2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Roy Karrde]

You bring up the bad parts of the President's past, he's going to bring up the bad parts of Romney's past. Turnabout is fair play.

Except Solyndra happened under Obama's watch, this event did not happen under Romney's watch.

Besides... If Romney is such a good job creator... I seem to remember him saying that he likes to fire people.

Yes if a company is failing, it needs to be stripped down and rebuilt from the bottom up. If nothing was wrong with the company then Bain would never have needed to step in and no one would need to be fired. But mind you in turn as the company is being rebuilt more people are highered and it becomes successful again.

And don't try to explain that, and say that there was a benign meaning to it. Saying it in ANY way is bad. NO employer should EVER like to fire people.

Context helps, Romney wasn't speaking as a employer, he was speaking as a consumer.

"“I want individuals to have their own insurance,” Romney said on Monday. “That means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy. It also means if you don’t like what they do, you can fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me.

“You know, if someone doesn’t give me a good service that I need, I want to say I’m going to go get someone else to provide that service to me.”"

If you are being provided poor service by your insurance company would you keep them around? I sure as hell wouldn't.

[Magmar]

Yes if a company is failing, it needs to be stripped down and rebuilt from the bottom up.

Hooray, finally my grad school major appears in a TPM thread! Org behavior bot here we go!

If a company is failing, what will fix it? Change--a huge element of performance management. How is change most successful? Change from the top down. Change starts with leadership change, and not necessarily turnover. Turnover is an element of change that will come naturally as those who are resistant to change (higher customer service ratings as a change initiative for example) begin to stand out and either receive poor performance reviews and fail to advance, or leave the company due to disappointment in the change initiatives. Change also takes several years but adequate performance management on its own can increase productivity and performance by a fairly reliable 25 percent, other factors (job duties, etc.) staying the same.

You can't just get rid of all the lower-level employees, start over and call it change. If nothing about the culture changes, then the things that led to employee failure are still present in the organizational culture. You can't say, "My business is failing. It is because all of my employees except me can't do their job! Exterminate! EXTERMINATE *Dalek explosion*" That model does not lead to future success and will cause old problems to reappear in the future.

And this is all just the bare bones on organizational change...

[Roy Karrde]

Hooray, finally my grad school major appears in a TPM thread! Org behavior bot here we go!

If a company is failing, what will fix it? Change--a huge element of performance management. How is change most successful? Change from the top down. Change starts with leadership change, and not necessarily turnover. Turnover is an element of change that will come naturally as those who are resistant to change (higher customer service ratings as a change initiative for example) begin to stand out and either receive poor performance reviews and fail to advance, or leave the company due to disappointment in the change initiatives. Change also takes several years but adequate performance management on its own can increase productivity and performance by a fairly reliable 25 percent, other factors (job duties, etc.) staying the same.

You can't just get rid of all the lower-level employees, start over and call it change. If nothing about the culture changes, then the things that led to employee failure are still present in the organizational culture. You can't say, "My business is failing. It is because all of my employees except me can't do their job! Exterminate! EXTERMINATE *Dalek explosion*" That model does not lead to future success and will cause old problems to reappear in the future.

And this is all just the bare bones on organizational change...

I never said you just get rid of all the low level employees, however if a company has too many low level employees and it is causing it to run at a loss, you will need to "cut the excess fat". Obviously you will get rid of those in upper management that ran the company into the ground. But you obviously cannot keep all the lower level employees, especially if many of them are not absolutely needed.

Bain Capital usually steps in when a company is at the edge of bankruptcy, where it is about to fail, as such radical changes are needed to keep such a company afloat. That includes shutting down low performing stores, trimming the workforce, firing the management, changing the business practices, reworking contracts with unions, etc etc.

Lets use the example of Domino's Pizza, a business that Bain Capital successfully helped. Now obviously you are going to get rid of the upper level management, but you are also going to look at low performing stores, stores that are in proximity of other stores, etc etc, and begin to cut the stores that are absolutely unneeded.

[Plantae]

I don't think anyone would argue that downsizing is not an occasional, necessary evil. I also agree that saying Mitt Romney "likes to fire people" is taking his comments out of context.

However, saying that he always or even generally created jobs during his time at Bain Capital would be a significant fabrication. Bain Capital's buyouts often resulted in large layoffs and entire plant closures. Oftentimes, Bain Capital's acquisitions resulted in profits for them, while the companies still went bankrupt anyway. As a head of a private equity firm, Mitt Romney's goal was most certainly creating the maximum return for investors; it was not job creation.

That's not to say that he hasn't had experience in creating jobs. Certainly his role in the success of Staples, Inc. is notable. However, I think one should be wary of touting this success while ignoring Romney's other obvious failures.

Moreover, the real question for me is Romney's motives. I don't exactly trust a man who made much of his wealth as the result of acquisitions of troubled companies. As president, would this man be adequately interested in workers' rights? It's not just whether Romney has created jobs; it's whether his model for doing so is an appropriate means of repairing the American economy, and whether his intentions are pure.

[Roy Karrde]

Moreover, the real question for me is Romney's motives. I don't exactly trust a man who made much of his wealth as the result of acquisitions of troubled companies. As president, would this man be adequately interested in workers' rights? It's not just whether Romney has created jobs; it's whether his model for doing so is an appropriate means of repairing the American economy, and whether his intentions are pure.

Well I guess that goes to the further question as to if you believe that the U.S. Government has grown so large, so wasteful, that it needs to be trimmed properly so that you it can function with out such large waste. Or if the "workers rights" of the Government is more important than taking care of the waste and excess.

Honestly one could argue that what Obama did with GM was much in the way what Romney did at Bain, cut down the company and restructure it so it could be a profitable entity. I guess that is why Obama's Car Czar in charge with GM at the time of the restructuring says that Obama's attacks on Romney's Bain past are unfair.

[Plantae]

The government has grown large and wasteful, there's no doubt about it. There's nothing wrong with restructuring, but it also requires significant changes in economic policy and government spending. But Democrats and Republicans both have their own untouchable "sacred cows" in Social Security and Defense spending, respectively. A cooperative approach to spending cuts is necessary, and I don't think that's something Romney brings to the table. He's more interested in playing a partisan game and appealing to big business; and as history and most economic theory shows, the "trickle down effect" just doesn't work. In fact, income inequality in American continues to grow. The American Dream is dead, and has been for a very long time.

Moreover, stimulating the economy will require tax increases in some areas. I know it seems like an impossible concept to some, but we need to reform the tax code. Romney isn't even willing to do that much, and is still fascinated with the idea that tax cuts to top earners will create jobs. This simply isn't true. I beg anyone to find statistical evidence that credibly supports this claim.

Obama has made a concerted effort to extend a hand across the aisle, which has been slapped down repeatedly by congressional Republicans. To be fair, Democrats in Congress are almost as unreasonable; but Obama and Boehner nearly came to accord during the debt ceiling crisis before partisan Republicans slapped down a deal that would have significantly downsized the government and reduced excess spending. Obama's more moderate than most people give him credit for. Romney's swung so far right at this point that I don't find him at all credible.

Though this is only tangentially related, I'm also incredibly concerned about each candidate's approach to dealing with global warming. Whereas Romney and most republicans outrightly ignore the problem, at least Obama recognizes it. It may seem counterintuitive to most corporate conservatives, but we must devote some spending to mitigating and adapting to the challenges that global warming will pose now, or we face imminent catastrophe. Everything suggests we'll be experiencing a hurricane of changes soon, which could be economically devastating under a president like Romney, who is unlikely to be willing to stimulate necessary changes in both the public and private sectors.

[Roy Karrde]

Moreover, stimulating the economy will require tax increases in some areas. I know it seems like an impossible concept to some, but we need to reform the tax code. Romney isn't even willing to do that much, and is still fascinated with the idea that tax cuts to top earners will create jobs. This simply isn't true. I beg anyone to find statistical evidence that credibly supports this claim.

I am curious to see how you will believe that actual tax increases ( ala taking money out of the private sector and putting it into the public sector ) will stimulate the economy, especially since that goes against what even Obama has said in the past.

"We have not proposed a tax hike for the wealthy that would take effect in the middle of a recession"

Obama has made a concerted effort to extend a hand across the aisle, which has been slapped down repeatedly by congressional Republicans.

I seem to remember at one of the first meetings Obama had with Republicans, during a discussion he replied coldly with "I won" and walked out.

To be fair, Democrats in Congress are almost as unreasonable; but Obama and Boehner nearly came to accord during the debt ceiling crisis before partisan Republicans slapped down a deal that would have significantly downsized the government and reduced excess spending. Obama's more moderate than most people give him credit for. Romney's swung so far right at this point that I don't find him at all credible.

Dude you seriously need to brush up on your history, it wasn't partisan Republicans that killed the accord, it was Obama himself.

Word quickly traveled down Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House, where Nabors, who was still honing a response to Boehner’s offer from Sunday night, called Barry Jackson in the speaker’s office and asked what was going on. Jackson wasn’t sure. Within a few hours, though, the White House had the sense that something important had shifted. More than 20 Republican senators, by some counts, had stood up in favor of a plan that would raise more revenue, and Obama thought he now had an opportunity to exert more pressure on House Republicans by highlighting the widening split inside their own party. Shortly after noon, Obama took the unusual step of marching out to the briefing room to declare his support for the Gang of Six, instantly elevating what was supposed to have been an informal, sparsely attended briefing into the day’s national news. It was, in retrospect, a costly miscalculation.

A senior administration official said the White House team recognized that the two offers were coalescing and that the time for a decision was at hand. People asked themselves, the official said: Is this something we can sell? Is this a deal we can live with?

At the Capitol, the Republicans waited. Shortly after 6 p.m., Daley called Boehner’s office and said an update was on the way. None came, and four hours later, Jackson told his staff to go home. The White House, he said, was continuing to “massage their counter on all sections.”

The next morning, Nabors called Jackson with an ominous question: Have you heard about the Gang of Six? Nabors was using the Beltway shorthand for a group of senators — conservatives and liberals — who had been working for months on a long-range deficit-reduction plan based on recommendations from a fiscal commission Obama appointed the previous year.

The group included Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), a close ally of the White House, and Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), one of Boehner’s dearest friends. Another participant, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), was close to Obama and Boehner. The senators said they kept Boehner and administration officials informed about their work. They said the White House had been pressing them for months to put something out, believing that getting a few Republicans to sign on to any tax increase would build momentum.

“The fact that we had Republicans willing to discuss revenue was a breakthrough,” Durbin said. “That’s why [the White House]
thought it might help move the conversation forward in the House.”

The Gang of Six was unable to seal its own deal. But that morning — a Tuesday — they finally revealed their work at a closed-door briefing for 64 fellow senators. Coming at that moment, it had an unintended effect.

Desperate to resolve the debt-limit deadlock, senators enthusiastically and publicly latched on to the proposal, which included more taxes and stronger protections for the poor and elderly than the still-secret Obama-Boehner framework. Dozens of senators emerged from the briefing praising the group’s work, including Republicans such as Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), then the third-ranking member of his party’s leadership team. The Gang of Six had “come to a bipartisan agreement,” Alexander told reporters, “and I support it.”

At the White House, Obama showed equal enthusiasm. He made a rare appearance in the White House pressroom, surprising reporters who had been awaiting the regular briefing from press secretary Jay Carney. As Carney stood to the side, the president hailed the plan as “broadly consistent with what we’ve been working on here in the White House and with the presentations that I have made to the leadership when they have come over here.”

In private, however, he and his aides were alarmed. The emerging deal with Boehner looked timid by comparison.
“The Democratic leaders already thought we were idiot negotiators,” Daley said. “So I called Barry [Jackson] and said, ‘What are we going to do here? How are we going to sell Democrats to take $800 billion when Republican senators have signed on to” nearly $2 trillion?

Daley added,“I don’t think it was a mischaracterization on our part to say we’d be beat up miserably by Democrats who thought we got out-negotiated.”

.....

The Republicans describe it differently. The news from the White House, they say, was a “tough blow” to Boehner, who saw the push for additional taxes as tantamount to Obama violating a “gentleman’s agreement” on the broad outlines of a plan for which the speaker was already taking heat from some in his ranks.

By Wednesday morning, as the Obama and Boehner sides gathered again in the Oval Office, the optimism of Sunday had disintegrated. Vice President Biden, a skeptic of restarting talks with Boehner after the first round collapsed, was there. There appeared to be a very different president in attendance, as well.

Excited and upbeat three days earlier, Obama now was stern and lecturing. According to notes taken by GOP aides, he opened by complaining about Boehner’s demand for $200 billion in Medicaid cuts, a persistent point of contention. Then he began to talk about taxes, saying the Gang of Six “makes things more complicated.” The White House would need more tax revenue or smaller health-care cuts.

Boehner opened by expressing continued support for a big deal. But he told Obama that Republicans could not sign off on $1.2 trillion in new taxes. “I cannot go there,” he said. Nor could he sell $800 billion in tax increases without cuts to federal health programs, the biggest drivers of future borrowing.

Annoyed, Obama invoked Boehner’s personal friendship with Chambliss, a member of the Gang of Six, warning that Democrats would never support the package under discussion when “your friend Saxby” and other Republicans were willing to stomach as much as $2 trillion in new taxes. Negotiations deteriorated from there.

Obama essentially took a handshake deal between him and Boehner, and then saw a better deal with the Gang of Six and went back on Boehner, killing the deal and any good will, after that it developed into a mess of infighting between the parties, and the President and Boehner unable to reach a deal with out the other having a "Political Trophy" of sorts.

[Dark Sage]

Romney's speech on the debt yesterday (where he blamed Obama for it, basically) appears to have been more full of holes than Swiss cheese. Here's a comaprison to some things he said to the actual facts:

ROMNEY: "America counted on President Obama to rescue the economy, tame the deficit and help create jobs. Instead, he bailed out the public sector, gave billions of your dollars to the companies of his friends, and added almost as much debt as all the prior presidents combined."

THE FACTS. Hardly. Presidents from George Washington through George W. Bush ran the national debt up to $10.62 trillion, the amount it was on the day Obama took office. Today, it is $15.67 trillion, according to the Treasury Department's Bureau of Public Debt. So it has gone up by $5.05 trillion under Obama. That's roughly half of the amount amassed by all the other presidents combined.

In short, the debt has gone up by about half under Obama. Under Ronald Reagan, it tripled.

ROMNEY: "I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno. We will stop borrowing unfathomable sums of money we can't even imagine, from foreign countries we'll never even visit. I will bring us together to put out the fire."

THE FACTS: Romney's tax and spending plans don't support his vow to dampen the debt fire. He proposes to cut taxes and expand the armed forces, putting yet more stress on the budget, and his promise to slash domestic spending isn't backed by the big specifics. Romney's tax plan would cut the top income tax rate to 28 percent from 35 percent and other rates by 20 percent each. He says he'd broaden the tax base and eliminate many deductions in the process, but details are missing.

A study by the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget concluded earlier this year that Romney's plans would not make a dent in deficits, and could worsen them considerably. That study was done before Romney upped his tax cuts, inviting even deeper debt.

That's not to say he can't at some point lay out the spending cuts necessary to achieve his aims. But he would have to slash domestic programs by more than 20 percent — far more than the 5 percent in immediate cuts he has proposed. It is nearly unthinkable that Congress would approve the evisceration of basic federal functions such as food inspection, air traffic control, the Border Patrol, FBI, grants to local governments, health research, housing and heating aid for the poor, food aid for pregnant women, national parks and much more.

Nowhere in Tuesday's speech was there a new idea of how Romney would accomplish the promised deficit reduction. He spoke generally of reforming Social Security and Medicare, eliminating duplicative government programs, and transferring some functions to the states or the private sector, adding that he would "streamline everything that's left."

The closest he has come to laying out a specific spending plan has been in his endorsement of the budget blueprint passed this year by House Republicans, which also fails to produce his promised deficit reductions.

ROMNEY: "The people of Iowa and America have watched President Obama for nearly four years, much of that time with Congress controlled by his own party. And rather than put out the spending fire, he has fed the fire. He has spent more and borrowed more. ... When you add up his policies, this president has increased the national debt by $5 trillion."

THE FACTS: Much of the increase in the debt is due to lower tax revenues from depressed corporate and individual incomes and high joblessness in the worst recession since the Great Depression. The recession officially began in December 2007, when George W. Bush was president and the national debt stood at just over $9 trillion. Financial bailouts, stimulus programs and auto rescue spending that started under Bush and continued under Obama contributed to the run-up of the debt.

But so did the Bush-era tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003. With bipartisan support, Congress has extended the tax cuts until the end of this year, and Romney's proposals for big cuts of his own would risk another squeeze on revenue.

To be sure, Obama as a presidential candidate in 2008 was just as eager as Romney is now to pin blame for mounting debt on a president from the other party.

Ignoring economic circumstances and the role of both parties in Congress, Obama accused President George W. Bush in that campaign of driving up debt by $4 trillion "by his lonesome" and taking out "a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children."

My opinion? Romney and the rest of the GOP need to stop watching Fox News. They're starting to become just as dishonest as they are.

[Dark Sage]

Roy, when George H.W. Bush lost his re-election bid, there was an additional factor: Bill Clinton. He was charismatic, and people actually liked him.

In many ways, Clinton stood for the common man, while Bush represented greed in all its forms.

Romney is no Bill Clinton.

[Roy Karrde]

Roy, when George H.W. Bush lost his re-election bid, there was an additional factor: Bill Clinton. He was charismatic, and people actually liked him.

In many ways, Clinton stood for the common man, while Bush represented greed in all its forms.

Romney is no Bill Clinton.

No doubt but Bill Clinton's "Its the Economy Stupid" hammered home the problems we were having and made the election a referendum on Bush's economic policies, and not on the Gulf War. In many ways this election mirrors that one, a poor economy with a President running on a popular foreign policy in the hopes that people will ignore the economy.

[Plantae]

Before we get to our ruling, it's worth noting that actions taken by both Presidents Bush and Obama have contributed to the debt increases over the last decade. Those factors include tax cuts enacted under Bush and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which were started by the Bush administration, as well as the stimulus bill and another tax cut deal approved by Obama.

Experts also have pointed to the weak economy as a contributing factor to the higher debt, given the reduction in federal revenues and greater spending on items like unemployment benefits.

The article you cite in your attempt to blame solely Obama for the debt is extremely clear that there are many other factors at play, some of which may be out of the administration's control. It's true that reducing spending to social programs may have helped reduce the deficit. But in the current political environment, I think it's clear that Obama had little chance to discuss these kind of reforms with any hope of actual success.

Also, notice how clear Politifact is in pointing out how much tax cuts increase the federal deficit. If Obama made a mistake in this regard, it was in conceding to a deal that would extend Bush era tax cuts on the wealthy.

Looks like Walker will keep the Governorship at this point.

As a Wisconsin resident who has daily experience with this situation, I can tell you that it is not so cut and dry. There's still a lot of uncertainty regarding the recall. A lot may change before June 5.

The attempt to try and get something done, ended when Obama walked out. After the point he swung his support to the Gang of Six deal, there was no way of going back. This is not about if you respect him or not, this is about political reality.

No, it's about a difference of opinion.

Just scanning through this article I see no mention that Romney's plan wouldn't stimulate the economy, and that is surprising seeing how it is written by a person connected with the leftist Urban Institute.

And do you imagine that increasing the tax burden on the poor would stimulate the economy? If so, you're contradicting your own position. The analysis clearly demonstrates that Romney's tax policies would would charge parents earning minimum wage about $1,000 more per year, while reducing the taxes on the rich by $300 billion. Any tax increase on the poor or the middle class will have a much greater effect on the economy than the same proportional increase on the wealthy. This, again, is a mathematical certainty, and as it turns, a political one too.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...axes-while-ra/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...an-gives-mill/

It isn't just people fleeing, it also kills investment, killing investment in turn kills jobs, killing jobs in turn kills profits, and after that there is less money coming in to be taxed. Not to mention usually with Democrats increasing taxes is followed by increasing spending. Having less tax revenue coming in with already increased spending puts us in a even worse off position.

No doubt but Bill Clinton's "Its the Economy Stupid" hammered home the problems we were having and made the election a referendum on Bush's economic policies, and not on the Gulf War. In many ways this election mirrors that one, a poor economy with a President running on a popular foreign policy in the hopes that people will ignore the economy.

I'm afraid that all this posturing just isn't borne out by history.
Reagan increased taxes during a recession in September 1982.
George H.W. Bush increased taxes during a recession in November 1990.
He only lost because he promised to do exactly the opposite. But the only reason the economy floundered as much as it did was because he didn't increase taxes sooner.
Bill Clinton increased taxes during a recession in 1993.
All of these included a shift in the balance of tax revenues towards the highest income earners, and all of them resulted in more jobs and increased economic growth.
Notably, Obama wants to increase taxes on the wealthy. Romney does not. I think it's clear which is sounder economic policy.

Such as Obamacare or the Stimulus?

Yes, both bills were highly partisan. Whether or not they were effective is an entirely different question.

So.. you can't argue the point so you want me to stop?

Argument requires reason. Since your position on Global Warming is based entirely on irrational supposition and theories about massive, worldwide conspiracies, it's hard to "argue" with it. But no, I'm not conceding the point. I'm simply recognizing that you've shown a clear inability to comprehend basic mathematics and science. Next thing you'll be telling me that thermometers are also just another part of the leftist agenda. As it is, Global Warming exists, and since reality has already borne this out, I don't need to defend my position any further. I'm quite content to allow you to realize the magnitude of your mistake at some future date, and I pity those who may be harmed by your ignorance and negligence.

I'm also going to bow out of this discussion. I got involved in this debate because I was bored, but now I think it's starting to distract me from doing more important things... like studying for the huge final I have coming up. So good luck to all, adios.

[Roy Karrde]

The article you cite in your attempt to blame solely Obama for the debt is extremely clear that there are many other factors at play, some of which may be out of the administration's control. It's true that reducing spending to social programs may have helped reduce the deficit. But in the current political environment, I think it's clear that Obama had little chance to discuss these kind of reforms with any hope of actual success.

Also, notice how clear Politifact is in pointing out how much tax cuts increase the federal deficit. If Obama made a mistake in this regard, it was in conceding to a deal that would extend Bush era tax cuts on the wealthy.

I have no doubt there are contributing factors, but as I have said before politicians are looking for the 10 second sound bite, not a sit down and explanation as to why things are such a way. That is why some one as smart as Paul Ryan would have trouble getting elected on a national level. As his plans do not lend themselves to the ease of such a quick sound bite.

As a Wisconsin resident who has daily experience with this situation, I can tell you that it is not so cut and dry. There's still a lot of uncertainty regarding the recall. A lot may change before June 5.

Alot may, but at this moment Walker is leading.

No, it's about a difference of opinion.

Yet my opinion seems to be backed up by facts and political reality.

And do you imagine that increasing the tax burden on the poor would stimulate the economy? If so, you're contradicting your own position. The analysis clearly demonstrates that Romney's tax policies would would charge parents earning minimum wage about $1,000 more per year, while reducing the taxes on the rich by $300 billion. Any tax increase on the poor or the middle class will have a much greater effect on the economy than the same proportional increase on the wealthy. This, again, is a mathematical certainty, and as it turns, a political one too.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...axes-while-ra/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...an-gives-mill/

The only way I can see if that works out is, if the tax loss for the wealthy results in a stimulated economy and stimulated jobs, in which case it would boost the wealth of all of them. Bringing us back to a sorta mid 90s economy. However again I do not see anything that says it won't stimulate the economy again. This is the last time I will ask, as you have dodged it several times.

I'm afraid that all this posturing just isn't borne out by history.
Reagan increased taxes during a recession in September 1982.
George H.W. Bush increased taxes during a recession in November 1990.
He only lost because he promised to do exactly the opposite. But the only reason the economy floundered as much as it did was because he didn't increase taxes sooner.
Bill Clinton increased taxes during a recession in 1993.
All of these included a shift in the balance of tax revenues towards the highest income earners, and all of them resulted in more jobs and increased economic growth.
Notably, Obama wants to increase taxes on the wealthy. Romney does not. I think it's clear which is sounder economic policy.

Yeah seeing how Obama's economic policies have not moved us toward any sort of prosperity and have landed us in a malaze of a economy, I think we can say it is not Obama's.

Yes, both bills were highly partisan. Whether or not they were effective is an entirely different question.

Well the Stimulus did not keep us under 8% unemployment and did not immediately rebound the economy, and Obamacare has a large chance of being struck down by the Supreme Court.

Argument requires reason. Since your position on Global Warming is based entirely on irrational supposition and theories about massive, worldwide conspiracies, it's hard to "argue" with it. But no, I'm not conceding the point. I'm simply recognizing that you've shown a clear inability to comprehend basic mathematics and science. Next thing you'll be telling me that thermometers are also just another part of the leftist agenda. As it is, Global Warming exists, and since reality has already borne this out, I don't need to defend my position any further. I'm quite content to allow you to realize the magnitude of your mistake at some future date, and I pity those who may be harmed by your ignorance and negligence.

If we are to suggest that arguments require reason and intelligence, then I guess we can discount most if not all of your political arguments in this thread. As they have largely been backed up by little evidence, and a lack of intelligence as to the political situation born out of the "Grand Bargain" deal.

Furthermore, seeing how you refuse to even argue it, nor respond to my points on it properly, it suggest that you lack the intelligence to argue it, and that this is more a passion position for you, and you fear losing such a argument. Much as you have lost the political argument in this thread.

I'm also going to bow out of this discussion. I got involved in this debate because I was bored, but now I think it's starting to distract me from doing more important things... like studying for the huge final I have coming up. So good luck to all, adios.

Good luck, its been fun.

[Dark Sage]

Roy, I have a deal to make with you.

You keep saying that Mr. Obama should stop associating with the Super PAC that accepted donations from Bill Maher.

Well, I'll agree with you, on the condition that Romney stops accociating with the sleazy one mentioned in THIS article.

Read it. It's quite an eye-opener.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/us...6pLid%3D161806

In a nutshell, Roy, I'm starting to think that the Justices on the Supreme Court were drunk when they made that decision. The only good Super PAC is a bankrupt one.

[Roy Karrde]

Roy, I have a deal to make with you.

You keep saying that Mr. Obama should stop associating with the Super PAC that accepted donations from Bill Maher.

Well, I'll agree with you, on the condition that Romney stops accociating with the sleazy one mentioned in THIS article.

Read it. It's quite an eye-opener.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/us...6pLid%3D161806

In a nutshell, Roy, I'm starting to think that the Justices on the Supreme Court were drunk when they made that decision. The only good Super PAC is a bankrupt one.

Old News is Old News.

A: Romney has condemned the attacks saying.

"“I repudiate the effort by that PAC to promote an ad strategy of the nature they’ve described. I would like to see this campaign focus on the economy, on getting people back to work, on seeing rising incomes and growing prosperity — particularly for those in the middle class of America. And I think what we’ve seen so far from the Obama campaign is a campaign of character assassination. I hope that isn’t the course of this campaign. So in regards to that PAC, I repudiate what they’re thinking about … It’s interesting that we’re talking about some Republican PAC that wants to go after the president [on Wright]; I hope people also are looking at what he’s doing, and saying ‘why is he running an attack campaign? Why isn’t he talking about his record?’”"

B: The Super PAC has denied the attack.

" On Thursday afternoon, the Ending Spending Action Fund super-PAC, run by billionaire Chicago Cubs owner Joe Ricketts, put out a statement rejecting the plan to spend $10 million to link Obama and Wright in a “big, attention-arresting way.”

The proposal “reflects an approach to politics that Mr. Ricketts rejects and it was never a plan to be accepted but only a suggestion for a direction to take. Mr. Ricketts intends to work hard to help elect a President this fall who shares his commitment to economic responsibility, but his efforts are and will continue to be focused entirely on questions of fiscal policy, not attacks that seek to divide us socially or culturally,” according to a statement from the Ending Spending Action Fund."

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/05/1...remiah-wright/

So you were saying about Obama and his Super PAC?

[Dark Sage]

I said I'd agree that Obama should do so when Romney refuses to associate with this one. He has not.

I don't believe them, especially when the claim comes from hotair.com. That plan was clearly on the table and up for consideration.

Edit: New York Times versus Hotair.com. Boy, tough choice... Which is more reliable?

[Roy Karrde]

I said I'd agree that Obama should do so when Romney refuses to associate with this one. He has not.

I don't believe them, especially when the claim comes from hotair.com. That plan was clearly on the table and up for consideration.

I havnt seen any evidence that Romney has any association with them, unlike Obama it seems Romney does not have any connections with this Super PAC. By the way the actual information comes from "The Hill" a very reliable source for Political News. I was using Hot Air, as it had a culmination of links from all the events on that news article.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...-to-rev-wright

Edit: New York Times versus Hotair.com. Boy, tough choice... Which is more reliable?

Try The Hill.

By the way the answer to that would be Hot Air. Atleast they have not accused a Presidential Candidate of infidelity only to eventually have to retract it.

[Dark Sage]

Who falsely accused a GOP candidate of infidelity? Unless you're talking about Newt (in which case it wasn't false) this is news to me.

And by the way, the New York Times reports the news. Your website is nothing but editorials.