough to have been faced with various issues that Democrats haven't had to face, such as terrorism. Granted, the Republicans keep taking us to war, and war is expensive. But the entire Vietnam war, which in terms of manpower was greater than all three current wars, was fought by Presidents of both parties who, despite the cost of the war, reduced public debt as a percentage of GDP while fighting it. So don't give me this terrorist crap. The "Contract with America" was a valuable electioneering tool but almost none of it was actually enacted into law. The decrease in public debt as a percentage of GDP during the Clinton years was principally a function of Clinton's own fiscal conservatism as well as a tax increase. And Clinton had the Republican's Savings & Loan bailout to pay for as well. In fact, this whole right wing argument for deregulation keeps creating problems that Democrats keep having to fix. The Reagan / Bush failure to regulate savings and loans got us into the Savings & Loan mess. And GW Bush's failure to regulate gave us the housing bubble, banking failures and our current economic situation. I'm not into big regulation but it is possible to regulate greed without regulating out the profit motive -- and if you don't, then you will pay for it later. Your claim that I am engaging in some sort of "DemLib worship" is crap. Just another version of calling anyone who isn't conservative enough a liberal. While the last several supply side Presidents have about bankrupted us, there have been many moderate Republican Presidents who reduced public debt as a percentage of GDP. So it's not actually a partisan issue at all. For me, it's about responsible leadership and moderation. Tax cuts for the upper tax brackets may sell well to rich contributors and people who don't know the difference between "trickle down" and "tinkle on", but they are irresponsible transfers of our future standard of living to people who are already living pretty well. It is pandering to the right every bit as much as labor legislation panders to the left. Our founding fathers wanted to create a strong middle class and for 200 years our strength as a nation was in large measure a function of the fact that they did so. But now we have irresponsible supply side economics and our well-to-do are doing great while our middle class is shrinking. The fact is, I'm as fiscally conservative as you are -- and maybe more so. The principal difference between us is that I see tax cuts geared toward the upper income taxpayer as a form of welfare and you see it as a necessary entitlement that will guarantee our future financial success (despite having demonstrably had the opposite effect). Everybody looks back on the idyllic 1950's as a time of great economic growth -- and it was. But keep in mind that the top tax bracket in the 1950's was 91% or above. If I were in charge, I think I would take our top tax bracket to the mid to upper 40% range. And I would entirely offset that increase with a decrease in middle class tax rates. Newsflash to the right -- business is not motivated to invest because of low tax rates. It is motivated to invest by the potential for profit. If the middle class has a whopping tax decrease, they will pay down their personal debt and will grow the economy through the demand side -- just like they did for the first 200 years of our history. Yoda out... . |
|
|
|
Post by inevitec on May 30, 2011 8:26:32 GMT -8
I disagree. It is quite the opposite. The Democrats are always forced to clean up Republican profligacy, as they are forced to do now. The budget was in surplus when Bush took office and his tax cuts, his wars and his recession ruined all that. Now, the Republicans want to make the rest of us pay for what they themselves did. Take away the tax cuts, the wars and the recession and we would be near surplus. Debate that fact with me. Conservatives don't debate this, and try to misdirect, because they cannot win the argument. If that is the depth of your reasoning and ability to think then I am wasting my time even talking to you. Republicans try to address problems and Democrats kick them down the road. That causes financial hiccups. Not all that difficult to comprehend. We are both wasting our time. The activity is called entertainment. Lighten up Win, my friend! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 30, 2011 17:18:01 GMT -8
If that is the depth of your reasoning and ability to think then I am wasting my time even talking to you. Republicans try to address problems and Democrats kick them down the road. That causes financial hiccups. Not all that difficult to comprehend. We are both wasting our time. The activity is called entertainment. Lighten up Win, my friend! ;D I will try!  |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 30, 2011 17:21:21 GMT -8
You forget some important facts. Republicans have been faced with huge problems and they solved them. Democrats were faced with the same problems but chose to ignore them. Those are things that can't be measured with the type metrics that you quote but don't cite. Carter left us with a misery index and Reagan fixed all that and ended the Cold War. You can find similar patterns with most Presidents if you are not so blinded by some kind of DemLib worship. All of the glory you folks like to heap on Clinton were the result of Newt's Contract with America. Clinton was just along for the ride. I will grant you that Bush II left us with a large debt problem. It was mostly our response to the Terrorists attacks and threats ran up our debt. The things that Clinton chose to ignore were faced by a Republican. Now we have the most irresponsible President in our history spending money in the most ineffective way possible. It will take decades to dig out of this Obama mess and you had better hope that it starts in 2012. Seriously? You're going with that? So you contend that Democrats haven't faced, or at least haven't dealt with, any issues and that Republicans have had to do so. And you further contend that Republicans have been unlucky enough to have been faced with various issues that Democrats haven't had to face, such as terrorism. Granted, the Republicans keep taking us to war, and war is expensive. But the entire Vietnam war, which in terms of manpower was greater than all three current wars, was fought by Presidents of both parties who, despite the cost of the war, reduced public debt as a percentage of GDP while fighting it. So don't give me this terrorist crap. The "Contract with America" was a valuable electioneering tool but almost none of it was actually enacted into law. The decrease in public debt as a percentage of GDP during the Clinton years was principally a function of Clinton's own fiscal conservatism as well as a tax increase. And Clinton had the Republican's Savings & Loan bailout to pay for as well. In fact, this whole right wing argument for deregulation keeps creating problems that Democrats keep having to fix. The Reagan / Bush failure to regulate savings and loans got us into the Savings & Loan mess. And GW Bush's failure to regulate gave us the housing bubble, banking failures and our current economic situation. I'm not into big regulation but it is possible to regulate greed without regulating out the profit motive -- and if you don't, then you will pay for it later. Your claim that I am engaging in some sort of "DemLib worship" is crap. Just another version of calling anyone who isn't conservative enough a liberal. While the last several supply side Presidents have about bankrupted us, there have been many moderate Republican Presidents who reduced public debt as a percentage of GDP. So it's not actually a partisan issue at all. For me, it's about responsible leadership and moderation. Tax cuts for the upper tax brackets may sell well to rich contributors and people who don't know the difference between "trickle down" and "tinkle on", but they are irresponsible transfers of our future standard of living to people who are already living pretty well. It is pandering to the right every bit as much as labor legislation panders to the left. Our founding fathers wanted to create a strong middle class and for 200 years our strength as a nation was in large measure a function of the fact that they did so. But now we have irresponsible supply side economics and our well-to-do are doing great while our middle class is shrinking. The fact is, I'm as fiscally conservative as you are -- and maybe more so. The principal difference between us is that I see tax cuts geared toward the upper income taxpayer as a form of welfare and you see it as a necessary entitlement that will guarantee our future financial success (despite having demonstrably had the opposite effect). Everybody looks back on the idyllic 1950's as a time of great economic growth -- and it was. But keep in mind that the top tax bracket in the 1950's was 91% or above. If I were in charge, I think I would take our top tax bracket to the mid to upper 40% range. And I would entirely offset that increase with a decrease in middle class tax rates. Newsflash to the right -- business is not motivated to invest because of low tax rates. It is motivated to invest by the potential for profit. If the middle class has a whopping tax decrease, they will pay down their personal debt and will grow the economy through the demand side -- just like they did for the first 200 years of our history. Yoda out... . Holy Cow! People can sure look at the same set of facts and circumstances and see it much differently. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on May 30, 2011 17:49:25 GMT -8
Holy Cow! People can sure look at the same set of facts and circumstances and see it much differently. Welcome to the wonderful world of social science. =Bob |
|
