Obama Climbs Ten in the RCP Map Average

[wickedsolo]

I don't buy the meme that either party spins about the opposition being "the best they could scrounge up", especially when it comes to candidates like Mitt (or some candidates on the left such as Clinton).

Mitt has a proven track record of success so characterizing this as "scrounging" is biased / influenced thinking. He's incredibly intelligent and quite the leader. Now you may not agree with his positions, but facts are facts.

Same goes for then-candidate Clinton. The socially conservative right, before he did it to himself, made a parody of him as some bumpkin who didn't know his ass from a hole in the wall. Nothing could be further from the truth.

If you disagree with any candidate, do so on the facts and not some media narrative that's being shoved down your throats. As a news consuming nation, we've become lazy. We think what we see on any given broadcast must be true, thus a narrative gets put forth and it's hard to ever see past that.

Sorry HR, but the fact that Romney was by far the most logical choice for the nomination (and most of the voters agreed) and they still were for all intents and purposes hesitant on giving him the nomination tells me that they weren't 100% excited about Romney as the candidate and they aren't 100% confident in him.

I don't really read or watch the news too much...especially American news...and that is the impression that I got from the things that I do read, hear, and talk about when it comes to Romney. My best friend worked in the DNC and my wife's friend works on campaigns for the GOP. I get information from them all the time and I ask them questions all the time. My wife's friend, in not so many words, pretty much said that there were a lot of senior members in the GOP who weren't real excited about Mitt Romney in 2008 either. They pulled him aside and told him that McCain was their man, not him. He dropped out of the race 2 days after Super Tuesday.

[wickedsolo]

And all that movie actor did was end the cold war. The Soviet Union was so scared of him they collapsed under the pressure he gave them.

In Regan's greatest speech, he told Gorbrachev to bring this wall down and he did.

I guess your dad didn't like all those tax breaks he gave us. You weren't around to remember but I sure enjoyed the check I got.

Sheesh, only you could take a light hearted comment about how Reagan was popular because he was a movie star before his political career and turn it into a back-handed insult.

The Soviet Union wasn't scared of Reagan and he certainly didn't end the Cold War. The constant military build-up of the USSR killed their domestic development and the people of the USSR just stopped once the economy stagnated. In 1986 Gorbachev tried to issue a bunch of major political and economic reforms and it just completely fell apart. Regan bumped up the defense spending to 7% of the GDP in the early 80's and then the USSR increased their defense budget to 27% of the GDP and halted all domestic goods. That's not pressure from Reagan...that's just a massive communist ego thinking their economy could handle that. It couldn't and it didn't.

And frankly, I don't know if my dad liked all of those "tax breaks" or not. I was a kid in the 80's. I wouldn't have known the difference anyway. Tax breaks are great when government spending is under control. The government can give out a few hundred dollars every spring all they want for tax breaks and call it stimulus or whatever, but all it does is prolong the inevitable.

Tax breaks don't help the economy. Getting government spending under control and cutting wasteful programs and antiquated programs is the only way to really help the economy.

[wickedsolo]

Simple (and unfortunate) you can't give a demagogue more material to be more of a demagogue...

I actually read something a few weeks ago that said if they raised the social security age from 67 to 72 or something it would save millions of dollars.

Considering a lot of Americans aren't retiring anymore before 65-70 years old, it would make sense to reform that.

[HoustonRaven]

Sorry HR, but the fact that Romney was by far the most logical choice for the nomination (and most of the voters agreed) and they still were for all intents and purposes hesitant on giving him the nomination tells me that they weren't 100% excited about Romney as the candidate and they aren't 100% confident in him.

I think you're misreading the "hesitance" by the party. Both the DNC and RNC do the same thing. They funnel funds to the person(s) they think have a legit shot at winning. They are "not behind" anyone until the very end, when it's been predetermined they are going to win. They were not behind anyone for the most part this time last year and that's not a slight on Romney or any candidate. Same for Obama / Hillary four years ago, but with a caveat. Hillary was the presumptive nominee but Obama jumped the line.

I don't really read or watch the news too much...especially American news...and that is the impression that I got from the things that I do read, hear, and talk about when it comes to Romney. My best friend worked in the DNC and my wife's friend works on campaigns for the GOP. I get information from them all the time and I ask them questions all the time. My wife's friend, in not so many words, pretty much said that there were a lot of senior members in the GOP who weren't real excited about Mitt Romney in 2008 either. They pulled him aside and told him that McCain was their man, not him. He dropped out of the race 2 days after Super Tuesday.

This tells me everything I need to know. If you're watching / reading anything other than a variety of news outlets here, you're getting a leftist version of the news. Everything in Europe, even SKY News, is skewed more left of center than in the states because that's the market over there. Conservatism (i.e. classic liberalism) is as dead as the saber tooth tiger in Europe, thus they market their news to the consumer.

I am sure your friend is well intended but I am not buying that story about the GOP asking Mitt to step aside, especially today's GOP. It's incredibly fractured right now and they do not have the power (or means) to tell anyone to step down, especially a man of Romney's means.

The Soviet Union wasn't scared of Reagan and he certainly didn't end the Cold War. The constant military build-up of the USSR killed their domestic development and the people of the USSR just stopped once the economy stagnated. In 1986 Gorbachev tried to issue a bunch of major political and economic reforms and it just completely fell apart. Regan bumped up the defense spending to 7% of the GDP in the early 80's and then the USSR increased their defense budget to 27% of the GDP and halted all domestic goods. That's not pressure from Reagan...that's just a massive communist ego thinking their economy could handle that. It couldn't and it didn't.

Wrong.

Read any speech Reagan gave in the first four years of his tenure and you'll see that that it was his administrations policy to force the hand of the Soviets via spending. He said even before he was elected that the social and economic structure of the USSR was such that it could not keep up, thus the increase of government military spending would be the force that brings them to their knees. The left saw this as saber rattling, war mongering, etc but the soviets knew this to be true by the time he was re-elected.

To put it simply, for every reason you just mentioned is precisely why Reagan won the cold war. Don't believe that fact? Even the most liberal of college historians are forced to concede that point. It's precisely why there are a few memorials for Reagan sitting near Checkpoint Charley. It's precisely why a portion of the Berlin Wall sits at the foot of his grave in Simi Valley, CA -- it was a gift from the German government for ending the cold war. And it's precisely why the German's praise Reagan to this day. He liberated them, plain and simple.

[NCRAVEN]

Tax breaks don't help the economy. Getting government spending under control and cutting wasteful programs and antiquated programs is the only way to really help the economy.

Splain please.

[wickedsolo]

Splain please.

This is a pretty good site with some interesting stuff on the topic:

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/...s-help-economy


I can see how getting a stimulus check for $300 or whatever it was back in 2007/2008 seemed like a great idea, but IMO the only real way the economy is going to get back on track is for the government to really become more fiscally responsible, which in the end can drive down taxes to begin with. The less the government pays for and has to pay for, the less taxes will be necessary.

[wickedsolo]

I am sure your friend is well intended but I am not buying that story about the GOP asking Mitt to step aside, especially today's GOP. It's incredibly fractured right now and they do not have the power (or means) to tell anyone to step down, especially a man of Romney's means.

They thought McCain was their man and felt he had a better shot than Mitt did.

Wrong.

Read any speech Reagan gave in the first four years of his tenure and you'll see that that it was his administrations policy to force the hand of the Soviets via spending. He said even before he was elected that the social and economic structure of the USSR was such that it could not keep up, thus the increase of government military spending would be the force that brings them to their knees. The left saw this as saber rattling, war mongering, etc but the soviets knew this to be true by the time he was re-elected.

To put it simply, for every reason you just mentioned is precisely why Reagan won the cold war. Don't believe that fact? Even the most liberal of college historians are forced to concede that point. It's precisely why there are a few memorials for Reagan sitting near Checkpoint Charley. It's precisely why a portion of the Berlin Wall sits at the foot of his grave in Simi Valley, CA -- it was a gift from the German government for ending the cold war. And it's precisely why the German's praise Reagan to this day. He liberated them, plain and simple.

Ok, I see your point.

[NCRAVEN]

This is a pretty good site with some interesting stuff on the topic:

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/...s-help-economy


I can see how getting a stimulus check for $300 or whatever it was back in 2007/2008 seemed like a great idea, but IMO the only real way the economy is going to get back on track is for the government to really become more fiscally responsible, which in the end can drive down taxes to begin with. The less the government pays for and has to pay for, the less taxes will be necessary.

Word. I thought you were saying tax cuts (or low taxes) don't help the economy.

All the economy is essentially is people spending money, the less they have to spend the smaller and slower the economy is.

[wickedsolo]

Word. I thought you were saying tax cuts (or low taxes) don't help the economy.

All the economy is essentially is people spending money, the less they have to spend the smaller and slower the economy is.

I think maybe I'm just a bit too cynical when it comes to the economy because I see things like stimulus packages as a way for the government to manipulate the masses through distraction while they raise taxes at a later date.

"Hey guys, sorry, we have to raise taxes again...but we did just give you guys $300 a couple of years ago..."

[NCRAVEN]

I think maybe I'm just a bit too cynical when it comes to the economy because I see things like stimulus packages as a way for the government to manipulate the masses through distraction while they raise taxes at a later date.

"Hey guys, sorry, we have to raise taxes again...but we did just give you guys $300 a couple of years ago..."

I think you're more cynical when it comes to government.

If they would have done a spending cut. tax cut instead of stimulus I think you would have seen great improvement instead of what we got now.

There were tax cuts in the stimulus plan but they were so hard to qualify for now one could take advantage of them. Basically they were just put in to say " hey tax cuts were in there, see they don't work"

[HoustonRaven]

Texas, Florida, etc prove the notion that lower taxes work, especially when it's in conjunction with a consumption based economic system.

We have no income tax, but have a higher sales tax (8.25%) compared to the national average. The only way the state makes their money is be insuring the people get theirs first and then spend that money.

[wickedsolo]

Texas, Florida, etc prove the notion that lower taxes work, especially when it's in conjunction with a consumption based economic system.

We have no income tax, but have a higher sales tax (8.25%) compared to the national average. The only way the state makes their money is be insuring the people get theirs first and then spend that money.

I agree that not having a state income tax would be nice. Delaware is the same way IIRC.

Being taxed twice (especially in a state like Maryland, where taxes are already high) is quite burdensome.