bhodilee wrote:I dunno, I've always had a soft spot for Punters, ever since I was highly amused that Jeff Feagles punted for the Eagles (then every other team in the league over 30 years). That cat from San Fran can single handedly turn a game. Did you see the way he consistently screwed the Packers with field position? Awesome. Kluwe's a pretty good one also.

Is punting a new part of the Grid? and I think his name is misspelled...

kylemittskus wrote:Taking into consideration that I don't get offended by anything, ever, why was this so far over the line? Because he insulted someone? Is that really such a big deal? You insult political figures on here all the time.

Not to that extent. Did you read his letter? I've never been that bad. So I'm insulted that you think so.


And as to his "corrected" letter, I thought that was much better. But then, I haven't been hit as much as he has playing football.


As a public figure, especially one that kids look up to, he should be held to a higher standard, and he failed that standard.

MarkDaSpark wrote:Not to that extent. Did you read his letter? I've never been that bad. So I'm insulted that you think so.


And as to his "corrected" letter, I thought that was much better. But then, I haven't been hit as much as he has playing football.


As a public figure, especially one that kids look up to, he should be held to a higher standard, and he failed that standard.

The man is a football player, not a teacher or public official or any other endeavor that demands any kind of higher standard of behavior (what ever that means). He certainly has the right to speak his mind, I found his rant quite entertaining. His team has the right to deal with his behavior in any reasonable way they find appropriate.

In my opinion, your belief that sports figures are some kind of influential people that are supposed to behave in some lofty way is laughable. It is a stinking game, not anything that has any real impact in life. One of the signs of the pending apocalypse is that sports figures are lauded as some kind of heroes and role models. Yeah right. Perhaps children would be better served if they looked up to people that make some kind of meaningful contribution to life such as scientists, scholars and those types of people, not grown men that throw a ball around and crash into each other with alarming force. I don't think the words sports and hero belong together. Kluwe's rant about an obvious mentally deficient sparklepony is a far greater contribution to the betterment of society than anything he ever did on a football field, no matter what language he used, and as he pointed out in his rebuttal, he used that language for a very specific purpose.

edlada wrote:The man is a football player, not a teacher or public official or any other endeavor that demands any kind of higher standard of behavior (what ever that means). He certainly has the right to speak his mind, I found his rant quite entertaining. His team has the right to deal with his behavior in any reasonable way they find appropriate.

In my opinion, your belief that sports figures are some kind of influential people that are supposed to behave in some lofty way is laughable. It is a stinking game, not anything that has any real impact in life. One of the signs of the pending apocalypse is that sports figures are lauded as some kind of heroes and role models. Yeah right. Perhaps children would be better served if they looked up to people that make some kind of meaningful contribution to life such as scientists, scholars and those types of people, not grown men that throw a ball around and crash into each other with alarming force. I don't think the words sports and hero belong together. Kluwe's rant about an obvious mentally deficient sparklepony is a far greater contribution to the betterment of society than anything he ever did on a football field, no matter what language he used, and as he pointed out in his rebuttal, he used that language for a very specific purpose.

Sigh. Those who demonstrate great physical prowess have been admired by humans for time immemorial, or time whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary - another way of saying 'twas ever thus. It's inconceivable to me that it will ever be otherwise at least in the West, though some Eastern civilizations have at least purported to despise the warrior and extoll the scholar or priest. We even continue to pay lip service to the notion mens sana in corpora sano. Hence, I find it difficult to see that children look up to sports heroes as signs of the impending apocalypse. (There are plenty other signs, anyway, such as the willingness of people to vote to destroy their society through socialism....)

In former times, physical prowess was mostly the provenance of the warrior. Sport first served as training for warriors in the ancient world and has evolved into a sort of ritualistic substitute for it in a world in which the literati and intelligentsia work assiduously to ensure we do not make heroes of our warriors. There's been a bit of a comeback in the US since 9/11/01, but much of Europe lost its fascination with warriors during the Great War (and the rest during WWII) and the US lost its fascination with our warriors during Vietnam. (and, of course, ours were always citizen-soldiers, idealized more as Cincinnati than as noble beaux sabreurs or Ritter in full plate.)

I doubt you'd disagree with me here (other than what constitute the signs of the apocalypse, perhaps), and I take your point that it is risible to think that those who have distinguished themselves solely on the playing fields have anything meaningful to say about other matters.

I think it is possible, however, to insist on higher ethical standards in sport at all levels - starting with the youngest players, which would ultimately make players who upheld these standards those to whom our children look up, and would make them at least good examples of the values of fair play and sportsmanship that were fairly generally recognized as desirable as recently as a generation or two ago.

rpm wrote:
I think it is possible, however, to insist on higher ethical standards in sport at all levels - starting with the youngest players, which would ultimately make players who upheld these standards those to whom our children look up, and would make them at least good examples of the values of fair play and sportsmanship that were fairly generally recognized as desirable as recently as a generation or two ago.

I don't think Kluwe violated the principles of fair play and sportsmanship. I guess it depends on why you (meaning anyone) found the letter offensive. Was it only the profanity? The fact that Kluwe called out an elected official in a disrespectful manner (even in the child-friendly letter)? Or is it the subject matter itself?

Maybe the letter would have been more effective if Kluwe had taken the high road, but I'm not so sure. He got a bigger audience this way, and those who were offended were probably not going to be swayed anyway. I think kids can still look up to this guy. He stood up to a bully, even if he did throw in some naughty words.

chemvictim wrote:I don't think Kluwe violated the principles of fair play and sportsmanship. I guess it depends on why you (meaning anyone) found the letter offensive. Was it only the profanity? The fact that Kluwe called out an elected official in a disrespectful manner (even in the child-friendly letter)? Or is it the subject matter itself?

Maybe the letter would have been more effective if Kluwe had taken the high road, but I'm not so sure. He got a bigger audience this way, and those who were offended were probably not going to be swayed anyway. I think kids can still look up to this guy. He stood up to a bully, even if he did throw in some naughty words.

I wasn't speaking directly to the letter, which I did not read. I don't think I could take the blathering of any sports figure on anything other than sport seriously, unless he or she had demonstrated independent knowledge or expertise that provided a basis to take him or her seriously.

By his own metric, Barack is a colossal failure.

Bonus --

PetiteSirah wrote:By his own metric, Barack is a colossal failure.

To be fair, he was just blowing smoke up asses just like every single politician before him has done and every politician following him will do. He hasn't done much, but of course he said that. They all do. And they're all d-bags for doing it.

MarkDaSpark wrote:Not to that extent. Did you read his letter? I've never been that bad. So I'm insulted that you think so.


And as to his "corrected" letter, I thought that was much better. But then, I haven't been hit as much as he has playing football.


As a public figure, especially one that kids look up to, he should be held to a higher standard, and he failed that standard.

I just read the letter. Kluwe couldn't hope to be as much of a jackass as Burns. I'm surprised Kluwe mentioned the 1st amendment and not the 13th.

What did Burns expect as a response: "Yessah, I will surely keep mah opinion to mahself"???

But yeah, athletes.

A look at the Ryan budget plan

I started this analysis a few days after the choice of Paul Ryan as Romney’s Vice Presidential running mate, but then let it sit for quite a while. Sorry it took so long.

I thought I would give the Ryan budget plan a good look, since it is sure to play a big part in the reasoned and gentlemanly discussions this country will have over the next two months (where is that sarcasm font when you need it?). I’ll break this into a few posts, to avoid filling up the screen (MEGO).

I openly admit that this presentation is probably incomplete and might be completely wrong on some details – I am not a budget wonk, and have relied on third party sources for most of the information here, though I did delve into the budget documents themselves as well. I have tried to make sure that the third-party sources were at least discussing the most recent Ryan budget plan, and that they weren’t clearly biased in either direction (nothing from Fox News, nothing from Paul Krugman, nothing from either political party). Unfortunately, I neglected to note to myself where much of the information did come from, so citing sources would take some reconstruction if needed. If you see something that’s factually wrong, please point it out and I will do any editing needed for accuracy.

Taxes – lower tax rates are promised, as I’m sure we’re all aware. He has proposed two tax rates – 10% and 25%, along with the elimination of the Alternative Minimum Tax and all corporate income taxes. The income levels at which the 10% and 25% tax rates would be in effect is unfortunately not mentioned. Revenue neutrality has been claimed, through the elimination of deductions, but since Ryan has not specified any details on these anticipated eliminations there is wide latitude for people to come to different conclusions when trying to put together analyses. The Tax Policy Institute took the approach of eliminating those deductions most valuable to high-income filers, doing so progressively until revenue neutrality was reached; this is the study which has been much-commented on recently, showing that taxes on low-income and middle-income people will go up while taxes on high-income people will go down. It goes without saying that many of the deductions which would be in line for elimination have strong support in the general public.

The most common substantive complaint about this study (dismissing the claims that the authors are biased and have willfully distorted the figures) is that this is a static analysis, assuming that income and deductions will stay at levels consistent with recent experience. Proponents of the Ryan budget instead say that it will lead to more rapid economic growth and thus revenue neutrality will be reached without the elimination of some of the deductions more valuable to lower-income filers. Such assumptions are inherently uncertain and, as we have seen over and over again for decades, lead to the “rose-colored glasses” problem where growth is assumed to be so strong that all of our problems are miraculously solved; I have seen some such wildly optimistic projections, but others are more reasonable. Obviously the more optimistic claims are associated with less damage being done to the household budgets of low and middle-income people. The complete elimination of taxes on capital gains has been part of previous Ryan plans, but has not been highlighted in the latest iteration – clearly, this is one of the biggest benefits for high-income filers, and might lead to many paying little if any income tax should it come about.

The Alternative Minimum Tax desperately needs revision at the very least – you’ll find no complaints here about making big changes to it. Under the Ryan plan it probably wouldn’t amount to much anyway, since it was intended to prevent some deductions from eliminating a large percentage of one’s liability – if deductions are few (a very big “if”), there would be little chance of this happening.

The elimination of the corporate income tax, along with the elimination of capital gains taxes, seems to set up an interesting possibility. Dividends are not capital gains, so it seems it would encourage corporations to not pay dividends. If they kept the cash instead, stock prices would rise to take the additional cash into account, and sale of that stock would not create a tax liability. Instead of corporate profits being double-taxed (at the corporate level and then again at the individual level when dividends are paid), we could have profits not being taxed at all.

Part 2

Medicare – this is where a lot of charges and counter-charges are made, with few people actually working through the facts. An older version of the Ryan plan would have simply replaced the current system, under which eligible senior citizens get the same benefits, with a voucher system, which led to the claims that it would “end Medicare as we know it”. To my mind, coming up with a very different program and calling it “Medicare” doesn’t make it Medicare, but that’s no longer a relevant issue, as the Medicare system would still exist in Ryan’s latest plan though not with the same enrollee population.

The latest iteration has everyone currently 55 or older staying in the existing system, and those 54 or younger getting a voucher to buy private insurance or buy into some unspecified Federal program, such as Medicare (the Medicare eligibility age would also rise from 65 to 67). Of course, part of the plan is to repeal the health care bill passed in 2010, so the Medicare drug benefit “doughnut hole” (yes, I refuse to use “donut”) would come back, under which enrollees pay 100% of their prescription drug costs between two annual figures. The Ryan plan does not do anything about this.

The voucher would be a fixed amount, varied somewhat by location to take into account the different cost of health care coverage in different places, and indexed to inflation. If health care costs rise faster than general inflation, as has been the case for quite a while now, the voucher would presumably buy less and less coverage as time goes on; of course, if health care costs rise slower than general inflation it would buy more. Under Ryan’s previous plan the gap was projected to hit $6,350 per person in 2030, a figure much discussed by Democrats. Under the latest plan, it is projected at $2,200 (funny how the Obama campaign concentrates on the old figures rather than the smaller more recent ones). Exactly how someone could buy into Medicare with this voucher, or what other Federal program would be introduced, is something I have seen little discussion of. In fact, no discussion at all, though maybe I just haven’t looked in the right places.

So, how does this reduce the cost of health care? As far as I can figure, there are two explanations for this. The first is that costs would continue to increase as before, but the Federal government would pick up a declining share of those costs. Individuals would pick up the rest, as noted above. If you concentrate only on the Federal budget, that is a reduction in expenditure. The expenditures of enrollees would increase, of course – a Kaiser Family Foundation study says that out-of-pocket medical costs would take half of a retiree’s Social Security income by 2022. The other approach is to figure that the voucher system will create a marketplace for coverage that will more effectively control costs overall. There are significant doubts on this score, given the fact that private insurance companies haven’t distinguished themselves at providing low-cost policies that cover everyone, rather than just the healthy people (adverse selection is a big problem here, and is at least part of the reason Medicare exists in the first place). If those with pre-existing conditions are shunted off to the Federal plan (Medicare or otherwise), it doesn’t seem to accomplish much at all. The existing Medicare Advantage program was predicated on market competition helping to control costs of coverage, and the savings didn’t happen.

An open issue is whether the 54-and-younger crowd will go along with paying for the baby boomers getting full Medicare benefits while they get a slimmed-down plan, but that’s a political issue that I don’t know the answer to. And by the way – the Romney ads saying that the 2010 health care bill cuts $700 billion from Medicare but Romney/Ryan would “strengthen” Medicare does somehow omit the fact that Ryan’s plan does nothing to restore the $700 million in cuts (which are reimbursement cuts, not primary care cuts).

I’m not quite sure how Ryan classifies these cuts as “strengthening” Medicare, but that’s the claim he makes.

Medicaid – while the claim of “ending Medicare as we know it” isn’t very accurate, ending Medicaid as we know it certainly is. Medicaid, under Ryan’s plan, will be drastically altered, beginning with the elimination of the Medicaid expansion included in the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. Currently it is a joint Federal/State system (with the Federal government paying about 57% of the total cost and the states administering it under broad Federal guidelines) designed to cover low income and disabled Americans; another system, called CHIP and focused on poor children, seems to be rolled into Ryan’s Medicaid plan as well.

Ryan’s plan would change it by making it a block grant system – states would receive grants but little direction on how the programs should be set up. Since the grants will be much smaller than current funding (though indexed to population changes and general inflation, with the same issues mentioned above), it is almost a foregone conclusion that the number of people covered will drop, the coverage provided will drop, or both. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the Federal funding decline to reach 49% by 2030, and studies have estimated that 25 to 38 million people would have to lose coverage if enrollment totals were the only changes made. Of course there will be more changes than enrollment alone – coverage declines will surely occur in at least some states. It has been claimed that pushing more decisions down to the state level will allow for more experimentation and flexibility, leading to more efficient delivery of services, but it’s hard to see how such large funding cuts can be made up entirely through improved efficiency.

Part 3

Defense spending – Ryan has proposed that defense spending increase over the currently planned levels – that should come as no surprise. But the increases don’t appear to be very large, if you don’t include the cuts that could be forced on the Defense Department in the sequestration process that was part of the 2011 budget deal. His budget proposal does include full restoration of that money, but overall it says nothing about defense cuts, only talking about general needs.

He clearly favors high defense spending though - when Pentagon representatives testified before the House earlier this year, he essentially said that they were being untruthful about how much defense spending was needed (his exact quotes are here, along with scores of other places). His budget plans to cut discretionary spending (including defense) from 12.5% of GDP today down to 5.75% in 2030 and 3.75% in 2050. Defense spending has not been below 3.7% since the end of World War II, and Romney has said that defense spending should be at least 4% of GDP going forward. I am hesitant to peg defense spending to GDP rather than to the risks we face, but others, I’m sure, will disagree.

Social Security – Ryan’s most recent budget plan does not mention Social Security, so it is difficult to say just what might occur in a Romney/Ryan administration. For clues we can turn to his previous plan, which did deal with changes in Social Security. That plan allowed participants to divert up to 40% of their payroll taxes into separate private accounts, which would be guaranteed not to decline in value below the total of contributions (adjusted for inflation) and could be passed on to heirs. Payments from the currently-existing program (for contributions not diverted to private accounts) would be reduced for those below 55, but the exact amount of reduction is not specified.

Since Social Security is designed to be a “pay-as-you-go” system, this introduces two difficulties that I can identify and maybe more that smarter people can add. The first problem is that up to 40% of the revenue would disappear from the current system once the plan is implemented, but the expenses (mainly Social Security payments to retirees) would continue, creating a very significant shortfall. Also, one feature of the current system is that payments made by individuals who die before collecting benefits, or shortly after benefits start, effectively provide a subsidy that helps keep the system afloat. With private accounts that can be passed on to heirs, this feature would be lessened and the funding shortfall amplified.

Another part of a previous Ryan plan was to institute a “fast-track” process for making further cuts (or, presumably, revenue increases, but I doubt that would be his preferred approach) if the plan is not in balance over a forecast period of 75 years. Given what is noted above, and that 75-year forecasts can be rather unreliable, further unspecified benefit cuts would be likely.

Everything else – This is where most of the spending cuts come in. Identified cuts include 16% for income programs for the poor, 25% for transportation, 13% for veteran programs, 6% for science and technology, and 33% for education, training, employment and social services. Mortgage programs through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would over time be eliminated as government programs. Food stamps and other income programs would become block grant programs, with eligibility and payment levels determined by each state.

Some cuts have been specified, but a very large portion ($897 billion for 2013 alone) is buried in a catch-all category that’s usually made up only of expenditures that don’t easily fit into the other defined categories, along with being a placeholder for items not yet allocated to one of those other categories. It’s usually fairly small. It’s called Function 920, for the true budget wonks out there. So, there is $897 billion of cuts that have not been specified in any way. Democrats have said that this allows Ryan to downplay spending cuts by focusing only on the cuts that have been identified, while never mentioning the $897 billion of cuts that haven’t been allocated yet.

I mentioned above that discretionary spending is said to decline to 3.75% of GDP, and that that figure includes military spending. With military spending taking up pretty much the entire total, that leaves precious little for anything else. Spending on non-defense discretionary programs would drop practically to zero, if this provision were enforced. Included in that category are air traffic control, disease control, agricultural programs, law enforcement (such as the FBI), education, infrastructure spending, the Federal judicial system, veteran programs and hospitals, environmental regulation, financial regulation, food safety, National Parks, the National Weather Service (no new weather satellites), public broadcasting, disaster relief, and even Congressional and staff salaries (I have a hard time seeing Congress zeroing out that last line item).

Deficit – The budget would be in deficit for some time, according to the CBO, not coming into balance until 2040. It’s not like anyone else’s budget plan does any better, given the CBO’s analysis rules, but the talk about how the Ryan plan “balances the budget” needs to include that tidbit.

Final assessment – after finishing this review, I can’t help but conclude that the word “budget” is inaccurate. Too much is left out of it to qualify as a budget, and the document itself spends much of its time with statements such as that the health care bill passed in 2010 is a “government takeover” of health care which would include the infamous "death panels" (though that exact term isn't used), that the Obama administration’s budget proposals are “filled with gimmicks instead of real solutions”, that the President’s strategy appears to be to “let someone else propose a path forward, and then attack them for political gain”, that Obama “has chosen to subordinate national security strategy to his other spending priorities”, and that his (Ryan’s) budget will spur economic growth so much that the unemployment rate will be at 2.8% by 2021. Those are in just the first few pages – there’s an abundance of accusations and unsupported assertions in the document, as is the case in any political document but not generally in budgets. There is also a chart that shows how without this plan the Federal deficit will eventually amount to more than 60% of GDP, which to my skeptical mind sounds patently absurd. In the end, it is a political statement of plans and priorities, but does not qualify as a budget. I, for one, am not enamored with the plans and priorities laid out. As explained above, they include or imply:
- Lower taxes for high-income individuals and families,
- Higher taxes for low-income individuals and families,
- Higher defense spending,
- Lower or eliminated social spending,
- Lower or eliminated spending on pretty much everything else,
- Refusal to outline tax deduction changes,
- Refusal to outline large spending cuts,
- Substantial reductions in programs for retirees (Medicare, Social Security), and
- A failure to balance the budget, the plan’s ostensible goal.

Thank you, that was an interesting read. Lord knows I need all the help I can get on anything economics-related. Is it normal for a budget to contain so few details?

chemvictim wrote:Thank you, that was an interesting read. Lord knows I need all the help I can get on anything economics-related. Is it normal for a budget to contain so few details?

Sorry it took so long to respond - I try not to spend much weekend time on the internet.

Anyway, budgets are where details live. That's why I said that this is a political document - budgets are documents for governing, but the Ryan plan is a document that declares a need for getting out of the governing business but is sketchy on how that is to be done. Many in this country, and perchance even some who post on this thread, are all for the government getting out of the governing business, but if that is what is to happen then there needs to be some detail behind the disengagement process, not to mention the expected end result. That is the only way that We The People can decide whether this is what we really want to do.

coynedj wrote:Sorry it took so long to respond - I try not to spend much weekend time on the internet.

Anyway, budgets are where details live. That's why I said that this is a political document - budgets are documents for governing, but the Ryan plan is a document that declares a need for getting out of the governing business but is sketchy on how that is to be done. Many in this country, and perchance even some who post on this thread, are all for the government getting out of the governing business, but if that is what is to happen then there needs to be some detail behind the disengagement process, not to mention the expected end result. That is the only way that We The People can decide whether this is what we really want to do.

Very nice answer, thanks for your budget analysis and perceptive comments!

Romney may have F-ed up big time. Not that I disagree with what he was caught saying, but you just don't say that. It looks bad to the majority of voters.

kylemittskus wrote:Romney may have F-ed up big time. Not that I disagree with what he was caught saying, but you just don't say that. It looks bad to the majority of voters.

what did he say?

NM, found it. Wow, that kinda drives home my whole theory about he's the real life Gary Callahan

bhodilee wrote:what did he say?

I actually do disagree with what he was caught saying, and also the super crappy tone he took when he said it. Basically he let his rich friends know what he thinks of the rest of us.

He basically said that Obama has 47% of the vote wrapped up because 47% don't pay income taxes, don't want to take personal responsibility, and don't want to care for themselves. He, Romney, will ignore that 47% because he has no shot in hell of getting their vote. He will work toward getting that small percentage of independent voters who vote on emotion.

It's just plain obnoxious. I know plenty of Romney enthusiasts (or actually anti-Obamites) from back home who fall squarely into that little-or-no-income tax bit because they're either super old or super poor, or both. On the other hand, most of my friends who are middle to upper-middle class are supporting Obama. I'm not as rich as Romney (understatement of the year) but I'd be happy to compare the percentage of my income which goes to federal income tax versus his.

The whole thing was delivered in this tone that you have to hear to believe. Very insulting. Google Romney secret video.

bhodilee wrote:what did he say?

NM, found it. Wow, that kinda drives home my whole theory about he's the real life Gary Callahan

Are you sure that's not Obama?

MarkDaSpark wrote:Are you sure that's not Obama?

Could be, but Obama hides it well. Romney is just an actual bad person. He'd sell this whole country for five bucks. I don't like Obama, I really don't, but I just cannot get over the creeps every time I see Romney do anything.

chemvictim wrote:I actually do disagree with what he was caught saying, and also the super crappy tone he took when he said it. Basically he let his rich friends know what he thinks of the rest of us.

He basically said that Obama has 47% of the vote wrapped up because 47% don't pay income taxes, don't want to take personal responsibility, and don't want to care for themselves. He, Romney, will ignore that 47% because he has no shot in hell of getting their vote. He will work toward getting that small percentage of independent voters who vote on emotion.

It's just plain obnoxious. I know plenty of Romney enthusiasts (or actually anti-Obamites) from back home who fall squarely into that little-or-no-income tax bit because they're either super old or super poor, or both. On the other hand, most of my friends who are middle to upper-middle class are supporting Obama. I'm not as rich as Romney (understatement of the year) but I'd be happy to compare the percentage of my income which goes to federal income tax versus his.

The whole thing was delivered in this tone that you have to hear to believe. Very insulting. Google Romney secret video.

How is this any different from Barry's "bitter clingers" remark?

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.

bhodilee wrote:Could be, but Obama hides it well. Romney is just an actual bad person. He'd sell this whole country for five bucks. I don't like Obama, I really don't, but I just cannot get over the creeps every time I see Romney do anything.

The more I hear about Romney as a person -- how dedicated he is to charity, to helping his fellow man -- the more I cannot help but disagree with you. The guy is basically a saint, regardless of how he did or will govern. When is the last time Obama actually helped anybody? Oh wait, never.

PetiteSirah wrote:The more I hear about Romney as a person -- how dedicated he is to charity, to helping his fellow man -- the more I cannot help but disagree with you. The guy is basically a saint, regardless of how he did or will govern. When is the last time Obama actually helped anybody? Oh wait, never.

Helping them if they have a Roth? Hanging tax write off benefits isn't exactly my idea of helping. Helping for selfish reasons maybe.

Maybe I'm wrong and he's not as bad as his condescending looks and barely concealed sneers lead me to believe. He's not getting elected anyway.

Maybe Ryan in four years?

bhodilee wrote:Maybe Ryan in four years?

OhdearGodno

Pinko liberal commie job stuff

bhodilee wrote:Pinko liberal commie job stuff

PetiteSirah wrote:

What your graphic fails to mention (purposefully) is that he inherited a 7.8% rate. So he may have spent a lot of time at 8%+ but he was basically handed that to start.

bhodilee wrote:What your graphic fails to mention (purposefully) is that he inherited a 7.8% rate. So he may have spent a lot of time at 8%+ but he was basically handed that to start.

But he promised to bring it down by now, and he hasn't.

MarkDaSpark wrote:But he promised to bring it down by now, and he hasn't.

He also promised me a pony.

MarkDaSpark wrote:But he promised to bring it down by now, and he hasn't.

Of course he did! They all do. But I don't think it's fair to blame Obama for the poor world economy which is inherently going to affect the US economy. It's not like Obama is intentionally keeping jobs away from Americans. The economy sucks. No one has a simple answer as to how to fix it, Romney included. I'm still not convinced that Romney can do any better. I'm still really torn. I change my mind daily.

bhodilee wrote:What your graphic fails to mention (purposefully) is that he inherited a 7.8% rate. So he may have spent a lot of time at 8%+ but he was basically handed that to start.

More importantly, it starts after WWII!

PS - I'm not sure if I agree with your equating tithing with charity. I seem to be shifting generally towards the belief that there shouldn't be many tax exempt entities (be it religion, art, hospitals, etc.). Unexcited by what end dollars go for after staff & fundraising efforts.

Romney would have been better served by saying he was not trying to pull Obama supporters rather than saying he wasn't trying to win over any the 47% who do not pay income tax. He already holds some % of those in his constituency. If I have to guess, it represents a signficant portion of both candidates' voter bases.

canonizer wrote:More importantly, it starts after WWII!

PS - I'm not sure if I agree with your equating tithing with charity. I seem to be shifting generally towards the belief that there shouldn't be many tax exempt entities (be it religion, art, hospitals, etc.). Unexcited by what end dollars go for after staff & fundraising efforts.

Romney would have been better served by saying he was not trying to pull Obama supporters rather than saying he wasn't trying to win over any the 47% who do not pay income tax. He already holds some % of those in his constituency. If I have to guess, it represents a signficant portion of both candidates' voter bases.

It seems to me that tithing is more of a membership fee than charity. But I guess if it's your money you can call it whatever you want!

kylemittskus wrote:Romney may have F-ed up big time. Not that I disagree with what he was caught saying, but you just don't say that. It looks bad to the majority of voters.

Dive bombing with a topical funny.

While Romney can still win the election, his time is running short and his opportunities few. His greatest opportunity is the debates, but with the first debate only two weeks away and more clips from the unfortunate fund-raiser talk still to come, it’s hard to imagine that he won’t spend that first debate doing anything other than defending himself. That’s not how one overcomes a deficit in the polls.

I can’t imagine how this video can be realistically spun as anything but a disaster for Romney.

coynedj wrote:While Romney can still win the election, his time is running short and his opportunities few. His greatest opportunity is the debates, but with the first debate only two weeks away and more clips from the unfortunate fund-raiser talk still to come, it’s hard to imagine that he won’t spend that first debate doing anything other than defending himself. That’s not how one overcomes a deficit in the polls.

I can’t imagine how this video can be realistically spun as anything but a disaster for Romney.

He hasn't, thus far, addressed the comments made specifically. He's only said "context matters" in so many words and has requested the entire tape be released. He F-ed up BIG.

kylemittskus wrote:He hasn't, thus far, addressed the comments made specifically. He's only said "context matters" in so many words and has requested the entire tape be released. He F-ed up BIG.

Part 1
Part 2

Not sure how big a gap between the two pieces...

mother wrote:Part 1
Part 2

Not sure how big a gap between the two pieces...

I don't think this will end up hurting Romney terribly. Voter memory is about 6 seconds, goldfish territory. There will be posturing at the debates and some big ad spends in the next month.

mother wrote:Part 1
Part 2

Not sure how big a gap between the two pieces...

There's supposed to be a 1 to 2 minute "accidental" gap.

Makes it more suspicious when you read that Mother Jones and the writer initially denied that there was a gap.

MarkDaSpark wrote:There's supposed to be a 1 to 2 minute "accidental" gap.

Makes it more suspicious when you read that Mother Jones and the writer initially denied that there was a gap.

Mother Jones has published what they call a full transcript. I haven't had time to read it yet, but there's a lot in there. It will be interesting to read, 'cause I think it will give us a better sense of the man. It could actually work in his favor, if he's not being a jerk through the entire thing.

chemvictim wrote:Mother Jones has published what they call a full transcript. I haven't had time to read it yet, but there's a lot in there. It will be interesting to read, 'cause I think it will give us a better sense of the man. It could actually work in his favor, if he's not being a jerk through the entire thing.

Except where did they get this "full" transcript. The story is that whoever was filming, "accidentally" stopped for 1 to 2 minutes before they "re-started" it.

So for them to claim they have a "full" transcript, why haven't they posted the video in full?