2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[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.

[Plantae]

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"

To clarify, I'm not referring to the "making the 1% pay their fair share." However, raising taxes on these individuals certainly wouldn't affect the economy very much, as the very wealthy are only a tiny percentage of the customer base. I'm talking about serious tax reform, and in the short-run, at least closing certain, completely unnecessary loopholes that favor corporations at the expense of the public. Moreover, I don't see what bearing Obama's 2009 position on tax hikes, which he has since reversed, has on the mathematics of the situation.

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.

This is one, out-of-context interpretation of that comment. Obama may have been matter-of-fact, but that's all.

"We just have a difference here, and I’m president,” Mr. Obama said to Mr. Cantor, according to Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, who was at the meeting. Mr. Emanuel said that Mr. Obama was being lighthearted and that lawmakers of both parties had laughed.
Mr. Cantor, in an interview later, had a similar recollection. He said the president had told him, “You’re correct, there’s a philosophical difference, but I won, so we’re going to prevail on that.”

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


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.

Can you blame him for going for the more fiscally responsible option when it became available? I certaintly don't. To regard his actions as some sort of betrayal is just inflated rhetoric.

No, the grand bargain was killed by Republicans loyal to Grover Norquist and to a completely inane policy of "no tax increases, ever." Tax cuts do not play for themselves; they never have. For Republicans to continue insist so is just a whole lot of fiscal hot air.

But you're right. I'm not going to attempt to argue that Obama hasn't, at times, acted in a very partisan, very political manner. It's the nature of the presidency. But I think it's clear that he's attempted to achieve bipartisan agreements when possible.

I'm also not sure what any of that has to do with Romney's far right politics or his continued adherence to failed economic policies, or irresponsible proposals like the Paul Ryan plan. And it certainly doesn't address the general Republican ignorance of the implications of global warming.

[Roy Karrde]

To clarify, I'm not referring to the "making the 1% pay their fair share." However, raising taxes on these individuals certainly wouldn't affect the economy very much, as the very wealthy are only a tiny percentage of the customer base. I'm talking about serious tax reform, and in the short-run, at least closing certain, completely unnecessary loopholes that favor corporations at the expense of the public. Moreover, I don't see what bearing Obama's 2009 position on tax hikes, which he has since reversed, has on the mathematics of the situation.

I agree on sealing tax loop holes, I disagree in the need to raise taxes on the rich just wildly so that we agree in.

This is one, out-of-context interpretation of that comment. Obama may have been matter-of-fact, but that's all.

Thing is, by throwing down "I won" being matter of fact or not, pretty much kills any debate on the other side in how to help and work with the President.

Can you blame him for going for the more fiscally responsible option when it became available? I certaintly don't. To regard his actions as some sort of betrayal is just inflated rhetoric.

It is ignorant not to call it a betrayal, as noted there was a Gentlemen's Agreement on the deal, Obama backed out of it and went for the different deal, that in and of itself is a betrayal of the agreement that he had with Boehner, furthermore by backing out it killed any hope of getting a deal done.

No, the grand bargain was killed by Republicans loyalty to Grover Norquist and to a completely inane policy of "no tax increases, ever." Tax cuts do not play for themselves; they never have. For Republicans to continue insist so is just a whole lot of fiscal hot air.

And what proof do you have? I have provided proof that Boehner as leader of the party was close to a deal that included tax increases, he surely had done the political math to know how many Republicans he could whip into getting the deal done. Not to mention that Republicans had stood up in support for the Gang of Six deal that included tax increases. So I have to ask, where is your proof? Because EVERY thing points to the fact that Obama backing out of the grand bargain was the beginning of the end.

But you're right. I'm not going to attempt to argue that Obama hasn't, at times, acted in a very partisan, very political manner. It's the nature of the presidency. But I think it's clear that he's attempted to achieve bipartisan agreements when possible.

Then why may I ask did he back out of the bipartisan agreement that he had forged with Boehner? As you said it was for a better deal, but in the end he acted in a manner that was neither Presidential or bipartisan.

I'm also not sure what any of that has to do with Romney's far right politics or his continued adherence to failed economic policies, or irresponsible proposals like the Paul Ryan plan. And it certainly doesn't address the general Republican ignorance of the implications of global warming.

As opposed to Obama's failed fiscal economic policies? Last time I checked we don't have a raging economy after 4 years of Obama. As for Global Warming the science is still debated and there is a unhealthy amount of politics in it that needs to be extracted.

[Plantae]

I agree on sealing tax loop holes, I disagree in the need to raise taxes on the rich just wildly so that we agree in.

My operative word certainly wasn't "wildly." But even a large increase would have a minimal economic effect.

Thing is, by throwing down "I won" being matter of fact or not, pretty much kills any debate on the other side in how to help and work with the President.

I'd argue that there was never a chance for bipartisanship in the first place. And if there was, I certainly don't think one comment by Obama killed it. That's ludicrous. Also, note that Republican leaders laughed about the comment; it was essentially a joke.

It is ignorant not to call it a betrayal, as noted there was a Gentlemen's Agreement on the deal, Obama backed out of it and went for the different deal, that in and of itself is a betrayal of the agreement that he had with Boehner, furthermore by backing out it killed any hope of getting a deal done.

And what proof do you have? I have provided proof that Boehner as leader of the party was close to a deal that included tax increases, he surely had done the political math to know how many Republicans he could whip into getting the deal done. Not to mention that Republicans had stood up in support for the Gang of Six deal that included tax increases. So I have to ask, where is your proof? Because EVERY thing points to the fact that Obama backing out of the grand bargain was the beginning of the end.

Yes, Obama may have called for an increase in tax revenue from $800 billion to $1.2 trillion. But the net effect of the Gang of Six plan was still a tax reduction. The Republicans did not support the "increase," and that complicated matters. However, the Washington Post also notes in their timeline of the debt ceiling crisis:

That night, Obama personally explains the deal to House Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and asks them to support the deal with only $800 billion in new revenue.

Even after the increases were rejected, Obama was still attempting to convince the Democrats to adhere to the $800 billion plan. So yes, by all means blame Congressional Democrats for disagreeing, and blame Republicans from rejecting reasonable tax increases. But Obama clearly made an effort. Also, further information from the debt ceiling crisis.

Obama calls Boehner one last time. They discuss the ongoing negotiations on the Hill to raise debt ceiling and create deficit-reducing super committee. In that conversation, Obama asks Boehner to take the deal under discussion days earlier. Boehner says it's too late.

That sounds like Obama made a concerted effort to achieve a more reasonable deal to me.

As for proof that Republicans are against any and all tax increases, I point to the pledge by Grover Norquist, which they signed, which stipulates their opposition to tax increases. By no means is a pledge binding, but why are our lawmakers signing any agreement like this at all? Why would we not want to keep all options on the table? It's a political stunt, and nothing more.

As opposed to Obama's failed fiscal economic policies? Last time I checked we don't have a raging economy after 4 years of Obama.

Whether that is at all Obama's fault is an entirely different, complex question. The economy, notably, is growing currently, and both the stimulus and the bailout of the auto industry have had noticeable, beneficial effects. Furthermore, exactly how does that address Romney's support for an antiquated economic model, which has been proven wrong by the available data?

Understand, I don't blame any one political party or person for the failure of the American economy. I'd be naming too many people to count. I just happen to think that choosing Obama over Romney is the more fiscally responsible option.

As for Global Warming the science is still debated and there is a unhealthy amount of politics in it that needs to be extracted.

I sincerely enjoyed this debate. I think you've made several good points, and I mean it when I say that I actually thought this was fun. But I'm afraid that I need to opt out at this point. I'm perfectly fine with having a spirited discussion with someone whose political positions I disagree with. However, I find it seriously difficult to have that same conversation with someone that doesn't understand basic science.

More than 99.99% of scientists agree with current models of Global Warming. At this point, the vast amount of data indicates that it is as factual as gravity. The few scientists that disagree are only providing dissent that was bought and paid for by individuals and organizations who fear how policies brought on by climate change will affect their individual and collective wealth and investments. But that does not change the reality of the situation. It may be subject to political debate, but Global Warming is scientific reality. I'm not going to provide sources for information that has already been the subject of various systematic reviews and meta analyses. But I assure that if we do not act soon, our children and our grandchildren will pay an awful price.

[Roy Karrde]

My operative word certainly wasn't "wildly." But even a large increase would have a minimal economic effect.

Not sure about that, as we are seeing in France now as well as in California, high taxes can cause people to flee.

I'd argue that there was never a chance for bipartisanship in the first place. And if there was, I certainly don't think one comment by Obama killed it. That's ludicrous. Also, note that Republican leaders laughed about the comment; it was essentially a joke.

And I would note that the Republican party did not take it as a joke. And obviously the actions of Obama and the Democrats reflected his sentiment. From Obamacare to the Stimulus the Republicans found themselves on the outside looking in with the Democrats more concerned with getting support from the Blue Dogs in their own party instead of the Republican party.

Yes, Obama may have called for an increase in tax revenue from $800 billion to $1.2 trillion. But the net effect of the Gang of Six plan was still a tax reduction. The Republicans did not support the "increase," and that complicated matters. However, the Washington Post also notes in their timeline.

The Republicans tenuously were in support of the Boehner plan, which was a increase of tax revenue of $800 billion.

Even after the increases were rejecting, Obama was still attempting to convince the Democrats to adhere to the $800 billion plan. So yes, blame Congressional Democrats for disagreeing, and blame Republicans from rejecting reasonable tax increases. Also, later on in the debt ceiling "crisis."

Excuse me but the reasonable tax increases were $800 billion, by a increase of $400 billion, Obama not only betrayed Boehner but also reached for a bridge too far. Like it or not the $1 trillion level, is a line that no politician really wants to cross, as noted by the Stimulus and Obamacare struggling to remain under that line.

That sounds like Obama made a concerted effort to achieve a more reasonable deal to me.

Obama tried to walk back to the reasonable deal after he had betrayed Boehner, betrayed the work, and had created upheaval in both parties. The idea that Boehner would go back to the table after all Obama had done to kill the deal in the first place is ludicrous. Your efforts to act as if Obama is some kind of good hearted person working against the Partisan Forces seems to remain absolutely ignorant to the point of absurdity of Obama's own effort to kill the deal he made with Boehner in the first place.

As for proof that Republicans are against any and all tax increases, I point to the pledge by Grover Norquist, which they signed, which stipulates their opposition to tax increases. By no means is a pledge binding, but why are our lawmakers signing any agreement like this at all? Why would we not want to keep all options on the table? It's a political stunt, and nothing more.

So your proof is a pledge, one that usually politicians sign to get support from the voters. You have no proof of the inside of the meetings as I have posted, no proof of anything said in the capital, no whip count, you have a pledge. You realize how pathetic of a argument that is?

Whether that is at all Obama's fault is an entirely different, complex question. The economy, notably, is growing currently, and both the stimulus and the bailout of the auto industry have had noticeable, beneficial effects. Furthermore, exactly how does that address Romney's support for an antiquated economic model, which has been proven wrong by the available data?

Growing? As you have noticed we are stuck in a malaze, we have the lowest workforce participation in decades. We have employment growing at a rate lower than population growth. How is Obama's economic efforts contributing to a growing economy?

I sincerely enjoyed this debate. I think you've made several good points, and I mean it when I say that I actually thought this was fun. But I'm afraid that I need to opt out at this point. I'm perfectly fine with having a spirited discussion with someone whose political positions I disagree with. However, I find it seriously difficult to have that same conversation with someone that doesn't understand basic science.

More than 99.99% of scientists agree with current models of Global Warming. At this point, the vast amount of data indicates that it is as factual as gravity. The few scientists that disagree are only providing dissent that was bought and paid for by individuals and organizations who fear how policies brought on by climate change will affect their individual and collective wealth and investments. But that does not change the reality of the situation. It may be subject to political debate, but Global Warming is scientific reality. I'm not going to provide sources for information that has already been the subject of various systematic reviews and meta analyses. But I assure that if we do not act soon, our children and our grandchildren will pay an awful price.

We can go back and forth as to what Scientists agree, however it remains ignorant on your part not to understand the politics that have been injected into it. Just as it remains ignorant on your part not to understand that there is no real great alternative right now to fight Global Warming. I will point you to Germany who has worked very hard to transform itself into a Green Energy country, it's power grid is so poor now, that it is facing serious black outs next winter due to inadequacy in power supply from it's own green energy program.

[Plantae]

So I intended to hold my peace, but I find that difficult. So let me clarify my meaning first.

Not sure about that, as we are seeing in France now as well as in California, high taxes can cause people to flee.

My point is that increased taxes, to any degree, on a marginal portion of the population is not as significant as taxes on say, the middle class. That's just the numbers.

And I would note that the Republican party did not take it as a joke. And obviously the actions of Obama and the Democrats reflected his sentiment. From Obamacare to the Stimulus the Republicans found themselves on the outside looking in with the Democrats more concerned with getting support from the Blue Dogs in their own party instead of the Republican party.

Again, I'm not going to say Obama's statement was necessarily a wise choice; I also don't think the Republicans needed an excuse to refuse to compromise. Nor do most Democrats. But I highly doubt Obama's comment had any significant bearing on the actions of the Republican party. The other causes you cite are certainly more likely.

Excuse me but the reasonable tax increases were $800 billion, by a increase of $400 billion, Obama not only betrayed Boehner but also reached for a bridge too far. Like it or not the $1 trillion level, is a line that no politician really wants to cross, as noted by the Stimulus and Obamacare struggling to remain under that line.

You make it all sound so very Machiavellian. Really, Obama just saw what he thought was a better deal, took it, realized his mistake, and then reversed his decision. In an understanding society, in which politics are mutable, this would not be a problem. Furthermore, $1 trillion is still an arbitrary number and "reasonable" is clearly up for debate, but if the net effect was still a tax reduction for the middle class and the poor, which is the most significant factor in growing the economy, then what are we worrying about?

Obama tried to walk back to the reasonable deal after he had betrayed Boehner, betrayed the work, and had created upheaval in both parties. The idea that Boehner would go back to the table after all Obama had done to kill the deal in the first place is ludicrous. Your efforts to act as if Obama is some kind of good hearted person working against the Partisan Forces seems to remain absolutely ignorant to the point of absurdity of Obama's own effort to kill the deal he made with Boehner in the first place.

"Good-hearted" is a strong word to describe any politician. But I do think Obama is looking out for the American people, and especially those that have been trampled by business-as-usual. And yes, Obama made a bold move by asking for increases; but for Boehner to consider this a "betrayal" and refuse to return to the table for negotiations on the previous deal because of some bad blood and hurt feelings is just juvenile. If Obama really wanted to kill the deal he made with Boehner he certainly wouldn't have tried to compromise after Boehner rejected the alternative.

So your proof is a pledge, one that usually politicians sign to get support from the voters. You have no proof of the inside of the meetings as I have posted, no proof of anything said in the capital, no whip count, you have a pledge. You realize how pathetic of a argument that is?

I gesture to the pledge as an example of unnecessary political theatrics, which some Republicans have clearly taken too much to heart. Note that I'm not disagreeing that the $800 billion deal would have been easier to achieve. Your argument clearly supports that. Obama overestimated the potential to succeed at passing a bill with $1.2 trillion in revenues.

Growing? As you have noticed we are stuck in a malaze, we have the lowest workforce participation in decades. We have employment growing at a rate lower than population growth. How is Obama's economic efforts contributing to a growing economy?

The specific merits of the economic recovery are something that may be too complex to discuss in this kind of space. But suffice to say I've heard it both ways from various sources on either side of the aisle. Either way, Romney's desire to continue to decrease taxes on the wealthy, uphold current tax loopholes, and continue with "trickle down" economic policies would be more stifling to any growth than any effect Obama's policies might have had. The long-term effects on income inequality in this country from Romney's economic plan, moreover, are outright disturbing.

We can go back and forth as to what Scientists agree...

No, we can't. If you don't think Global Warming is scientific fact, you're simply ignorant of the copious amount of data that is available, and how it should best be interpreted. This is not up for debate.

...however it remains ignorant on your part not to understand the politics that have been injected into it. Just as it remains ignorant on your part not to understand that there is no real great alternative right now to fight Global Warming. I will point you to Germany who has worked very hard to transform itself into a Green Energy country, it's power grid is so poor now, that it is facing serious black outs next winter due to inadequacy in power supply from it's own green energy program.

I didn't say it wasn't political. But this is one situation where the current American political climate is simply in ignorance of reality, and the Republican party, which continues to ignore climate change, must bear the greater part of the blame. There is no one answer to Global Warming, I agree. But to do nothing is much, much worse. Moreover, there are various win-win, profitable options that most businesses could readily implement; but America has failed to achieve even these. And largely because of the continued denial of the existence of climate change. But it's already here, and it will get much, much worse.

Germany's potential for increased black-outs has nothing to do with its "green energy" programs. It has everything to do with their accelerated exit from nuclear energy, which was provoked by the events in Japan. I actually think nuclear power plants are a much better alternative to those run on coal or natural gas; nuclear energy may not be renewable, but it is certainly more manageable, as it has less impact on our atmosphere. However, it's clear that we need to look for other alternatives too.

[Roy Karrde]

My point is that increased taxes, to any degree, on a marginal portion of the population is not as significant as taxes on say, the middle class. That's just the numbers.

That is unless your tax base flees, as again shown in California and France, or they seek further ways to hide their taxes. In which case you come in with less money than before.

Again, I'm not going to say Obama's statement was necessarily a wise choice; I also don't think the Republicans needed an excuse to refuse to compromise. Nor do most Democrats. But I highly doubt Obama's comment had any significant bearing on the actions of the Republican party. The other causes you cite are certainly more likely.

And why did the Republicans need the excuse? The sound of the meetings before the statement show that the Democrats and Republicans were at the edge of a compromise. Furthermore it is shown in there that Boehner and the rest felt betrayed, and that the statement signaled the beginning of the end. Rather you like it or not, Obama's statement took what was a compromise and tossed it in the trash, after that there was no going back.

You make it all sound so very Machiavellian. $1 trillion is still an arbitrary number and "reasonable" is clearly up for debate, but if the net effect was still a tax reduction for the middle class and the poor, which is the most significant factor in growing the economy, then what are we worrying about?

It all comes back to how to sell it to the voters, while $1 trillion is a arbitrary number, it is one in politics that both sides tend to stay away from in how hard it is to sell to voters. Again I point back to the effort in Obamacare to keep it below that mark.

"Good-hearted" is a strong word to describe any politician. But I do think Obama is looking out for the American people, and especially those that have been trampled by business-as-usual. And yes, Obama made a bold move by asking for increases; but for Boehner to consider this a "betrayal" and refuse to return to the table for negotiations on the previous deal because of some bad blood and hurt feelings is just juvenile.

How is it juvenile? Obama betrayed the negotiation, showed that he is not willing to honor any deal, and basically destroyed Boehner's political credit with the party. If Boehner went back after this explosion there was little chance of it being passed that in and of itself is the political reality of the fall out of Obama's actions. Furthermore there is no guarantee that Obama would not betray Boehner again and leave him hanging out to dry. He did it once, what are the chances that Obama wouldn't do it again?

To put it simply, why would Boehner endanger his Speakership, for a compromise that now lays dead because of the events of the previous week, and for a President who has already shown to betray such a compromise for anything he sees is better?

I gesture to the pledge as an example of unnecessary political theatrics, which some Republicans have clearly taken too much to heart. Note that I'm not disagreeing that the $800 billion deal would have been easier to achieve. Your argument clearly supports that. Obama overestimated the potential to succeed at passing a bill with $1.2 trillion in revenues.

And yet your pledge does not prove that the $800 billion dollar deal could not get a majority in either houses of Congress. Either provide proof or concede.

The specific merits of the economic recovery are something that may be too far out of my element to discuss. But suffice to say I've heard it both ways from various sources on either side of the aisle. Either way, Romney's desire to continue to decrease taxes on the wealthy, uphold current tax loopholes, and continue with "trickle down" economic policies would be more stifling to any growth that is occurring than anything done by Obama. The long-term effects on income inequality in this country, moreover, are outright disturbing.

No doubt it is disturbing but on the other hand we wish to show America is open and friendly to business, not add in more regulation and taxes as Obama wishes to do. Especially with Europe on the verge of collapsing.

No, we can't. If you don't think Global Warming is scientific fact, you're simply ignorant of the copious amount of data that is available, and how it should best be interpreted. This is not up for debate.

Correction it is not something you wish to debate.

I didn't say it wasn't political. But this is one situation where the current American political climate is simply in ignorance of reality, and the Republican party, which continues to ignore climate change, must bear the greater part of the blame. There is no one answer to Global Warming, I agree. But to do nothing is much, much worse. Moreover, there are various win-win, profitable options that most businesses could readily implement; but America has failed to achieve even these. And largely because of the continued denial of the existence of climate change. But it's already here, and it will get much, much worse.

And how well have those profitable options worked out? Solyndra? The Chevy Volt? Windmills? The list goes on and on and on.

Germany's potential for increased black-outs has nothing to do with its "green energy" programs. It has everything to do with their accelerated exit from nuclear energy, which was precipitated by the events in Japan. I actually think nuclear power plants are a much better alternative to those run on coal or natural gas; nuclear energy may not be renewable, but it is certainly more manageable, as it has less impact on our atmosphere. However, it's clear that we need to look for other alternatives too.

No doubt the Nuclear Energy is a better option, but I might add that in your haste to point fingers at parties you ignore the fact that it is the left who have done their best to kill any effort into Nuclear Energy, not the right.

[Plantae]

That is unless your tax base flees, as again shown in California and France, or they seek further ways to hide their taxes. In which case you come in with less money than before.

Just because it would cause people to behave illegally does not mean it is the incorrect choice.

And why did the Republicans need the excuse? The sound of the meetings before the statement show that the Democrats and Republicans were at the edge of a compromise. Furthermore it is shown in there that Boehner and the rest felt betrayed, and that the statement signaled the beginning of the end. Rather you like it or not, Obama's statement took what was a compromise and tossed it in the trash, after that there was no going back.

I think this is a lot to extrapolate from two words. But clearly we disagree on that point.

It all comes back to how to sell it to the voters, while $1 trillion is a arbitrary number, it is one in politics that both sides tend to stay away from in how hard it is to sell to voters. Again I point back to the effort in Obamacare to keep it below that mark.

I think we both know that there are more important matters than political expediency. But again, I don't disagree with the perception of $1 trillion as catastrophically large. But where's the math to show that this greater amount of tax revenues would actually be harmful?

How is it juvenile? Obama betrayed the negotiation, showed that he is not willing to honor any deal, and basically destroyed Boehner's political credit with the party. If Boehner went back after this explosion there was little chance of it being passed that in and of itself is the political reality of the fall out of Obama's actions. Furthermore there is no guarantee that Obama would not betray Boehner again and leave him hanging out to dry. He did it once, what are the chances that Obama wouldn't do it again?

To put it simply, why would Boehner endanger his Speakership, for a compromise that now lays dead because of the events of the previous week, and for a President who has already shown to betray such a compromise for anything he sees is better?

When you start using words like "honor" to describe modern political process, you've missed the point. We're not living in a feudal society anymore. Viewpoints change, and we must allow for these changes. Obama did what anyone would do in his situation. He took the best deal he thought he could achieve, and he was wrong. But I don't think he did it out of spite. By demonstrating a willingness to fall back to the previous deal, Obama was showing his ability to cut his losses and re-negotiate. Why would Boehner return to the table? Perhaps because doing what's best for the nation is the right thing to do. Sure, he would have been undermining his own power, but is that the role the voters asked him to play? No. As to whether Obama's stepping back from the original deal would have killed any attempt to return to it, I don't think that's something either of us can predict. It is possible that Republicans would have been stalwart in viewing Obama's actions as a betrayal, but doing so would have been petty. If they really had America's best interests at heart, they would have allowed the grand bargain to proceed. But I realize that's an overly idealistic view.

My point is that Obama acted to take the deal with $1.2 trillion in revenues not because it would increase his own political power, but because it was what he thought was right. When Obama attempted to re-negotiate and Boehner refused, Boehner did so out of spite. That's the difference to me.

And yet your pledge does not prove that the $800 billion dollar deal could not get a majority in either houses of Congress. Either provide proof or concede.

Because that's not what I'm arguing. I just stated in my previous post that I agreed that $800 billion would have been more likely to pass, and that Obama probably miscalculated.

No doubt it is disturbing but on the other hand we wish to show America is open and friendly to business, not add in more regulation and taxes as Obama wishes to do. Especially with Europe on the verge of collapsing.

There's a difference between "open and friendly to business" and "controlled by big business interests."

Correction it is not something you wish to debate.

Yes, because one does not generally debate facts. I could post an entire thread worth of evidence, but I doubt that would be appreciated. And it's all freely available. No doubt you would disbelieve it if you saw it. But that's just confirmation bias.

And how well have those profitable options worked out? Solyndra? The Chevy Volt? Windmills? The list goes on and on and on.

These are not the options I am discussing. I'm discussing simple, cost-saving measures for energy efficiency, like LED light bulbs. Windmills, are, as you say, cost-ineffective at the present. More research is necessary into alternative means of energy. But there are ways we can make a rather short-term profit while also achieving a net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Will they be enough? Absolutely not.

No doubt the Nuclear Energy is a better option, but I might add that in your haste to point fingers at parties you ignore the fact that it is the left who have done their best to kill any effort into Nuclear Energy, not the right.

Because I'm not denying that leftist voices have opposed Nuclear Energy. But better to deny one source of alternative energy than to deny them all.

[Roy Karrde]

Just because it would cause people to behave illegally does not mean it is the incorrect choice.

Who says it is illegal? Last time I checked leaving a country or state, or seeking tax havens are legal.

I think we both know that there are more important matters than political expediency. But again, I don't disagree with the perception of $1 trillion as catastrophically large. But where's the math to show that this greater amount of tax revenues would actually be harmful?

Harmful to the economy? No. Harmful to their individual political fortunes? Very.

But I will remind you that, that $1 trillion dollars in taxes is not guaranteed. Why don't you go ask the State Government of California about what happens when revenues from tax increases do not meet their intended target. I believe they have about 16 billion examples of what happens.

When you start using words like "honor" to describe modern political process, you've missed the point. We're not living in a feudal society anymore. Viewpoints change, and we must allow for these changes. Obama did what anyone would do in his situation. He took the best deal he thought he could achieve, and he was wrong.

What anyone would do? Anyone would throw away weeks of negotiation on a surefire deal for one that he had not even seen the paper work on yet? I am sorry but I cannot believe that "anyone" would be that stupid.

But I don't think he did it out of spite. By demonstrating a willingness to fall back to the previous deal, Obama was showing his ability to cut his losses and re-negotiate.

Of course he was, because at this point any deal for him would be better than nothing. He was to believe that Boehner would welcome him coming back in open arms after he spit in his face.

Why would Boehner return to the table? Perhaps because doing what's best for the nation is the right thing to do. Sure, he would have been undermining his own power, but is that the role the voters asked him to play? No.

In what world do you honestly believe that the deal was still available? After Obama torpedoed the deal, the political partisans on the right and left went out with the long knives. Obama killed any opportunity for both sides to privately whip their members into agreeing with the deal.

As to whether Obama's stepping back from the original deal would have killed any attempt to return to it, I don't think that's something either of us can predict. It is possible that Republicans would have been stalwart in viewing Obama's actions as a betrayal, but doing so would have been petty. If they really had America's best interests at heart, they would have allowed the grand bargain to proceed. But I realize that's an overly idealistic view.

I would suggest reading the article, it wasn't just Republicans that were against it. Democrats wanted more as well, and once Obama endorsed the Gang of Six's deal there was no going back to smaller portions for each. Like it or not Obama killed any attempt to return.

My point is that Obama acted to take the deal with $1.2 trillion in revenues not because it would increase his own political power, but because it was what he thought was right. When Obama attempted to re-negotiate and Boehner refused, Boehner did so out of spite. That's the difference to me.

And again I ask what is right about betraying weeks of negotiations? What is right for publicly cutting loose a sure fire deal and burning your bridges with it, for a deal that the paper work had not been released yet? What was right about that?

There's a difference between "open and friendly to business" and "controlled by big business interests."

You will notice that many of those people we wish to come here represent "big business interests". It is not the Mom and Pop Stores that are fleeing France, it is the multi millionaires.

Yes, because one does not generally debate facts. I could post an entire thread worth of evidence, but I doubt that would be appreciated. And it's all freely available. No doubt you would disbelieve it if you saw it. But that's just confirmation bias.

You act as if it is a hard and settled fact, is there not science that comes out every day that opens up new information about Global Warming? Is there not scandals and research that come out everyday that contradict previous research? The science in Global Warming is ever evolving, trying to say what we know right now is solid fact is purely ignorant to science.

Because I'm not denying that leftist voices have opposed Nuclear Energy. But better to deny one source of alternative energy than to deny them all.

Last time I checked Republicans have supported a all of the above approach since atleast 2008. While the Left has long since been opposed to Nuclear Energy since the 70s.

[Plantae]

Who says it is illegal? Last time I checked leaving a country or state, or seeking tax havens are legal.

Sorry, my mistake. I was thinking of tax evasion. But yes, both those things are legal.

Harmful to the economy? No. Harmful to their individual political fortunes? Very.

I'll concede it would be harmful to their political fortunes. But again, is that the reason we elect our representatives? To look out for their "individual political fortunes?"

In what world do you honestly believe that the deal was still available? After Obama torpedoed the deal, the political partisans on the right and left went out with the long knives. Obama killed any opportunity for both sides to privately whip their members into agreeing with the deal.

I would like to imagine a world where politicians can rise above petty disputes and succeed at actually drafting useful policy. Is that the world we live in? No. Both Democrats and Republicans have shown as much.

And of course I realize Boehner's actions were motivated by political necessity. But they certainly were not motivated by a desire to help the public. And that's my point. As "stupid" as you may consider Obama's choice to be, he was only hoping he could get the best deal he could for the American people. To hold him accountable for this mistake may have been politically sensible and expedient, but it was by no means right.

You will notice that many of those people we wish to come here represent "big business interests". It is not the Mom and Pop Stores that are fleeing France, it is the multi millionaires.

I'm not necessarily saying that we could not, in some ways, decrease taxes on corporations, but we must understand that any such tax cuts must be paid for. Republicans rail against Democrats for excess spending, but giving unnecessary tax cuts has the same effect. We need to balance our economy, which requires giving an in-depth look to all possible areas of improvement. Stimulating business is one facet. Decreasing spending is another. Republicans seem fascinated with these ideas, but many fail to release that these things alone are not enough to repair the federal deficit or fix the economy. Tax increases will be required. But I agree that we must be careful about where and how we enact them. It's not a simple choice. It needs to be carefully considered. But in my opinion, a rational plan of this scope is outside Mitt Romney's realm of thought.

You act as if it is a hard and settled fact, is there not science that comes out every day that opens up new information about Global Warming? Is there not scandals and research that come out everyday that contradict previous research? The science in Global Warming is ever evolving, trying to say what we know right now is solid fact is purely ignorant to science.

It is a hard and settled fact. Science may disagree on some minor, quibbling details about Global Warming, but the central idea, that climate change is here already and will have a much more dramatic effect in the future, is not debated. Insofar as new research is emerging, it is often on the scope of the change. If anything, contradictory research suggests that it may be larger than we originally imagined, not smaller. To ignore this kind of data is irresponsible. I urge you to read the various summary reports available from world organizations on climate change.

Last time I checked Republicans have supported an all of the above approach since at least 2008. While the Left has long since been opposed to Nuclear Energy since the 70s.

You're right. Many Republicans are receptive to alternative energy. But some others are not. Most Democrats are not receptive to nuclear energy. But some are. We must make careful choices about which avenues to support as we attempt to deal with the energy crisis, and we cannot be too quick to ignore any potential, renewable or near-renewable source of energy. However, one thing we can't abide is a continued reliance on petroleum; I think it's clear which party is more interested in maintaining the status quo in that regard. And that's part of the problem.

[Roy Karrde]

I'll concede it would be harmful to their political fortunes. But again, is that the reason we elect our representatives? To look out for their "individual political fortunes?"

No we elect them to represent our views in Congress, and if we disagree with something, as this surely would have been disagreed with, we vote them out if they do not follow our views.

And of course I realize Boehner's actions were motivated by political necessity. But they certainly were not motivated by a desire to help the public. And that's my point. As "stupid" as you may consider Obama's choice to be, he was only hoping he could get the best deal he could for the American people. To hold him accountable for this mistake may have been politically sensible and expedient, but it was by no means right.

Was it the best deal for the public, or was it the best deal for his own legacy? The best deal for the public would be the one that would be amicable for both parties, and that would get through Congress. The best deal for his own legacy would be the one that is as big as possible.

I cannot see how you can say with a straight face that he was doing the best deal for the American people when:

A: He discarded the surefire deal for one that he had no idea if it would pass.

B: Had not even seen the specifics of the Gang of Six deal.

I'm not necessarily saying that we could not, in some ways, decrease taxes on corporations, but we must understand that any such tax cuts must be paid for. Republicans rail against Democrats for excess spending, but giving unnecessary tax cuts has the same effect. We need to balance our economy, which requires giving an in-depth look to all possible areas of improvement. Stimulating business is one facet. Decreasing spending is another. Republicans seem fascinated with these ideas, but many fail to release that these things alone are not enough to repair the federal deficit or fix the economy. Tax increases will be required. But I agree that we must be careful about where and how we enact them. It's not a simple choice. It needs to be carefully considered. But in my opinion, a rational plan of this scope is outside Mitt Romney's realm of thought.

And how do you come to that line of logic? Are you briefed in depth with Romney's plan or are you being Partisan? I agree that tax increases will be needed, but as Obama and Clinton in the past have noted, they can only be used when the Economy is working correctly again. Placing tax increases in the economy we are currently in will only work to depress it. Which means less jobs, which means less spending, which means less tax revenue.

It is a hard and settled fact. Science may disagree on some minor, quibbling details about Global Warming, but the central idea, that climate change is here already and will have a much more dramatic effect in the future, is not debated. Insofar as new research is emerging, it is often on the scope of the change. If anything, contradictory research suggests that it may be larger than we originally imagined, not smaller. To ignore this kind of data is irresponsible. I urge you to read the various summary reports available from world organizations on climate change.

I have, I have also seen falsified data and reports from world organizations such as the IPCC. I am also curious how you can say that when things like CLOUD begins casting doubts on what is causing Global Warming.

You're right. Many Republicans are receptive to alternative energy. But some others are not. Most Democrats are not receptive to nuclear energy. But some are. We must make careful choices about which avenues to support as we attempt to deal with the energy crisis, and we cannot be too quick to ignore any potential, renewable or near-renewable source of energy. However, one thing we can't abide is a continued reliance on petroleum; I think it's clear which party is more interested in maintaining the status quo in that regard. And that's part of the problem.

And yet could that be because many of the technologies we have researched outside of nuclear power have been wasteful and or money pits ala Windmills and Solar Power?

[Plantae]

Was it the best deal for the public, or was it the best deal for his own legacy? The best deal for the public would be the one that would be amicable for both parties, and that would get through Congress. The best deal for his own legacy would be the one that is as big as possible.

I agree that the best deal would be the one that would be amicable to both parties. But I disagree that Obama was attempting to expand his own legacy by choosing the alternative deal. I believe he miscalculated, and thought he could push to increase revenues to $1.2 trillion, but that he was wrong. I also think that he did so because he thought more revenues was wiser economic policy. However, clearly we cannot exactly pinpoint Obama's intentions.

But either way, Boehner made the politically expedient choice in rejecting any attempting at re-negotiating the deal. Perhaps it was the most sensible choice. But again, that does not suggest at all that it was right.

And how do you come to that line of logic? Are you briefed in depth with Romney's plan or are you being Partisan? I agree that tax increases will be needed, but as Obama and Clinton in the past have noted, they can only be used when the Economy is working correctly again. Placing tax increases in the economy we are currently in will only work to depress it. Which means less jobs, which means less spending, which means less tax revenue.

I did mention that I agree it is important to know when to increase taxes. But even in this economy, increasing certain taxes and closing loopholes can increase revenues with negligible harm. As to Romney's economic plan, those positions that he has stated have indicated that he would reform the tax code, but that the majority of the cuts would be rewarded to wealthy individuals. This will not stimulate the economy. His proposed tax reforms also place an additional burden on the middle class and those making minimum wage. He also advocates spending cuts for social programs, while advocating an increase in defense spending. When our primary issues are domestic, why do we need a bigger military, I ask? And how will cutting social programs for the impoverished encourage economic recovery?

I have, I have also seen falsified data and reports from world organizations such as the IPCC. I am also curious how you can say that when things like CLOUD begins casting doubts on what is causing Global Warming.

CLOUD is not a new theory, nor is it correct. It has already been debunked by the scientific community. Even if some portion of Global Warming data were to be false, the evidence is so copious at this point that no single data point is the crux of the argument. The support is undeniable. The dissent is just the antics of bought-and-paid-for advocacy groups, who want to introduce doubt where there is none. All nationally and internationally accredited scientific organizations and close to 97% of all scientific papers agree that climate change is reality.

Edit: Also, I'll note the article you've indicated as your source was written by Warren Meyer, a conservative libertarian blogger and known climate skeptic. Moreover, Meyer has absolutely no specialist knowledge in the field, and has been a consultant for Fortune 50 companies. His opinion could hardly be considered a neutral perspective on the issue.

And yet could that be because many of the technologies we have researched outside of nuclear power have been wasteful and or money pits ala Windmills and Solar Power?

It's true that many alternative energy technologies have not been as profitable as we hoped. But in some cases, this is more of a short-term issue. In the long-term, they will be more profitable in almost all cases, as the economic cost associated with continued reliance on petroleum is much, much greater. And all this indicates is a need for continued research into green energy. In an ideal reality, we might have worked out nuclear fusion by now, ha.

[Roy Karrde]

I agree that the best deal would be the one that would be amicable to both parties. But I disagree that Obama was attempting to expand his own legacy by choosing the alternative deal. I believe he miscalculated, and thought he could push to increase revenues to $1.2 trillion, but that he was wrong. I also think that he did so because he thought more revenues was wiser economic policy. However, clearly we cannot exactly pinpoint Obama's intentions.

The idea that it is part of his legacy comes from this part of the article.

"The sermon the president had heard that morning was a stirring Old Testament account of Jacob dreaming of a ladder that stretched to heaven. Sometimes, the pastor had said, “the best adventures occur when we venture into unmarked terrain.”

Obama was in a similar frame of mind. Against the vehement advice of many Democrats, including some of his own advisers, Obama was pursuing a compromise with his ideological opponents, a “grand bargain” that would move into unmarked territory, beyond partisan divides, pushing both parties to places they did not want to go. Now might be the moment."

There is no doubt he miscalculated, but there is also evidence that Obama saw himself as some one who was going for the "Grand Bargain" and with $1.2 trillion on the table, the $800 billion from before just wasn't "Grand" enough for him.

But either way, Boehner made the politically expedient choice in rejecting any attempting at re-negotiating the deal. Perhaps it was the most sensible choice. But again, that does not suggest at all that it was right.

And again I ask, where do you honestly think that Boehner would be able to get either the Republicans or the Democrats to agree to the deal after that week? The Democrats sure as hell were not going to go after $800 billion, when $1.2 trillion was on the table, especially after the President endorsed it. And the Republicans were not going to go after $800 billion after hearing from their constituents for the past week.

Not to mention Boehner had no guarantee that Obama would not screw him again.

I did mention that I agree it is important to know when to increase taxes. But even in this economy, increasing certain taxes and closing loopholes can increase revenues with negligible harm.

Really? We are already running BELOW natural population increase, Europe is about to implode, and we have tens of millions having given up. Do you honestly want to add any harm onto that?

As to Romney's economic plan, those positions that he has stated have indicated that he would reform the tax code, but that the majority of the cuts would be rewarded to wealthy individuals. This will not stimulate the economy.

And where do you get that from?

His proposed tax reforms also place an additional burden on the middle class and those making minimum wage. He also advocates spending cuts for social programs, while advocating an increase in defense spending. When our primary issues are domestic, why do we need a bigger military, I ask? And how will cutting social programs for the impoverished encourage economic recovery?

I agree we should cut defense spending, but we need a massive overhaul of our social programs much in the way Paul Ryan advocates if not more. Like it or not our social programs are on the brink of collapsing in the next few decades. If we are to continue to have them, we need a massive restructuring of them.

CLOUD is not a new theory, nor is it correct. It has already been debunked by the scientific community. Even if some portion of Global Warming data were to be false, the evidence is so copious at this point that no single data point is the crux of the argument. The support is undeniable. The dissent is just the antics of bought-and-paid-for advocacy groups, who want to introduce doubt where there is none. All nationally and internationally accredited scientific organizations and close to 97% of all scientific papers agree that climate change is reality.

And how many scientist actually agree with it and how many go along to get along. You talk about being bought and paid for, but the same can be said for Climate Scientists. By the way the evidence of CLOUD as shown has only come out in the past few years, and the experiments in the lab do show compelling evidence.

[Plantae]

There is no doubt he miscalculated, but there is also evidence that Obama saw himself as some one who was going for the "Grand Bargain" and with $1.2 trillion on the table, the $800 billion from before just wasn't "Grand" enough for him.

"Evidence" is not the right word. There's nothing empirical to suggest this is true. The article in question is just a reporter's interpretation.

And again I ask, where do you honestly think that Boehner would be able to get either the Republicans or the Democrats to agree to the deal after that week?

No. I don't think he had much chance at all. But to attempt to do so would have been the correct, ethical choice as far as the American people are concerned. There are no guarantees in politics. But if he had returned to the table, who's to say there wasn't some slim chance a grand bargain could have been worked out after all?

Really? We are already running BELOW natural population increase, Europe is about to implode, and we have tens of millions having given up. Do you honestly want to add any harm onto that?

Negligible. As in next to none. And it would be counterbalanced and more by the value of this revenue.

And where do you get that from?

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxto...omney-plan.cfm
"The Tax Policy Center is a joint venture of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution. The Center is made up of nationally recognized experts in tax, budget, and social policy who have served at the highest levels of government."
I'm hoping I can trust these credentials.

I agree we should cut defense spending, but we need a massive overhaul of our social programs much in the way Paul Ryan advocates if not more. Like it or not our social programs are on the brink of collapsing in the next few decades. If we are to continue to have them, we need a massive restructuring of them.

I agree. Social Security is in peril. But I don't think Paul Ryan's proposals are suitable. It's clear that the only way forward is a bipartisan discussion, which as our current conversation suggests, is rather impossible.

And how many scientist actually agree with it and how many go along to get along. You talk about being bought and paid for, but the same can be said for Climate Scientists. By the way the evidence of CLOUD as shown has only come out in the past few years, and the experiments in the lab do show compelling evidence.

No scientist that distorts true evidence is a true scientist. No scientist that jumps on a bandwagon is a true scientist. Science is careful observation, data collection, and inference, and this data points clearly toward climate change. CLOUD is new, but the theory it posits is not. It's already been discredited by climate scientists.

I must ask, what's more likely? That 97% of scientists are involved in a vast conspiracy to propagate a "false" theory of climate change, or that 3% of them are attempting to undermine valid scientific data, and that they are supported by financial interests that would do anything to drag the idea of global warming through the mud, if it meant they could keep making record profits?

[Roy Karrde]

"Evidence" is not the right word. There's nothing empirical to suggest this is true. The article in question is just a reporter's interpretation.

Interpretation of the sermon, various notes, interviews, and other things that went into research of the article.

No. I don't think he had much chance at all. But to attempt to do so would have been the correct, ethical choice as far as the American people are concerned. There are no guarantees in politics. But if he had returned to the table, whose to say there wasn't some slim chance a grand bargain could have been worked out after all?

Because the damage had already been done, why work with Obama when the need to start carving out a deal with your own party and how many Democrats you can grab onto would be far more productive? The deal Obama wanted was dead, he had killed it, Obama did not recognize the political reality of his actions, and as such to go back to the table would have to bring far more concessions form the left, and seeing how the Democrats wouldn't easily let go of the 1.2 trillion number, the chance they would accept even more concessions just to get 800 billion is unrealistic and a waste of time.

Negligible. As in next to none. And it would be counterbalanced and more by the value of this revenue.

And as I have said, that is a perceived revenue. Again I suggest you go ask California what happens when they raise taxes on perceived revenue in a down economy.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxto...omney-plan.cfm
"The Tax Policy Center is a joint venture of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution. The Center is made up of nationally recognized experts in tax, budget, and social policy who have served at the highest levels of government."
I'm hoping I can trust these credentials.

Just glancing through the article, I see no where in it that says it will not stimulate the economy.

I agree. Social Security is in peril. But I don't think Paul Ryan's proposals are suitable. It's clear that the only way forward is a bipartisan discussion, which as our current conversation suggests, is rather impossible.

Actually its not, if Romney is elected, and Republicans gain control over the Senate, a budge can be passed with only 50 votes, if going with Paul Ryan's budget it would be suitable for reworking Social Security and Medicare into a much more sustainable program.

No scientist that distorts true evidence is a true scientist. No scientist that jumps on a bandwagon is a scientist. Science is careful inference and data, and this data points clearly toward climate change. CLOUD is new, but the theory it posits is not. It's already been discredited by climate scientists.

So you are saying the evidence is discredited because of scientists in the past said so? Even with the evidence provided by the experiments?

By the way if you believe that any scientist that distorts the evidence is not a true scientist, then the IPCC, the largest body of climate scientists, are made up of "fake scientists"

I must ask, what's more likely? That 97% of scientists are involved in a vast conspiracy to propagate a "false" theory of climate change, or that 3% of them are attempting to undermine valid scientific data, and that they are supported by financial interests that would do anything to drag the idea of global warming through the mud, if it meant they could keep making record profits?

I pose a similar question, what is more likely, that we still are not sure of what has happened, and that the science has been so polluted by money and politics that we cannot honestly look at the information with a fair eye. Or that what we know now is fact despite the information that is gained through studies like CLOUD, and that all those grants, both federal and from colleges, play absolutely no part in a scientist's decision?

[Plantae]

Interpretation of the sermon, various notes, interviews, and other things that went into research of the article.

Which another reporter could certainly interpret in a different manner.

Because the damage had already been done, why work with Obama when the need to start carving out a deal with your own party and how many Democrats you can grab onto would be far more productive? The deal Obama wanted was dead, he had killed it, Obama did not recognize the political reality of his actions, and as such to go back to the table would have to bring far more concessions form the left, and seeing how the Democrats wouldn't easily let go of the 1.2 trillion number, the chance they would accept even more concessions just to get 800 billion is unrealistic and a waste of time.

And was the result of Boehner's choice satisfactory in resolving the debt ceiling crisis? No. Were the American People really helped in any regard? No. Clearly this approach failed. I'm not at all saying that returning to the table and trying again wouldn't have been a long shot. I would just have more respect for the man if he would have tried.

Just glancing through the article, I see no where in it that says it will not stimulate the economy.

Whoops. Here's the analysis portion.

And as I have said, that is a perceived revenue. Again I suggest you go ask California what happens when they raise taxes on perceived revenue in a down economy.

Yes, if all those taxed flee to avoid paying, it won't work. But that doesn't mean it isn't the right course, or not worth trying.

Actually its not, if Romney is elected, and Republicans gain control over the Senate, a budge can be passed with only 50 votes, if going with Paul Ryan's budget it would be suitable for reworking Social Security and Medicare into a much more sustainable program.

Yes, by all means, let's implement a plan in a partisan manner without fully considering its implications.

I pose a similar question, what is more likely, that we still are not sure of what has happened, and that the science has been so polluted by money and politics that we cannot honestly look at the information with a fair eye. Or that what we know now is fact despite the information that is gained through studies like CLOUD, and that all those grants, both federal and from colleges, play absolutely no part in a scientist's decision?

And what motivation exactly would there be in supporting a false hypothesis of climate change? There's no financial gain in it. We don't want there to be climate change. The implications are extremely catastrophic. But that doesn't change the harsh reality.

Again, it's just a matter of common sense. It's a lot easier to co-opt 3% of scientific articles than 97%. CLOUD is supported by two decades of distorted, improperly interpreted, imperfect, satellite data. Climate change is supported by the entire current and paleoclimate record. The debate over climate change has nothing to do with science anymore. It's just about the role of the government. But the government's refusal to act will not stop global warming from happening. In fact, it's making it worse.

Please refrain from further arguing the point. At this point, I'm content to let the climate itself demonstrate the virtue of my position. In the meantime, I've got a paper to write, so please don't post anything too defamatory in my absence.

[Roy Karrde]

Which another reporter could certainly interpret in a different manner.

Got one that does?

And was the result of Boehner's choice satisfactory in resolving the debt ceiling crisis? No. Were the American People really helped in any regard? No. Clearly this approach failed. I'm not at all saying that returning to the table and trying again wouldn't have been a long shot. I would just have more respect for the man if he would have tried.

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.

Whoops. Here's the analysis portion.

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.

Yes, if all those taxed flee to avoid paying, it won't work. But that doesn't mean it isn't the right course, or not worth trying.

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.

Yes, by all means, let's implement a plan in a partisan manner without fully considering its implications.

Such as Obamacare or the Stimulus?

And what motivation exactly would there be in supporting a false hypothesis of climate change? There's no financial gain in it. We don't want there to be climate change. The implications are extremely catastrophic. But that doesn't change the harsh reality.

Oh there is alot in supporting a flawed hypothesis, do you honestly believe that by being labeled a "Denier" that universities and science magazines will welcome you in open arms? That you will not be shunned by other scientists? That the lovely grant well wont dry up? Global Warming has become polluted with politics and with that comes power and money on both sides to clamp down on desenting voices.

Again, it's just a matter of common sense. It's a lot easier to co-opt 3% of scientific articles than 97%. CLOUD is supported by two decades of distorted, improperly interpreted, imperfect, satellite data. Climate change is supported by the entire current and paleoclimate record. The debate over climate change has nothing to do with science anymore. It's just about the role of the government. But the government's refusal to act will not stop global warming from happening. In fact, it's making it worse.

Actually Man Made Global Warming is not so supported by record, things like The Little Ice Age, and other problems that crop up, have been a thorn in the side of those Climate Scientists for a long time.

And BTW you realize that CLOUD has gone beyond Satellite Data correct? If you have read the article you would know lab experiments have shown it to be correct.

Please refrain from further arguing the point. At this point, I'm content to let the climate itself demonstrate the virtue of my position. In the meantime, I've got a paper to write, so please don't post anything too defamatory in my absence.

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

[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.

[Roy Karrde]

Actually on the debt there is a way that could be considered true, I point you to politifact.

"If we take into account administration projections for debt held by the public as of the end of fiscal year 2013, then the amount of that debt added would exceed the level from Jan. 20, 2009. Fiscal year 2013 is the last budget year to begin during Obama’s first term.

According to the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, debt held by the public is estimated to be about $12.636 trillion at the end of fiscal year 2013, which concludes Sept. 30, 2013.

Based on that estimate, the amount of debt held by the public that was added during Obama’s tenure would be about $6.329 trillion, surpassing the amount as of his inauguration by about $22 billion."

http://www.politifact.com/new-jersey...evious-43-pre/

As for the last one, as it says, when you are the Presidential candidate you blame the other party. Does that make Obama dishonest in 2008?

[Dark Sage]

No, Roy, what it makes him is... a politician...

...unfortuantely.

[Roy Karrde]

No, Roy, what it makes him is... a politician...

...unfortuantely.

So one is a politician and the other is dishonest?

[Dark Sage]

Roy, I would at first try to deny that you can't be a politician without being dishonest...

But we both know I'd be fooling myself.

[Roy Karrde]

Just a bit of a poll drop, first is Gallup.

Perhaps the broadest indicator of the public's mood comes from Gallup's satisfaction measure, which asks Americans if they are satisfied or dissatisfied with "the way things are going in the United States at this time." The 24% of Americans currently satisfied is most similar to the 20% recorded in May 1992 during George H.W. Bush's first and only term. Bush was also the only sitting president of the last four to lose his re-election bid.

By contrast, satisfaction was above 35% in May of 1996 and 2004, in advance of Bill Clinton's and George W. Bush's re-elections. And it was 48% in September 1984, the closest time period Gallup has to May of Ronald Reagan's re-election year.
.....
The extent of Americans' concern about the economy -- as evident in their top-of-mind mentions of it as the nation's "most important problem" -- is greater today than for any president seeking re-election since Jimmy Carter in 1980. The current 66% mentioning one or more economic concerns is substantially higher than it was in May 2004 or May 1996, and moderately higher than at the same point in 1992 and 1984. Americans' mentions of the economy did surge in August 1984 to 65% -- comparable to where they are today -- but fell to 51% by September.

BARACK OBAMA, MITT ROMNEY TIED IN WISCONSIN

GOV WALKER 50% MAYOR BARRETT 44%

Looks like Walker will keep the Governorship at this point.

[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.

[Roy Karrde]

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.

New York Times tried to accuse John McCain of having a romantic relationship with a lobbyist just days after he won the nomination. It led to a lawsuit, and eventually Times releasing a statement saying they were not trying to say McCain was having a romantic relationship with the lobbyist.

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

Some would call the pathetic spin the times puts on many of its news stories as editorials as well.

[Dark Sage]

So it happened in 2008?

Didn't you say just five mintues ago that "old news is old news" when I mentioned a story that broke this morning???

[Roy Karrde]

So it happened in 2008?

Didn't you say just five mintues ago that "old news is old news" when I mentioned a story that broke this morning???

It was a example of the New York Times bias and false reporting, I was not trying to act as if it were breaking news as you were.