2012 U.S. Elections - Page 3

Please stop trying to cloud the issue with pertinent facts when someone is in the midst of making superficial observations and drawing simplistic conclusions.

P.S. You could simply note the selection bias in the posted list.

If you'd read the link you would have gathered some of that information.

Here's a bit of it-


"Average job growth under Republican Houses has been 1.1%/year. The average under Democratic Houses has been 2.5%. For Republican Senates it has been 1.6%, while for Democratic Senates it has been 2.6% (excluding the 107th split Senate). This makes a Democratic Congress look good, but the difference is not as big as that between Democratic presidents (3.6%) and Republican presidents (1.1%).

Best of all is to have a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress. When the president and both houses of Congress are Democratic, annual job growth has been 3.7%."
~ http://www.laprogressive.com/who-cre...presidents-do/

I'm sure you already know that repub presidents have created much lower gdp, had higher inflation and increase the debt at a much higher rate than dems, hence the fed's role could be described as intensified during repub control.

He did the right thing. I'm not sure I expected it. I was wondering if he'd go Full Retard like Gingrich and stay in until the bitter end.

As for the delegates, that won't happen my friend. Romney is the nominee...it's over.

Well I agree, it looks like the choices will be Obama or Obama-slightly-right.

It is looking more likely that the Republicans will retain control of the House and probably gain control of the Senate. This will be a good counter-weight to a 2nd Obama term.

This combination is probably the best for the country. It worked out fairly well in the 1994-2000 period.

Romney is far more conservative than Obama and far more competent.


To even have a chance of getting things back on track fiscally, we need a Republican House, Senate and President. I'd take 2/3 to counter Obama, but all that will do is slow the train to hell.

So the U.S. will end up with either a Liberal or a Moderate as President.

That's going to work out well.

That's not true. The idea that U.S. deficits are created largely by foreign aid and wars is a myth.

We'll see. A conservative from Massachusetts is like...well...like a liberal.


Faint praise.



I disagree. I think R house and senate with D president would work better. Reason being that congress controls the budget. With R's in control there in opposition to a D president they're more likely to be fiscally conservative in opposition to that D president. This is how it basically worked from 94-2000. However, there's some concern that an R president might allow things to get a little out of control if they all think they're kings of the world. That's with a conservative president. Mitt Romney will not likely be that. At least I don't expect him to be so fiscally. Romney is only slightly right of Obama.

Would you knock on doors for Mitt Romney?

No, I didn't think so. Gallup has measured just how little excitement there is for Romney, and it's bad, really, really bad. Romney fails the inspiration test, but meanwhile Obama's the complete opposite- (short Gallup video)- http://www.gallup.com/video/153146/D...OP-Romney.aspx

Unfortunately you are right. Romney vs Obama in 2012.At least both are good debaters.Gingrich is through completely now.He is making a jerk by staying in really.

Ron Paul stands for something on principle, Romney often is just lining up votes for himself. It's blatant and it's a big turn off.

So we will soon have two people running against each other doing the same thing.

That's possible. It's just that controlling the purse strings is not enough. We need major reforms, which I think will take both branches.


I absolutely would. And I don't buy the enthusiasm stat at all, especially given where we are in the political calendar.



That's why he's won....zero primaries.


Honestly, good for you in terms of standing up for what you believe. That said, I'm not sure why you'd do that given Paul now has a less than zero chance of becoming the nominee.

That's awesome JG. I used to be pretty heavily involved in the Republican Party at the state level and even went to the state convention for a couple year and attended the national convention in 1996 in San Diego.

As you note, it is sort of hard to jump into this stuff at the last moment. I can honestly tell you that for committed folks in the party, it is absolutely their church. Their donations are nothing short of a tithe. They attend functions weekly.

I participated for a while at the county level in Los Angeles and since LA is not an especially Republican county, it was pretty easy to get to some of the goodies with regard to posts, positions and even running as a candidate if you desired because they were largely vacant. It can be a lot of fun but the sausage making is more troublesome than I care to put up with. I'd rather just post a few times a week and chat about politics.

They are right. He is different.


Dude, they're saying it's over because...it's over. It doesn't matter if only half the delegates have been selected. That's how the process works. Ron Paul or another candidate are not going to suddenly start picking up delegates.


You won't be sending any message. You'll just be making yourself feel better. Don't get me wrong...support Paul all you want. But that's all it is.


That is absolutely not the right thing to do. All it does is weaken Romney or at least divert his attention. Your choice is between Romney and Obama now. Pick one.

That's because he stands for different things.


You're probably right when it comes down to the intricate details of selecting delegates and what not. But I do understand what the ultimate political realties are with regard to when nominations are settled. Having "only" half the delegates is misleading. The race is over.


But then why is it? You understand that Paul now has a 0% chance of winning. He didn't have much more than that to begin with, but now it's truly 0%. Well, strike that. Let's say .0001%.


I just don't understand that view. Why does he deserve to be weakened? I'm not asking you to vote for the guy, but by deliberately trying to weaken him you increase the likelihood of Obama being reelected. And really, you can't tell me you don't care about that just because Mitt Romney is his opponent. I understand you don't think Romney is all that different from Obama (we disagree...but whatever), but do you acknowledge he'd be at least somewhat better? At all? In any way?

Variations on a Corporatist Theme:

From your point of view, which is fine.


Oh stop. It's nothing but a formality at this point. It's the 3rd quarter and Team Romney is winning 99-0. Half the other team has gone home. It's over, and deep down I think you know it. You don't like it, but you know it.


You had a much greater chance of that than Ron Paul does wrt winning the GOP nomination. By many orders of magnitude.


That's not what I asked you. I asked if Romney is ANY better in ANY way. Don't give me this "from my perspective" and "meaningful way" nonsense. The question is whether you think Romney is even marginally better than Obama. That's all I'm asking.


You can't do that. It will hurt the economy by pulling money out too quickly.


That's fine. Paul is not one of the legitimate choices, especially in the GOP race.


You mean domestically? Like states issuing their own money? That's nuts.


That's objectively false. Romney talks about the debt and deficit all the time...constantly. He's also been critical of the Fed, though he doesn't favor ending it. Romney's record is not one of ever expanding debts and deficits, either.

Wrong.



Why?

Care to elaborate? The government doesn't spend money as well as the private sector does, but it does play a role.


You really want to end a unified currency for the nation? You want PA and NJ and NY to use different money with different exchange rates? You want to have to convert CA and WY dollars when making a purchase on the internet? I mean...wow. It's a nightmare to even consider.

Exactly because it doesn't spend as well as the private sector. First the money cut from spending will either be cut from debt accumulation (most likely) reducing inflationary spending/borrowing as well as credit demand (and thus interest rates) and future taxation...or from current tax-funded spending which would return money to the private sector for spending and (better) investment.



I asked you why it is "nuts." You've responded by not answering my question but instead asking other questions in an attempt to appear incredulous. I can only assume this means you have no real basis for this claim of "nuttiness." and are simply trying to hand wave me away.

\

In terms of it being a "nightmare", this is almost certainly wrong. In fact the market forces in this would assure it wouldn't be. What would most likely happen is that there really wouldn't be any competing currencies per se...only printed pieces of paper standing in for an underlying sound commodity money like gold or silver.

More importantly though it would almost certainly keep fiat currencies at bay and most if not all currencies would gravitate toward basis on something sound like gold or silver (or both) which will maintain pretty strong stability among different currencies. Essentially the different currencies will become simply names for certain quantity of the underlying stable, sound commodity.

The goal here is to put some natural constraints on the government's ability to inflate the money supply and all of the destruction that comes from that.

I support spending reductions, but my point is cutting one trillion in a year will have short term consequences, or is at least likely too.


I outlined several major problems. I didn't avoid anything.


It would be a logistical nightmare in the least. You'd have states refusing to accept other's currency, currency wars, trade wars, interstate commerce problems, government intervention as a result (under their legitimate authority in the commerce clause--imagine the irony there).

And we're not going back to the Gold standard, friend. It would contract the money and credit supply so drastically that we'd plunge into a depression.

Yes, but the medium and long-term will be much better. It has to be done anyway so may as well just rip the bandage off fast.



You said this:


Begging the question. Begging the question. Begging the question.

All that said, if it mean the government couldn't tax away my savings by printing money for whatever grand plans they have, then I'd put up with those minor inconveniences (if they even came to pass).



Highly doubtful actually.





That's the whole point that the interstate commerce clause was intended to deal with.

In reality, there'd be nothing wrong with the government having its own currency. The idea here is to open currency up to competition. Same thing with open competition with something like the post office. Just eliminate the statutory monopoly on these things.

Of course given the way the government runs things their money will be an un-wanted commodity (and their post office will be an un-used service.)

What you may not realize is that money is a good or commodity like any other. There's nothing particularly special about it other than it has properties that make it better for use as a money. There's no reason this good/commodity needs to be controlled by the government any more than any other.



If the system crashes we will.



You're misinformed.


The real question is why you distrust the market so?

That's a reasonable point. I still think it can be done with hurting the economy in the short term.


You're avoiding the potential pitfalls I listed. Minor inconveniences?


Why...because you say so?


I know...that's why I said it was ironic that the government might actually use it for legit reasons


We just disagree here. There are so many problems with different currencies and currency systems between the states (and presumably, localities, correct?). The complexity alone would be problematic, as would counterfeiting, conversion, credit markets, etc. It's simply an impractical solution. You would have hundreds...maybe thousands of types of currency. It'd be like going back to the days when the railroads paid their workers in store tokens.


I suppose.




What do you think a sudden contraction of the money supply would do, then? Make the case.


I do trust the market. I'm saying that having different currencies is impractical.

And you're begging the question that they would occur.



I'm basing in my observation of how the market works. Those issues would be worked out.




Some additional study on money might be helpful. These issues would not likely be as bad as you think. Furthermore there would likely evolve a single or couple of widely used currencies anyway.




Ummm...you're begging the question again on the claim of sudden money supply contraction. A transition to a sound money wouldn't have to happen that way.

Oh, like how we gather evidence in supporting evolution (that you willfully deny)?

This thread is about the 2012 U.S. elections.

If you'd like to discuss that other topic perhaps you could do it in another thread.

I would prefer to elect a president that doesn't let the insanity of religion decide what is taught in science classrooms. I have more of a problem with a Mormon president than what we have now. The cult of Mormon is so easily debunked because it takes Christian crazy to a new absurd level much more recently, allowing evidence of the ridiculous conjob to easily be found.

I would prefer a president that would separate education from the government and allow everyone to decide for themselves the best way to educate their children and in what subjects.



I have a problem with a president that has so much power that his personal beliefs, no matter what they are, could potentially effect my life so profoundly by his use of that power.