Romney a Lock - You Can Put it On the Board YESSSS!!

TigerVols · May 7, 2012

YankeeFan said:

Here comes the money from the Left:

After months on the sidelines, major liberal donors including the financier George Soros are preparing to inject up to $100 million into independent groups to aid Democrats’ chances this fall. But instead of going head to head with the conservative “super PACs” and outside groups that have flooded the presidential and Congressional campaigns with negative advertising, the donors are focusing on grass-roots organizing, voter registration and Democratic turnout.

The departure from the conservatives’ approach, which helped Republicans wrest control of the House in 2010, partly reflects liberal donors’ objections to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which paved the way for super PACs and unbridled campaign spending.

But in interviews, donors and strategists involved in the effort said they also did not believe they could match advertising spending by leading conservative groups like American Crossroads and Americans for Prosperity, and instead wanted to exploit what they see as the Democrats’ advantage in grass-roots organizing.

“Super PACs are critically important,” said Rob Stein, the founder of the Democracy Alliance, a group of liberal donors who will convene near Miami this week to discuss where to steer their money this year. But the liberal groups, he said, believe that local efforts and outreach through social media “can have an enormous impact in battleground states in 2012.”

In a move likely to draw in other major donors, Mr. Soros will contribute $1 million each to America Votes, a group that coordinates political activity for left-leaning environmental, abortion rights and civil rights groups, and American Bridge 21st Century, a super PAC that focuses on election-oriented research. The donations will be Mr. Soros’s first major contributions of the 2012 election cycle.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/08/us/politics/liberals-putting-super-pac-money-into-grass-roots.html?_r=1
Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Where have I heard all of this before? Oh, yeah...

TigerVols said:

There are two wildcards (well, politically speaking...when you throw in current events like Iran, oil, Europe there are dozens of wild cards):

1. The SuperPacs of Rove and Shel Adelson will spend a billion dollars making Obama look like a cross between Jimmy Carter/Michael Dukakis and Hitler/Bin Laden. The amount of negative ads we're going to see on TV and the Internet will be staggering. Lots of pundits are saying Obama will spend a billion, too...but my family member who is a political wonk for a major union says that's bullshit, Obama supporters will be lucky to have $700 million.

2. OTOH, the GOP's ground game is in shambles. Lots of local and state Republican Party branches are broke, in disarray, or both. And when push comes to shove, you gotta get people into the booths on election day. (Well, unless you can pull another Diebold-in-Ohio out of the hat).
Click to expand...

Bob Cook · May 7, 2012

YankeeFan said:

Here comes the money from the Left:

After months on the sidelines, major liberal donors including the financier George Soros are preparing to inject up to $100 million into independent groups to aid Democrats’ chances this fall. But instead of going head to head with the conservative “super PACs” and outside groups that have flooded the presidential and Congressional campaigns with negative advertising, the donors are focusing on grass-roots organizing, voter registration and Democratic turnout.

The departure from the conservatives’ approach, which helped Republicans wrest control of the House in 2010, partly reflects liberal donors’ objections to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which paved the way for super PACs and unbridled campaign spending.

But in interviews, donors and strategists involved in the effort said they also did not believe they could match advertising spending by leading conservative groups like American Crossroads and Americans for Prosperity, and instead wanted to exploit what they see as the Democrats’ advantage in grass-roots organizing.

“Super PACs are critically important,” said Rob Stein, the founder of the Democracy Alliance, a group of liberal donors who will convene near Miami this week to discuss where to steer their money this year. But the liberal groups, he said, believe that local efforts and outreach through social media “can have an enormous impact in battleground states in 2012.”

In a move likely to draw in other major donors, Mr. Soros will contribute $1 million each to America Votes, a group that coordinates political activity for left-leaning environmental, abortion rights and civil rights groups, and American Bridge 21st Century, a super PAC that focuses on election-oriented research. The donations will be Mr. Soros’s first major contributions of the 2012 election cycle.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/08/us/politics/liberals-putting-super-pac-money-into-grass-roots.html?_r=1
Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Why shouldn't it come?

Baron Scicluna · May 7, 2012

The Big Ragu said:

Ben_Hecht said:

The Big Ragu said:

YankeeFan said:

"I'm running to pay down our debt in a way thats balanced and responsible. After inheriting a $1 trillion deficit, I signed $2 trillion of spending cuts into law. And now I want to finish the job by streamlining government and cutting more waste, and reforming our tax code so that it is simpler and fairer, and asks the wealthiest Americans to pay a little bit more."

-- President Obama (Campaign Speech, Ohio State University, 05/05/12)

http://articles.latimes.com/print/2012/may/05/news/la-pn-transcript-obama-campaign-kickoff-20120505

Couple of points:

- Where did you cut $2 trillion?

- What's the deficit now?

- Have you streamlined government, cut waste, or reformed our tax code yet? If not, why would I expect you to accomplish it in a second term?
Click to expand...

He actually inherited a $1.413 trillion deficit in 2009 -- budget passed under Bush (The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office.)

The problem is that debt has really taken off the last couple of years. $1.293 trillion deficit in 2010. $1.3 trillion deficit in 2011. $1.327 trillion deficit for 2012.

Our national debt rose $4.9 trillion during Bush's two terms. That was a near doubling of the national debt -- we put ourselves on a dangerous and unsustainable path.

But since then, our national debt has gone from $10.6 trillion on Bush's last day in office to $15.7 trillion and counting -- in a little more than three years. Any narrative other than that is a lie.

It's actually more of a function of Congress, than the president. The president sends BS budget requests to Capital Hill that have no chance of getting passed -- he can claim that he tried to raise taxes or propose spending cuts over the next decade, knowing it isn't going to happen. The House and Senate come up with their resolutions that they reconcile, and voila $1 trillion deficits every year since 2009.
Click to expand...

. . . without revenue increases, lots of luck . . .

The Ryan/GOP jokebook . . . the gift which keeps on taking, and taking, and taking.
Click to expand...

If we are going to spend $3.8 trillion worth, yup, without revenue increases, it ain't gonna happen.

Of course, a pretty good question is why does our Federal government need to spend $3.8 trillion -- and growing at a steep pace?

As recently as 2001, Federal spending was less than half of that.
Click to expand...

The three biggest items are Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security and defense.

We didn't have two wars to fight in 2001. And the others have grown, I'd imagine, as the first of the Baby Boomers started retiring.

Either they get thrown out on the street or end up bankrupt because of medical bills, or the government takes care of them.

The Big Ragu · May 8, 2012

The government can't take care of anybody. It's not some magical, paternalistic entity with endless resources and a healing touch.

Our government is a function of us. Not the other way around.

If we empower our government to spend trillions of dollars every year, that money has to come from somewhere. Our tax burden as a percentage of our GDP is currently 27 percent. Our spending as a percentage of our GDP is 39 percent. That is a huge discrepancy. We are racking up debt to cover the difference. Our ability to create debt is not endless. If we want to spend as much as we do, we need to increase the average tax rate by 44 percent.

Ben_Hecht · May 8, 2012

The Big Ragu said:

Ben_Hecht said:

The Big Ragu said:

YankeeFan said:

"I'm running to pay down our debt in a way thats balanced and responsible. After inheriting a $1 trillion deficit, I signed $2 trillion of spending cuts into law. And now I want to finish the job by streamlining government and cutting more waste, and reforming our tax code so that it is simpler and fairer, and asks the wealthiest Americans to pay a little bit more."

-- President Obama (Campaign Speech, Ohio State University, 05/05/12)

http://articles.latimes.com/print/2012/may/05/news/la-pn-transcript-obama-campaign-kickoff-20120505

Couple of points:

- Where did you cut $2 trillion?

- What's the deficit now?

- Have you streamlined government, cut waste, or reformed our tax code yet? If not, why would I expect you to accomplish it in a second term?
Click to expand...

He actually inherited a $1.413 trillion deficit in 2009 -- budget passed under Bush (The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office.)

The problem is that debt has really taken off the last couple of years. $1.293 trillion deficit in 2010. $1.3 trillion deficit in 2011. $1.327 trillion deficit for 2012.

Our national debt rose $4.9 trillion during Bush's two terms. That was a near doubling of the national debt -- we put ourselves on a dangerous and unsustainable path.

But since then, our national debt has gone from $10.6 trillion on Bush's last day in office to $15.7 trillion and counting -- in a little more than three years. Any narrative other than that is a lie.

It's actually more of a function of Congress, than the president. The president sends BS budget requests to Capital Hill that have no chance of getting passed -- he can claim that he tried to raise taxes or propose spending cuts over the next decade, knowing it isn't going to happen. The House and Senate come up with their resolutions that they reconcile, and voila $1 trillion deficits every year since 2009.
Click to expand...

. . . without revenue increases, lots of luck . . .

The Ryan/GOP jokebook . . . the gift which keeps on taking, and taking, and taking.
Click to expand...

If we are going to spend $3.8 trillion worth, yup, without revenue increases, it ain't gonna happen.

Of course, a pretty good question is why does our Federal government need to spend $3.8 trillion -- and growing at a steep pace?

As recently as 2001, Federal spending was less than half of that.
Click to expand...

Fredo's "Oh, I have to avenge Poppy" war lunge . . . without a single clue about the fuses they would light . . . neocon jerkoffery, cubed.

Michael_ Gee · May 8, 2012

I know Ragu and some others on those board are among the small group of Americans who really do sincerely worry about the budget deficit and national debt, so I'll try to be gentle here. The first act of whoever's President and the new Congress will be to make both much bigger. Most of the 2001 tax cuts will be extended at a minimum. More likely, even bigger tax cuts will be made. The sequester spending cuts will be at least half eliminated, as the defense cuts will be wiped out, and depending on the makeup of Congress that will either be partly compensated for by cuts on spending on poorer people, or not compensated for at all.
Neither party gives a rat's ass about the debt or deficit. The Republicans hate social spending, but that's about as far they'll go, and if forced to keep that spending to give more tax cuts to the upper wealth levels, they will cheerfully do so one more time.

The Big Ragu · May 8, 2012

Michael_ Gee said:

I know Ragu and some others on those board are among the small group of Americans who really do sincerely worry about the budget deficit and national debt, so I'll try to be gentle here. The first act of whoever's President and the new Congress will be to make both much bigger. Most of the 2001 tax cuts will be extended at a minimum. More likely, even bigger tax cuts will be made. The sequester spending cuts will be at least half eliminated, as the defense cuts will be wiped out, and depending on the makeup of Congress that will either be partly compensated for by cuts on spending on poorer people, or not compensated for at all.
Neither party gives a rat's ass about the debt or deficit. The Republicans hate social spending, but that's about as far they'll go, and if forced to keep that spending to give more tax cuts to the upper wealth levels, they will cheerfully do so one more time.
Click to expand...

You don't have to be gentle. We are in agreement about a major point. Neither party gives a rat's ass about the debt or deficit.

When your debt is $15.7 trillion, growing rapidly, and is at a higher percentage of GDP (at a time when economic growth is slow and verging on recession again) than anytime except WWII, that should be cause for concern.

I don't even attribute the motives to the parties that you do. I think we have a government run by corrupt horse trading and special interests who have their hands in the cookie jar (I include Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the military industrial complex which has nothing without government favors) and getting their hand out once you have allowed it so far in is difficult. Any talk of it gets politicians canned.

But if it is political suicide, it is also going to be fiscal necessity which might have to be done at a time of crisis, rather than now when we can still minimize the impact of doing away with this insidious aspect of our economy that is actually a drain on us.

We don't have endless ability to run up debt, and our pace of growth has been staggering. We get a bit of a pass because we are the United States, with the world's largest economy, but at a certain point, when our debt load gets too big -- and we are rapidly approaching at the rates of increase we are adding to the debt -- there is nothing about the U.S. that makes it any different from Spain or Italy. Getting in over your head is getting in over your head. People WILL lose confidence in our ability to pay back our debts and then perception becomes reality, because the only things keeping us from default right now are charlatan-like monetary policy and FAITH.

I worry about our national debt, because it is being done recklessly due to the fact nobody has the fortitude or will to do what is right. We have politicians who don't want to say "no" to the gazillion special interests that rely on their largesse, and which have bought them off. And on top of it, we have a central bank that has been a partner that enables them to create debt beyond the limit they should have reached, by monetizing the debt they have run up to try to inflate it away and buy more time to create even more debt -- which of course creates an even more dire situation in the future when we hit a day of reckoning.

It demonstrates a decisive lack of leadership. They all know what they are doing is creating an oncoming train wreck. And they do it anyhow.

Evil Bastard (aka Chris_L) · May 8, 2012

Scott Rasmussen ‏ @RasmussenPoll
Daily Tracking: #Romney: 49%, #Obama: 44%
Click to expand...

Obama starting to "officially" campaign seems to be hurting him as people are reminded he's nothing but a cipher.

deskslave · May 8, 2012

I for one look forward to accusations of politicizing the office every time he dares suggest that he'd like to be president again. Indeed, I look forward to his being castigated for behaving like every incumbent candidate in the history of ever. Because, you know, it's different and all.

Football_Bat · May 8, 2012

Michael_ Gee said:

I know Ragu and some others on those board are among the small group of Americans who really do sincerely worry about the budget deficit and national debt, so I'll try to be gentle here. The first act of whoever's President and the new Congress will be to make both much bigger. Most of the 2001 tax cuts will be extended at a minimum. More likely, even bigger tax cuts will be made. The sequester spending cuts will be at least half eliminated, as the defense cuts will be wiped out, and depending on the makeup of Congress that will either be partly compensated for by cuts on spending on poorer people, or not compensated for at all.
Neither party gives a rat's ass about the debt or deficit. The Republicans hate social spending, but that's about as far they'll go, and if forced to keep that spending to give more tax cuts to the upper wealth levels, they will cheerfully do so one more time.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter who wins the election. Most of those bills will come due before the new year and the losing side will be more than happy to pinch off a turd for the winners to deal with in the new term as they exit the stage.

exmediahack · May 8, 2012

Greenhorn said:

The question is, would Romney as president, do anything different economically from previous Republican administrations? If not, then it would just more old GOP policies of huge tax cuts for the wealthy, eliminating regulations, gutting domestic programs and anti-labor legislation.
Click to expand...

For some of us, we want Romney to stick to the "old GOP policies". In 1997, I came into the business making 17k on my first job. In 2008, I peaked at 82k. The following year, I had to take a decent sized cut or get fired when hardly anyone was hiring. I feel extremely fortunate I still work in "the biz" but I have nowhere near the consumer confidence I had even three years ago.

exmediahack · May 8, 2012

As for the swing states, Colorado and Iowa bring curious cases. Unless the Democrat nominee is Dukakis, I don't see that state voting Republican for a president ever again.

Iowa, though, is odd. Obama won it by 9 on 2008 yet they elected a Republican governor (a former governor) by 8 points against an incumbent. Whenever Obama campaigns in Iowa, he has almost the same stump speech as the failed former governor. Green energy. Level playing field. Fair share.

Ultimately, I think the state's college students will decide who wins the state. Yet the president's base of unemployed people on food stamps may not turn out like in other states on Election Day. Iowa unemployment is only 6%.

Log in or Sign up

Romney a Lock - You Can Put it On the Board YESSSS!!

TigerVols Well-Known Member

Bob Cook Active Member

Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

Ben_Hecht Active Member

Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

Evil Bastard (aka Chris_L) Active Member

deskslave Active Member

Football_Bat Well-Known Member

exmediahack Well-Known Member

exmediahack Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Romney a Lock - You Can Put it On the Board YESSSS!!

TigerVols Well-Known Member

Bob Cook Active Member

Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

Ben_Hecht Active Member

Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

Evil Bastard (aka Chris_L) Active Member

deskslave Active Member

Football_Bat Well-Known Member

exmediahack Well-Known Member

exmediahack Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches