|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
posted October 13, 2012 06:21 PM |
|
|
It's funny to me that Democrats get all bent out of shape whenever a Republican mentions Kennedy, a president Democrats still continue to idolize. Here's an interesting quotation by John F. Kennedy I recently came across:
Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget — just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits. Surely the lesson of the last decade is that budget deficits are not caused by wild-eyed spenders but by slow economic growth and periodic recessions, and any new recession would break all deficit records.
In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.
--John F. Kennedy, Address to the Economic Club of New York, ddelivered 14 December 1962
Reading that, what political party do you think JFK would belong to if he was still alive today?
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
GunFred
Supreme Hero
Sexy Manticore
|
|
posted October 13, 2012 08:35 PM |
|
|
|
Is it not pretty much the same with Ronald Reagan?
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted October 13, 2012 09:37 PM |
|
|
Depends on what context the quote actually is based on. Just looking at it, its possible to create really many agendas based on it, each with little to no overlap.
I can't help but to feel that almost none of the aware people in either party wants to support it, but because its one of the 2 parties, it must be supported, otherwise the opposition will win, but because of the system: Who wins is irrelevant.
So if Kennedy wanted to be unrealistic, what party would he actually have joined? Or Regan for that matter? Neither of them would have support the Dems or the Reps.
____________
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted October 14, 2012 07:31 AM |
|
|
Kennedy was a politician while the arms race with the USSR was steadily gaining ground and the defense budget kept going up with it. He was especially critical of this because defense spending doesn't offer any economic boon other than the jobs created through it, and that's a hollow factor because jobs can be created anywhere, anyhow. Eisenhower (R) reflected on this in even stronger terms a decade earlier when he said something to the effect of "every bomb we build is a robbery from the citizens and the poor."
The ideological composition of the parties was quite different 50 years ago than it is today and I'm not entirely sure what their big debating points were, although I do know that Democrats were the ones that had the reputation of warmongers, but that became muddled when they also were more aggressive with hopping on the bandwagon of the civil rights movement. That gave them a stranglehold over minority votes that still lasts today. But when people reflect back on big party names from decades in the past, it really is questionable where they would stand today. Titles have power though, and Kennedy did have a 'D' next to his name.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted October 17, 2012 05:24 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 05:36, 17 Oct 2012.
|
Thoughts on tonight's debate:
Obviously, the biggest difference between this debate and the last was that Obama had a heartbeat. I think also the town hall format is a better fit to Obama's speaking style, so he had something of a home court advantage. Given the fact that Obama put up a fight this time, I think it's obvious that the outcome will be heavily spun by media outlets as an Obama victory.
On the economic issues I continue to be impressed by Mitt Romney. I'm an independent and an undecided (although not an undecided between Romney and Obama, mostly as an undecided between Romney and 3rd party). However I find that most of his positions make a lot of sense to me. He also debates economic policy well, aided perhaps by the fact that all Obama can do is defend an awful position. In addition, some of Obama's positions here were downright perplexing. One example was his answer to the direct question of gas prices, in which he said (paraphrasing) that the gas prices were ~$1.80/gal 4 years ago and over 4 bucks a gallon now because of the state of the economy. How exactly does a weaker economy translate into less gas prices? And Obama also straight up said that under Romney the gas prices might go down because the economy would weaken? I was like, "What?" More and more I become convinced that Obama couldn't run a lemonade stand, let alone a nation's budget. On ecomonic issues, therefore, I think again Romney was a clear victor here, although it was a harder fought battle than in the first debate.
That said, on some of the non-economic issues Romney had a number of missteps. He butted in during the discussion of immigration to talk about investments in China - misstep. The big misstep in the discussion of the Libya bombing was very surprising and made Romney look woefully uninformed - doubly surprising because the Obama administration's mishandling of this debacle should have been a big weakness for him to exploit. Romney's pressing the issue of what Obama did or did not say in the Rose Garden speech was ill-advised and is probably the key moment that Democrats will hang upon when declaring victory - even though the spirit of what Romney was arguing was correct even if the letter of what he was arguing wasn't. Just a clumsy effort there by Mitt and quite a missed opportunity. THe discussion on immigration was a bit of a wash I think - Romney pushed Obama on his failed promise to pass a bill within 1 year of being elected, but he squirmed a bit awkwardly on his "selective deportation comment". Romney's "concluding statement" was also a bit of a misstep - he forced himself to be cut off for time, therefore he didn't end with a nice ringing message.
Obama had some missteps late in the match as well, particularly when he started rambling about education in the gun rights discussion.
Overall I think both candidates played a lot to their respective bases and didn't vie much for the middle ground. It was a tense debate, not cordial at all; as an independent I felt a bit awkward at times and I imagine a lot of the people in the audience did as well. I've no doubt it will be spun as a clear Obama victory, and overall it may have been so, if nothing else by comparison to his earlier drumming in debate #1. In actuality I think given Romney's strong performance in the economic arena, he probably in the end stands the most chance of gaining independent votes from this debate, because this is the issue most independents really care about. I cautiously give Obama a tactical victory because of some Romney missteps and a more forceful performance (which will enthuse the democratic base), but a slight strategic victory to Romney because he manages to keep the ship going in the same direction it did after the first debate, albeit perhaps at a slower velocity.
But I will say that Romney better study up on his foreign policy, because if he handles the Libya fiasco as poorly in the next debate as he did today, it'll be bad for him. He was lucky that they only spent about 10 minutes on the topic of Libya tonight and that the "Rose Garden Moment" was swept quickly aside for a new topic.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
friendofgunnar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
able to speed up time
|
|
posted October 17, 2012 06:14 AM |
|
|
Quote:
One example was his answer to the direct question of gas prices, in which he said (paraphrasing) that the gas prices were ~$1.80/gal 4 years ago and over 4 bucks a gallon now because of the state of the economy. How exactly does a weaker economy translate into less gas prices?
I was driving for a living back 4 years ago when the economy tanked. One thing I remember very clearly is that my job suddenly became a lot easier because traffic dropped between 20% and 40%. A lot of big businesses (banking for example) folded, taking with them many subsidiary jobs as well. It wasn't just the extra commuters however that were absent, weekend traffic dropped off as well because the recession killed off a lot of discretionary spending. Weekend outings, entertainment, dining, etc... I can't remember the price of gas then (because I wasn't paying for it) but if it was less it would be because the supply remained stable while the demand became greatly reduced.
In fact now that I think about I remember reading articles about the Saudis reducing supply in the few years afterward to bring the price back up.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted October 17, 2012 06:41 AM |
|
|
The point is he was trying to convince us that we're better off now with higher gas prices because the economy is (supposedly) better. And we better watch out, because if we elect Romney, the economy will get worse against, and we'll all pay for it with much lower gas prices.
The whole line of argument made no sense on any level, and even if it did, why would you tell people that if you vote for the other guy, gas prices will go down. If you're going to give a nonsensical argument, at least give one that makes it look like people should vote for you!
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted October 17, 2012 02:55 PM |
|
|
|
I highly doubt Candy Crowley will ever moderate anything again (Then again, how often do people moderate?).
|
|
violent_flower
Promising
Supreme Hero
Almost there.
|
|
posted October 17, 2012 04:11 PM |
|
|
I would like to see a Presidential debate done like a uninterrupted 30 minute infomercial followed by 10 minute uninterrupted rebuttals, followed by 5 min closing argument.
Way more informative than this Judge Judy/Jerry Springer crap they produce now. But that is not conducive to the false dichotomy two party system. Oh and I would like to see gold bricks fall out my a##, while I am wishing for things that will never happen anytime soon.
____________
Learn how to duck and weave because I will throw truth at you all day!
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted October 17, 2012 04:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I highly doubt Candy Crowley will ever moderate anything again (Then again, how often do people moderate?).
Agreed - she was awful and, it seemed to me, fairly biased. Regardless of the truth of the rose garden statement, she shouldn't have jumped in and played fact checker. That wasn't her role.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted October 17, 2012 06:15 PM |
|
|
Obama did great in this debate, he was more his charismatic self and sharp.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted October 17, 2012 06:28 PM |
|
Edited by markkur at 18:29, 17 Oct 2012.
|
@ Corribus
Interesting read from JFK.
To think he could write this at that time and yet the Gov. then had not yet met the 1st wave of Boomers that would make this assessment all the more important.
An aside: JFK was long-gone when the Boomers and that era's prosperity retired/some-still-retiring, after that, also in stages; our post WWII industrial-economic-baseline moved/still-moves overseas. Both have reduced the economic strength (including healthy tax-revenue) of our middle-class. Since our Government's lack of interest in our porous borders makes zero sense, I have come to believe that "the need for more tax revenues" is the driving-force that unites both parties to ignore the people. <imo> All of the give-aways. i.e free maternity care and automatic-citizenship, college, providing documents & services in Spanish, etc. have all been efforts to replace serious losses from the middle.
Quote:
Reading that, what political party do you think JFK would belong to if he was still alive today?
Do you think he could even run now, with the intensified mud-slinging and negative approach to campaigning? Anyway, about which Party, I think he would still follow his father's directions as he often did then...Democrat all the way.
Btw, since you're an avid reader and can tolerate politics , I think you might enjoy an unusual book I just finished about leadership and mental-health. It's called "A First-Rate Madness" and covers several historical figures including JFK, Hitler, Nixon, Bush, Churchill and others.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted October 17, 2012 09:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I highly doubt Candy Crowley will ever moderate anything again (Then again, how often do people moderate?).
Agreed - she was awful and, it seemed to me, fairly biased. Regardless of the truth of the rose garden statement, she shouldn't have jumped in and played fact checker. That wasn't her role.
Yep, she could not hide her bias, it seems. She now admits Romney was correct.
Clicky
____________
Revelation
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted October 18, 2012 12:41 AM |
|
|
I really want to know what 'loopholes' and such they plan on closing that will pay for the tax break Mitt is suggesting. They keep saying it is revenue neutral, but basically keep saying 'you have to wait till Mitt is president, then MAYBE we will tell you'. Personally I don't think they have it figured out, won't figure it out, and the deficit will balloon like crazy. *shrugs*
Neither has my vote though. Think I will vote for Arnold 2012. Maybe a 'wasted' vote..but hey so is either side right now..so *shrugs*
____________
Message received.
|
|
friendofgunnar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
able to speed up time
|
|
posted October 18, 2012 08:16 AM |
|
|
lol, file this one under "Americans are morons". How embarrassing 
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted October 19, 2012 01:14 AM |
|
|
Romney now leads Obama by 7% in Gallup's likely voter poll and leads in projected electoral votes. It is all over but the crying for dems.  I expect him to build the lead and have a rather significant victory on election day. And of course the GOP will gain control of the Senate.
Clicky
Quote:
Mitt Romney's national lead over President Obama grew even more Thursday, with the latest Gallup survey showing the Republican nominee up 7 points -- as polling in the battlegrounds indicates the electoral map may be shifting in Romney's favor.
In a significant development, the RealClearPolitics electoral map, which offers predictions of which states favor which candidates, for the first time is showing Romney ahead in terms of electoral votes he is likely to win on Nov. 6.
Obama had a big advantage over Romney for months in those projections. But in the past few weeks, states thought to favor Obama like New Hampshire and Pennsylvania were moved into the "toss-up" column. Meanwhile, RCP just moved North Carolina from "toss up" to "leans Romney." The projections -- while subject to change any time of any day -- show Romney with a likely 206 electoral votes and Obama with 201. That leaves another 131 electoral votes up for grabs in the battlegrounds.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted October 19, 2012 01:45 AM |
|
|
The electoral college projection is done by RealClearPolitics, which has a definite conservative bias; don't know how much weight I'd put on it. Even so, I've seen recently that Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, previously two pretty solid coins in Obama's pocket, are now in a dead heat and trending GOP. Gallup Poll is also something, since it's pretty respected as non-biased.
Overall I think it's becoming clear from the debates that no matter what you think of Romney's plan for the economy, Obama has no real plan at all. I think that's really weighing on independents and undecideds like myself and that's why the electoral landscape is changing drastically over the last few weeks. This is why, for all of Romney's goofs the other night, I still think he subtly won the 2nd debate. I mean, when all the Obama campaign can do is make fun of a "binder of women" statement, you know the well of ideas is pretty dry. Had Romney done anything at all over the last eight months, I think this election would be a lot less close than it is.
Too bad I live in Illinois where my vote doesn't count for squat.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 19, 2012 04:10 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 16:11, 19 Oct 2012.
|
Quote:
Too bad I live in Illinois where my vote doesn't count for squat.
Don't you think that is a problem with the American electoral system?
We're working with the election in school and my classmates were shocked when they got to learn about the electoral system. Some even called it undemocratic as everybodys' votes don't have the same value and the votes of a large bunch of a state's population are ignored (but also because of the two-party system which they see as one step away from a dictatorship)
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted October 19, 2012 07:53 PM |
|
|
Don't you mean one step away from a total bureaucracy? Muhahahhaa
____________
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted October 20, 2012 10:30 AM |
|
|
I'm sure you will find some other voter's poll, where Obama leads by 7%
Even though I am pretty sure, a guy like Obama is better for the whole nation, containing ALL people from all classes, I also think a guy like Romney should get the chance to lead a nation like a business company, so all you "I, ME, MINE" guys will face the result of the work of a guy who ONLY looks for numbers and results (shareholder value anyone?  ).
A nation isn't a company, and you can't lead it like one!
A company just fires some employees if the numbers aren't correct, let'S see how Romney will act if those numbers aren't correct.
Just look back how some of the biggest companies in the world fought through the last financial crises. They (besides other things of course) just reduced the numbers of their employees, because those are the biggest costs in a company.
Quarters like the Bronx, Harlem etc... will again look like in the 70ies with Romney, I bet
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
