RS Piece on Michelle Bachmann

[danwismar]

No argument from here that Bachmann is a less than inspiring candidate, or that we have a system that drives quality people away from presidential politics. I was just responding to the statement that 2012 would be the "final nail in the GOP coffin" or whatever it was, which I found slightly hilarious and/or baffling.

I realize that the candidate matters, but let's face it, we elect a governing philosophy as much as we elect an individual. There are only two ways for us to pull the country out of the debt and entitlement mess we're in: through entitlement reform (including public sector employee compensation reform)....and through private sector economic growth (the only kind of economic growth there is)

As far as I can see only one of our two national political parties takes either problem even remotely seriously at the moment. I will not support a candidate of either party who doesn't get that, and commit to working toward a solution. The problem is that the solutions are painful and they are political poison. The GOP is at least talking a good game, though it remains to be seen if they'll have the political courage to persist. Color me skeptical, but the alternative is putting a gun to the country's head.

[jerryroche]

"Her debate performance in New Hampshire made many in the public and the media take her candidacy seriously for the first time. Here was a woman with more depth, clarity and strength of conviction than portrayed in selective soundbites. And the shockwaves were palpable. But for every force, there is an equal and opposite force, and Bachmann’s detractors are now more vicious in their ridicule….I also know enough to know that Michele Bachmann has been underestimated and treated unfairly by the mainstream press."
—Mark McKinnon on the liberal-leaning http://www.thedailybeast.com

Just trying to bring some balance to this thread, people. IMO, there are better presidential candidates out there than Bachmann, but I've been appalled by the vicious comments coming from the mainstream media ... not to mention some of the idle labels being thrown around here. She is a flaming conservative with strong religious convictions. That does not make her crazy or even unbalanced. She is a viable candidate whose words are striking the right chords among many voters who are upset with the country's current direction -- and who are now in the majority.

[mattvan1]

No argument from here that Bachmann is a less than inspiring candidate, or that we have a system that drives quality people away from presidential politics. I was just responding to the statement that 2012 would be the "final nail in the GOP coffin" or whatever it was, which I found slightly hilarious and/or baffling.

I realize that the candidate matters, but let's face it, we elect a governing philosophy as much as we elect an individual. There are only two ways for us to pull the country out of the debt and entitlement mess we're in: through entitlement reform (including public sector employee compensation reform)....and through private sector economic growth (the only kind of economic growth there is)

As far as I can see only one of our two national political parties takes either problem even remotely seriously at the moment. I will not support a candidate of either party who doesn't get that, and commit to working toward a solution. The problem is that the solutions are painful and they are political poison. The GOP is at least talking a good game, though it remains to be seen if they'll have the political courage to persist. Color me skeptical, but the alternative is putting a gun to the country's head.

Still pissed at the "supports Pryor" remark?

Ok, so I'll re-phrase "just might be the final nail in the coffin of the ideals for which the GOP once stood." Tea Party candidates are in the process of fracturing the party, which desperately needs leadership and some type of unification. There is no consensus, no platform, no shared vision. There are a large number of disaffected voters who are crying out in desperation for a viable alternative to policies of President Obama.

And they get Michelle Bachmann? Really?

[HoodooMan]

I realize that the candidate matters, but let's face it, we elect a governing philosophy as much as we elect an individual. There are only two ways for us to pull the country out of the debt and entitlement mess we're in: through entitlement reform (including public sector employee compensation reform)....and through private sector economic growth (the only kind of economic growth there is)

As far as I can see only one of our two national political parties takes either problem even remotely seriously at the moment. I will not support a candidate of either party who doesn't get that, and commit to working toward a solution. The problem is that the solutions are painful and they are political poison. The GOP is at least talking a good game, though it remains to be seen if they'll have the political courage to persist. Color me skeptical, but the alternative is putting a gun to the country's head.

Ever read this: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12085/03-10-ReducingTheDeficit.pdf by chance? There's a third and pretty essential way to make the numbers work.

Any serious solution includes increasing tax revenues, just as the bipartisan debt commission recommended (ETA: before it unraveled into partisanship, that is). There isn't anything serious about the GOP's refusal to entertain that notion at the moment.

[Orenthal]

^Especially when some of those revenue increases would come from killing wasteful pet projects such as ethanol. I'm sure alot could be saved that is just being thrown into a pit, with no increase in marginal rates.

Funny how everyone cries waste waste waste, fucking politicians.

[danwismar]

What seems to be getting lost in the discussion of ways to climb out of the mess is that we are way beyond the point where taxing rich people more can even approach the problem. You could confiscate 100% of the wealth of every billionaire in the country and not balance the budget for one year. You could tax every wage earner who makes more than $250,000 at 100% and not balance the budget for one year.

The administration is proposing $600 billion in tax increases over 10 years. Some of it is in areas most of us can all agree with....cutting ethanol subsidies and other corporate welfare of various types. And I get the fact that any increased revenue helps solve the problem....but a proposal that averages 60 billion a year in additional revenue is not a serious approach to an annual deficit that is 25 times that size.

And that's using a static analysis...one that assumes high earners will behave the same way, and claim the same amount of income at a higher tax rate as they did at a lower rate...and we know that won't happen. The point is that a higher tax rate on small businesses (a healthy percentage of the 250K and over "rich" that Obama wants to further tax) is not only not a long term solution to the problem of slow growth and high unemployment, but it is a step in the opposite direction....60 billion or no 60 billion.

Add in the uncertainty caused by ideologically-based regulation from NLRB and EPA and other Obama agencies, and you'll continue to have entrepreneurs and other wealth-creators sitting on their dollars.

[motherscratcher]

Logans Run

Problem solved.

[HoodooMan]

What seems to be getting lost in the discussion of ways to climb out of the mess is that we are way beyond the point where taxing rich people more can even approach the problem. You could confiscate 100% of the wealth of every billionaire in the country and not balance the budget for one year. You could tax every wage earner who makes more than $250,000 at 100% and not balance the budget for one year.

The administration is proposing $600 billion in tax increases over 10 years. Some of it is in areas most of us can all agree with....cutting ethanol subsidies and other corporate welfare of various types. And I get the fact that any increased revenue helps solve the problem....but a proposal that averages 60 billion a year in additional revenue is not a serious approach to an annual deficit that is 25 times that size.

1) I said "includes." And when you have a $7 trillion problem that becomes a $10+ trillion problem merely by extending the Bush tax cuts, and when you look at the projected savings of the CBO's 105 deficit reducing options, it's pretty clear tax increases have to be among them.

2) The CBO's report covers far more options than simply taxing rich people. My statement that the GOP is not being serious was not meant to imply that Democrats are.

[jerryroche]

I think everyone agrees that the current income tax situation is not only unfair (by anyone's standards) but also totally screwed up.

What say we throw out income tax, disband the IRS, and go to a consumption ("flat," "value-added" or "VAT") tax. Them what has, spends; them what spends, pays a 17-23% sales tax -- on everything from mansions to Trojans.

And no -- no VAT on top of income tax. That would throw the economy into a total nosedive.

A consumption tax would not solve the nation's economic woes (which are spending-based, NOT revenue-based). But it would be a fair start, and there would be no hue and cry from liberals about "taxing the rich."

[danwismar]

My problem is with the complete lack of White House leadership in addressing the problem...whether it is a serious response to the CBO report...or the deficit commission recommendations (which they have largely ignored since they called for entitlement reforms). There is barely an acknowledgment that annual deficits of a trillion and a half, projected out now till the end of the decade, are even a problem.

Their election strategy for 2012 is now clear, as Pelosi said the other day. "It's Medicare, Medicare, and Medicare".

That is to say, they will demagogue and lie and sow fear among seniors about the evil Republicans planning to push Granny off a cliff in her wheelchair (the ads are already running...and this is no exaggeration) although even the most radical GOP proposal (Ryan) changes nothing for current seniors or anyone currently 55 or older, and in incremental in its implementation, starting in ten years. They have no alternative plan to reform a system that will be broke in eight years...or I should say their alternative is full implementation of the wildly unpopular Obamacare plan, which will explode costs and necessarily ration care.

James Capretta on the Medicare train wreck: http://bit.ly/ioNS9F

Washington Post FactChecker on Dem fearmongering http://wapo.st/kiBHf5

George Will on IPAB: http://wapo.st/jZB4tS

[HoodooMan]

That is to say, they will demagogue and lie and sow fear among seniors about the evil Republicans planning to push Granny off a cliff in her wheelchair (the ads are already running...and this is no exaggeration) although even the most radical GOP proposal (Ryan)...

I haven't read the CBO's report on Ryan's plan, but seeing that mandatory spending options #18-24 in the CBO report I linked above (all the options related to cutting Medicare, and I wouldn't necessarily consider all of them reasonable) total a mere $569 billion in savings over 10 years, I have a difficult time believing that a deficit-reduction plan centered on Medicare reform (as Ryan's is supposed to be, no?) doesn't involve some pretty radical slashing and perhaps justify some of the fearmongering.

[HoodooMan]

So a couple pages in, I understand we're effectively privatizing Medicare (with premium support payments!!!), repealing recent health care legislation, and the real doozy...

The proposal would also make changes to other aspects of the federal budget. Social
Security would not be altered by the proposal; spending on that program is projected
to be relatively stable as a share of GDP from 2030 forward. The proposal specifies a
path for all other spending (excluding interest) that would cause such spending to
decline sharply as a share of GDP—from 12 percent in 2010 to 6 percent in 2022 and
3½ percent by 2050; the proposal does not specify the changes to government pro-
grams that might be made in order to produce that path.

Awesome.

Sure, that's reasonable.

[danwismar]

What the Ryan plan does is incrementally convert the plan to a defined contribution plan from a defined benefit plan....and eventually block-grant medicare to the states, where they can work out their own efficiencies and reforms and competitiveness at the state level. (much like the successful and relatively efficient medicare Drug plan has).

Dems are promoting the lie that the Ryan plan "cuts" Medicare, when in reality, it is Obamacare implementation that proposes to pay for itself...or at least keep it's proposed costs under a trillion dollars (which has since been exposed as a cruel joke)....by cutting Medicare spending by $500 billion. Ryan's plan proposes no such thing. The Obamacare proposed Medicare cuts are cynical at best because every legislated Medicare cut in history has been rescinded at the last moment by Congress because they are politically poisonous...and this one will be too

The Ryan plan would provide a "premium support" (call it a voucher if you like) which would be used to pay the individual's premium for a health insurance plan, either from an independent insurance company, or from a government run plan. Cost would be based on a sliding scale based on the individual's ability to pay, and would be based on a government-established minimum standard of care. If you want a better plan, you pay the increased premium yourself.

My understanding is that, like prescription plans, there would be some individual "skin in the game", in the way of minimums, co-pays, etc. We use health care much more carefully and efficiently if we have some out-of-pocket costs for a doctor's office visit. We don't run to the emergency room with a cough if we know it's going to cost us $10-20.

I would not go so far as to say that the Ryan proposal is mostly oriented around Medicare. It's much more far-reaching than that. There are several articles that have much more detail at this link:

http://www.delicious.com/dwismar/paulryan

See also:

http://www.delicious.com/dwismar/medicare

http://www.delicious.com/dwismar/healthcare

http://www.delicious.com/dwismar/obamacare

To me, it's not about standing firm behind the Ryan proposals. Opinion in conservative circles is all over the board about his plan...some think it is not aggressive enough because it doesn't go into effect for ten years, and the Medicare trust fund is currently on target to be broke by 2019. Others think it's too much too soon...and hence "unconservative".

But it's a serious proposal, and one worthy of discussion and debate...or an alternative proposal perhaps?....not one that should be responded to with demagoguery and fear-mongering.

People who are saying that the Ryan plan will "end Medicare as we know it" are absolutely right. But Medicare as we know it will be ending one way or the other anyway....and soon. It is headed off the edge of the cliff at high speed.

[danwismar]

Sure, that's reasonable.

We all breathlessly await the Democrats' alternative plan to save Medicare from insolvency. That's the point. There is none.

[HoodooMan]

1) I was responding specifically to Ryan's proposed 50% spending cuts, and then later 50% cuts on those cuts, of course conveniently without laying out what he's cutting.

2) You present a false choice. There are ways to reasonably rein in Medicare spending and the national deficit (as outlined in the CBO report) that don't kill Medicare. Republicans acting like killing Medicare is a real option is as radical and ridiculous as it would be for Democrats to propose killing the defense department and pretending that's the only way to balance the budget.

[HoodooMan]

Actually, you know, maybe that isn't such a bad idea!!!

We live in a world that's increasingly more and more violent, which is sure to send defense costs spiraling out of control in future generations, and if we don't have a department of defense, we won't have to worry about that. Of course, we won't completely kill the defense department. We'll just privatize it!

We'll pay "defense support payments" to organizations like Blackwater, maybe offer tax rebates to US citizens purchasing their own AR-15s. And what's really great about this proposal is that a good chunk of my constituents happen to be wealthy, so they could conceivably afford to defend themselves or flee the country in the event of an invasion and thus are only minimally impacted by the downsides of the proposal.

Now, I don't expect everyone to stand firmly behind The Hoodoo Plan--opinion in liberal circles is all over the board about it...some think it is not aggressive enough, others think it's too much too soon. But it's a serious proposal, and one worthy of discussion and debate...or an alternative "how to kill the defense department" proposal perhaps? Not one that should be responded to with demagoguery and fear-mongering.

(Also, my plan involves raising taxes by 50% now, then 50% more at a later date, but I won't say on who or what!!!)

[rebelwithoutaclue]

1. Democrats were proven to be vulnerable in the midterms and America every day becomes more disenchanted with their economic policies/solutions. It will be even worse for them once unemployment is still well over 9.0% in summer of next year, 3.5 years after Obama started implementing policy. Housing, the economy, and the employment situation ... none of them are getting better any time soon and could get worse.

I find it laughable that all the economic problems are still unfairly attributed to Obama. Clinton runs a yearly budget surplus, hands the reins over to Bush who spends us into oblivion and leaves the economy for Obama to pick up the pieces. The bailouts worked and without them, unemployment might be twice what it is today. The bailouts have been completely paid back and worked so well in fact, the government made money. On the sale of Citigroup alone, they made $11 billion. Not bad for a dirty socialist who had the perfect opportunity to nationalize a bank and did the exact opposite thing a socialist would do, i.e. keeping the power with the government.


The economy has finally reached a tipping point where the public realized how terribly the government had been spending money the last, oh, 40 years or so. At this point, the tax of spending cuts and tax increases is like putting a band-aid on a brain injury. No one person could fix the economy; there needs to be a collective re-evaluation of how politicians think and act and fundamentally, how government should be run.

[Orenthal]

I wonder how we ever managed without Medicare?

Why did those great Clinton surpluses never actaully reduces the debt? Is it like the Social Security lockbox? Next year Orenthal is going to run a 10,000,000 surplus.

Now I'm not mafmaticin but...
(http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/repo ... stdebt.htm)
09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86

Yes, Bush increased the debt at a faster then historic rate, but wonderboy's rate is well beyond even Bush's. Also Bush got TARP passed with HEAVY input from Obama, and still only got the first 350 million passed on his watch.

Also it is pure conjecture to think all this stimulus saved anything. You don't give a crack addict more drugs in an effort to get them to stop. Keynesian economic policy also figures at some point you pay off the accumulated debt. When first deemed an elixir for troubled times, the United States had neither the amount of accumulated debt or the unfounded future liabilities of Social Security and Medicare. It also failed for the better part of 11 years to solve the Great Depression.

[Orenthal]

BTW anyone with half a freaking brain knows this country has no revenue problem. Our problem lies in overhang and SG&A. Overhang of MASSIVE unfunded liabilities and GROSS overpending.

I call on the Republicans to nothing about the debt limit. If they do, what is the point of even having a limit. Just go ahead and make it 1 gazzzillion dollars. The United States will not default. We have more then enough revenue to service our debts, perhaps like Europe austerity can only happen once shit hits the fan. MAKE OBAMA OWN THIS. Blaming Bush was wonderful for the first year plus, but that dog ain't hunting much longer with the public.

39% approval of Obama's handling of the economy. AND WE HAVE A BACHMANN RUNNING ARRRRRRGH. I'm back with Gingrich, but how strong can any of these loons be supported. Isn't there a fiscal guy without the religion/social issue baggage. GOD CREATE ONE!


Hmmmm...
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/r ... vote=00089

Why did dem democrats vote nay to end ethanol subsidies on June 14...

[HoodooMan]

I call on the Republicans to nothing about the debt limit. If they do, what is the point of even having a limit.

Indeed, a principled stand.

What he won't mention is that in March of 2006, under President George W. Bush, when Democrats were in the senate minority, then-senator Barack Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling. So did every single one of his Democratic colleagues. The measure passed anyway, 52-48, due to near-universal Republican support.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/04/democrats_suddenly_regret_voti.html

You'd make a good Congressman, OJ.

BTW anyone with half a freaking brain knows this country has no revenue problem.

Entirely reasonable. In fact, I'm not satisfied with the amount of debt we have, and I actually think some tax cuts are in order, don't you agree?

[FUDU]

Put me in the flat tax/fair tax camp. Our system of taxation has been in need of repair/reform for a long long time. Hell the whole system is based on complete double taxation when you think about it, at least a flat/fair tax system would give a lot more power, choice and control back to the people.

[mattvan1]

Put me in the flat tax/fair tax camp. Our system of taxation has been in need of repair/reform for a long long time. Hell the whole system is based on complete double taxation when you think about it, at least a flat/fair tax system would give a lot more power, choice and control back to the people.

It (increased taxes) will come via a VAT on goods and services. Maybe not with the next administration, or even the one after that, but it will happen. We are on the road to being the UK. Only with a better dental plan.

[FUDU]

That may happen but it is still another form of double taxation (which I know will probably never be resolved). In the end US tax payers are over taxed and while there can be such a thing as saving too much on the macro level it is hard to argue over saving is bad on the micro. The level of choice and control a fair tax creates makes too much sense to not put into effect, which means it will never happen.

[swerb]

1. Democrats were proven to be vulnerable in the midterms and America every day becomes more disenchanted with their economic policies/solutions. It will be even worse for them once unemployment is still well over 9.0% in summer of next year, 3.5 years after Obama started implementing policy. Housing, the economy, and the employment situation ... none of them are getting better any time soon and could get worse.

I find it laughable that all the economic problems are still unfairly attributed to Obama. Clinton runs a yearly budget surplus, hands the reins over to Bush who spends us into oblivion and leaves the economy for Obama to pick up the pieces. The bailouts worked and without them, unemployment might be twice what it is today. The bailouts have been completely paid back and worked so well in fact, the government made money. On the sale of Citigroup alone, they made $11 billion. Not bad for a dirty socialist who had the perfect opportunity to nationalize a bank and did the exact opposite thing a socialist would do, i.e. keeping the power with the government.

The economy has finally reached a tipping point where the public realized how terribly the government had been spending money the last, oh, 40 years or so. At this point, the tax of spending cuts and tax increases is like putting a band-aid on a brain injury. No one person could fix the economy; there needs to be a collective re-evaluation of how politicians think and act and fundamentally, how government should be run.

The bank bailouts, which I agree worked, were done in 2008 under Bush. Started in March '08 (Bear Stearns collapse), and then continued later that year with the Fannie/Freddie bailout in Sept '08, the AIG and automaker bailouts right around that time, and then the 700 billion TARP bailout (unquestioned success) in Oct or Nov '08.

In early '09, Obama's handiwork was the 1.1 trillion dollar economic stimulus package. 787 billion in spending and tax cut extensions, and 275 mill towards his foreclosure prevention program, which was an unquestionable failure. Obama touted that the stimulus package would create 3.5 million jobs. Thus far, we've lost 3.3 million. The unemployment rate has climbed from 7.8% in his presidency to 9.1%, and the # will continue to climb (IMO) as more out of work people start looking for jobs again. The jobs data has gotten worse as of late, with the May #'s (unemployment rate up, worst non farm payrolls # in 9 months) downright ugly. Even worse, the statistics on "real unemployment" are really ugly when you factor in the underemployed and those no longer trying to find work. And the jobs numbers are not going to get any better. I think they'll get worse.

The other major thing Obama did was extend the first time homebuyer tax credit in late '09 in the hopes it would turn around the market, but it provided only a temporary lift to prices, sales and building. All of which has faded and reversed. His mortgage mod and foreclosure prevention programs have been a disaster. He's even pretty much admitted that.

1.1 trillion, down the drain. Absolutely nothing to show for it.

Latest Harris Poll, 74% of Americans give Obama a negative rating on his handling of jobs.

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/06/29/373582 ... -give.html

[Orenthal]

Entirely reasonable. In fact, I'm not satisfied with the amount of debt we have, and I actually think some tax cuts are in order, don't you agree?

On the Congressman point, sure the Republicans do the same stupid crap 4 years ago yet complain now. In party politics all you can do is choose the party that more closely aligns with your principals while not losing sight of individual canidates from either side. I'm not a big fan of throwing my hands up. Still have to put a guy in every 4-8 for president, 6 for senate, and 2 for congressman.

35% of GDP is Governement Revenue. Sorry, but no amount of funny will budge me off revenue being a problem. It took decades to create this debt, and its my opinion that just the act of going in the other direction (paying it down), would create a much more positive atmosphere for growth. That growth will increase revenue at the existing tax levels. Kinda like how we had the greatest federal revenue under Bush's tax cuts.

Someone somewhere has to put forth a Social Security and Medicare plan that creates a bit of pain, but fixes the long term overhang. Like getting out and running a few miles it sucks at the time, but your better for it in the long run. Fixes from both sides on that issue are fine with me. Age limit increases, means testing,privitization, reduction in payout rate, 55+ grandfathered in...

Also you can make plenty of cuts in the Defense Department. I worked there. It is no sacred cow to me, and if boner is to be believed everything is on the table.

[Orenthal]

Just for clarity Bush only invested the first $350 million of TARP. Obama got approval for the second $350 million. Bush bailed out the banks with capital investements, and Obama did mostly the same, but also bailed out the GM and Chrysler. The resuls of Bush's and Obama's bank bailout has been a huge succes if measured on ROI. Most all the banks either repaid their loans, or offered the government new equity that was then sold by Treasury at a profit.

The auto bailouts will not return a profit based on initial investment, and it is debatable if bankruptcy wouldn't have produced a leaner more flexilble corporation. I highly doubt GM or Chrysler would have liquidated, more likely they would have reorganized and shed some of their legacy costs. That again is morally debatable since those companies promised their workers those benefits for years. In the end even through my conservative prisim, I wouldn't bash Obama for bailing out the auto's. Even though my Fox and Limbaugh talking points say it was just a union bailout.

All this info can be found thru google news searches. I've done the link routes in other forums, but I'm too lazy here...

[HoodooMan]

OJ, assuming anything but an extension to the Bush tax cuts would represent a tax increase for you and that's off the table, the CBO estimates that over the next ten years we'll add another $10.2 trillion in deficits.

If the GOP plan is to hack off $10.2+ trillion from the budget over that span to get our debt under control, their end game = shitty country with low taxes.

Woo hoo.

[Orenthal]

For me? I'm willing to cut things like the ethanol subsidy. I'm even willing to look at those 100 year old tax incentives given to the oil companies. I just don't think you can raise marginal rates anymore then Reed Smoot and Willis Hawley raised tariffs in 1930.

Also the CBO is a static budget right? I'm about to plow through http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/122xx/doc122 ... ummary.pdf.

LMAO first paragraph "Consequently, the amount of federal
debt held by the public has surged. At the end of
2008, that debt equaled 40 percent of the nation’s annual
economic output (a little above the 40-year average of
37 percent). Since then, the figure has shot upward:"

[Orenthal]

That was much shorter then I first thought, and pretty feh. There is fodder for both sides of the arguement, and the baseline scenario, which looks best given (2) options (the other is the kick the can, no pain method) sees the Bush tax cuts not being extended. Yet even that scenario has deficits continuing to increase, and the debt service becoming a larger and larger % of GDP.

So even under the rosiest revenue example we still fall far short of putting a dime towards paying off the deficit. Again it isn't a revenue problem.

Either these programs are restructured or you push an even higher tax burden on everyone, cause taxing the evil rich and corporations ain't doin' it...

BTW repeal of the Bush tax cuts means the lowest marginal rate goes from 10 to 15%.

ETA
Is anyone watching the markets after each austerity vote by the Greek legislature. The markets have been on an absolute tear the past couple days. Think if our debt situation went from, upcoming crisis, to under control, we wouldn't see 10 fold economic growth and confidence???

[FUDU]

OJ while your optimism is refreshing it is also a naive pipe dream (and I mean that in that nicest way). Our debt will never be paid back in full, ever. I'm sure you've seen all the emails and what not on the Internet projecting just how long it would take to pay off our debt.

At some point in time the slate will be wiped clean, but of course with a high price to pay. This has gone far beyond partisan politics now, not suggesting you are partisan, but bottom line is the (D) or (R) in front of the future POTUS' names will have zero impact on this reality.

[Orenthal]

I don't think I ever stated paid in full, just that we stop running yearly deficits, and make even token payments on the debt. Its perception and momentum. Change the modd of the markets, get capital flowing, growth blah blah.

The naive part is thinking a politician would ever do anything that creates short term pain no matter how good it may be for the future. Evidence is in Europe and we have about a decade before we are in the boat that caused them to go austerity. So I am fully prepared for the Dem's to fear monger and the Republicans to cave. And if for some reason the Republicans stay strong they will enact sham legislation that pushes it down the road cuz they have no balls.

[Commodore Perry]

IMO, there are better presidential candidates out there than Bachmann, but I've been appalled by the vicious comments coming from the mainstream media.

This is exactly why I'm tapping out of following the 2012 election. It is going to be brutal. I'm just going to put on my iPod and think happy thoughts.

The media has gone far beyond leaning one way or another, and are plainly campaigning for Obama and against any Republican. Its because of this I think Obama is an absolute lock to be reelected in 2012. The economy can fall to pieces, but it won't matter. Wait till the stories come out about how you're racist if you don't support Obama. Watch how the media blames the economy on bush and the current congress. Watch how the Republican candidate will constantly be defending themself against biased accusations from "journalists" while the president gets fluff piece after fluff piece. Its going to be sickening.

Its not that there aren't people who won't vote for Obama, its that he only needs 50.1% of the vote, and the media can absolutely deliver that to him.

[Cerebral_DownTime]

Drive by time.

Commodore...... yer my boy, and I like you, but play the the world's smallest violin why don't you. The 'ole Republican talking point of "Waahhh the media doesn't like us they're so mean waaaahhh!". Implying that Fox News isn't part of the media and they don't show an obvious bias? they're a huge platform that is nothing but a mouthpiece for the Right. How many times did Glenn Beck go chalkboard crazy with his "Obama is a Marxist Communist Black Radical Nazi!" lunacy? That's not biased at all, that's high quality objectivity. For all you piss and moan about the media there are just as many conservative spin pieces. Talk radio is still dominated by the Right, there are numerous magazines, blogs, and newspapers that are all conservative. MSNBC is Leftist, CNN is irrelevant.

It's not the the media's fault the Sarah Palin is stupid and can't answer a question. It's not the the media's fault that Michele Bachmann is stupid and an utter religious lunatic. It's not the media's fault that the 2012 GOP field is seriously flawed.

The GOP debates are going to be a blood letting.

Newt's whole staff quit and will get hammered for his whoring around.

Romney RomneyCare. The end.

Palin is painfully stupid and a quitter. Which she'll get beaten over the head with.

Bachmann..... see above, just without the quitting part. The fact she's even being considered a serious cannidate just shows you how bad the GOP field is.

Huckabee? I don't know if he's even serious. I would guess he likes his soft job at Fox News.

Ron Paul is still Ron Paul, he's got no real shot. I like the guy because he's not a Wall St. whore like the rest of the politicans we have in this country (Dems included, Obama being one of the biggest)

Tim Pawlenty.... John Kerry Redux. The guy is like cardboard and cardboard excites no one.

John Huntsman is the dark horse. Remember when I said that about Mark Sanford?
He should probably jsut start writing his apology speech now.

I ain't voting at all in 2012, not for Obama and not for anyone else. They're all devious little frauds who would rather suck off the Big Money thugs than do what's right for the middle class. It makes my stomach turn in utter revulsion to think about participating in electing anyone from either side of the 2 party Oligarchy.


This ends the world's longest drive by. Re-shunned.

[Toxicadam]

Its not that there aren't people who won't vote for Obama, its that he only needs 50.1% of the vote, and the media can absolutely deliver that to him.

You don't need 50.1 percent of the vote, you just need to win the right states. G W Bush proved that.


I used to think the media had a left wing bias. I think it most definitely did when newspapers ruled the country. But I have come to realize that the (modern) media only has a bias towards conflict. They don't really care about the message, they just want to be there when someone (the louder the better) says something contrary and then there is a story.

So, don't pity poor Michelle Bachmann. Her rise to fame has come on the back of exploiting this very construct of our media. She was the loudest (and sometimes most ignorant) voice in opposition to +everything+ Democrats have done the past 4 years.

[jerryroche]

John Huntsman is the dark horse.

I met Jon Huntsman Jr. at the U.S. Ambassador's palatial mansion in Singapore many years ago. Shook his hand, chatted for a while at a reception for the Golf Course Superintendents of America, which was staging a Pacific Rim golf conference. Even then, he was impressive -- as a human being and a good American. (But I'm easily impressed.)

Huntsman and Mitt Romney are the only real bona fide center-right candidates being put forth by the Repubs. Romney has perception problems among likely primary voters, as CDT notes. But if Huntsman can get some publicity between now and the primaries/caucuses, he could impress a lot of voters, center-right and right alike. There's really nothing NOT to like about him.

He is, indeed, THE darkhorse candidate.

[JCoz]

Its not that there aren't people who won't vote for Obama, its that he only needs 50.1% of the vote, and the media can absolutely deliver that to him.

You don't need 50.1 percent of the vote, you just need to win the right states. G W Bush proved that.

He wasn't the first, second, or third President to win an election while losing the popular vote.

He was the fourth.

[Orenthal]

^Seleceted not elected...

/continueddemocrackery

[JCoz]

^Seleceted not elected...

/continueddemocrackery

?

House "selected" 2 of the four, Cleveland and Gore lost the same way, less electoral votes.

[Orenthal]

^TJ and JQA being those two. However, I was only continuing the lunacy of toxic's post, and the "selected" was in regards to the SCOTUS.

[exiledbuckeye]

Huntsman and Mitt Romney are the only real bona fide center-right candidates being put forth by the Repubs. Romney has perception problems among likely primary voters, as CDT notes. But if Huntsman can get some publicity between now and the primaries/caucuses, he could impress a lot of voters, center-right and right alike. There's really nothing NOT to like about him.

He is, indeed, THE darkhorse candidate.

Unfortunately, a significant portion of the voters in this country - especially the Republican base - will have a problem with the fact that Huntsman and Romney are Mormon.

[swerb]

Huntsman and Mitt Romney are the only real bona fide center-right candidates being put forth by the Repubs. Romney has perception problems among likely primary voters, as CDT notes. But if Huntsman can get some publicity between now and the primaries/caucuses, he could impress a lot of voters, center-right and right alike. There's really nothing NOT to like about him.

He is, indeed, THE darkhorse candidate.

Unfortunately, a significant portion of the voters in this country - especially the Republican base - will have a problem with the fact that Huntsman and Romney are Mormon.

That is a factor.

My mother in law, perfect example. Very religious. Very conservative. Definition of the "religious right".

Topic came up last election. Talking about the Republican candidates. Someone brings up Romney. She says "I could never vote for him, he's a member of that cult."

I tried to explain to her that all Mormon's don't have nine wives and live on compounds. She didn't want to hear it.

Couple weeks later ... had her take one of those tests where they ask you political questions and the answers you give match you up with one of the Presidential candidates. She was DEAD ON Romney. And was aghast. It was really funny.

[JJN]

I do think the Commodore is ignoring the effect of incumbency. Historically, a president only needs an approval rating in the high 40s to be a favorite for re-election. Especially with a weak field, its a lot easier to re-elect the devil you know for swing voters.

In respect to the Mormon candidates, can the Republican base get over that to run a candidate that has at least an outside shot at the Oval Office? Or do they weed them out in the primaries and put forth a palatable (read: Evangelical) candidate who Obama should be able to crush pretty easily? This election is going to be a big measuring stick as to whether the right is going to vote for someone who can win or vote ideology/religion.