mozartpc27 wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

pacino wrote:Rove and Limbaugh are upset

1:55 is the killer

Mom should've let the kids stay up until at least OH was called. True story--in 2008, OH was called of Obama pretty early, and we all knew it was over. I explained to Lil' Vulture (who was 7 at the time) that I knew Obama won. I explained to her I had a PhD in political science, and it was my job to know these things. I explained to her how I knew California was going to go for Obama. Did she believe me? Not at all. She insisted on staying up until California was called. This time around, it was more or less the same, but we were waiting on OH. At least she didn't insist on staying up until Romney conceded.

I cried the night GWHB lost to Bill Clinton, and I was 14. Embarrassing, but true. I remember not quite understaning why my Mom wasn't weeping right along with me. I figured it was because I was the better Republican.

The thing that most pissed Lil' Vulture off about Romney and the Republicans was the possibility that she might get paid less than a boy for doing the same work. She was actually angry about that, and really can't understand why any of her friends aren't similarly angry. Also, one of her friends took her to an evangelical church this morning (it's in fact a large integrated church, so I presume there's not a ton of blatant politics there) and found the whole thing "scary" and that the people there seemed "crazy". She also doesn't like the idea of rock music in church. (She actually likes traditional religious music and is working on Cesar Franck's Hear My Cry O God). I'm really proud of her right now.

dajafi wrote:jh is correct that Ohio remains a bit redder than the country as a whole, and that this is slightly surprising given the polling there and everywhere else. Without digging too deeply into it, my guess is that the different demographics of OH as opposed to the other mega-swing states would account for it, but who knows.

I think Romney was greatly hurt in Ohio by his comments on the auto bailout, and/or Obama's spin on said comments.

Mitch McConnell says there is no voter mandate to raise taxes..except for the voters electing the guy who ran on raising taxes

Can't wait to see Ashley Judd whip his cracker ass.

JFLNYC wrote:Can't wait to see Ashley Judd whip his cracker ass.

Probably find that on redtube.

Why are Democrats like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid so obsessed with raising our highest marginal income tax rates? "You have to understand, they really don't believe that raising taxes hurts the economy," Mr. McConnell says. "They think rates can go much higher. What they are seeking is the Europeanization of the U.S. economy."

Um, well, yeah.

But don't Messrs. Obama and Reid think they've just been given a mandate to raise those tax rates? "Yes, well, we Republicans in the House and Senate think we have a voter mandate not to raise taxes."

I guess, as the great Karl Rove said, you are entitled to your facts, I'm entitled to the facts.

TenuredVulture wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:Can't wait to see Ashley Judd whip his cracker ass.

Probably find that on redtube.

i googled 'mitch mcconnell' to try to remember his wife's name and the second thing that came up as 'mitch mcconnell gay'. sheesh, is that google search second for EVERY republican senator???

And as a friendly reminder

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study

bleh wrote:And as a friendly reminder

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study

Forbes and the Congressional Research Service, eh? Both liberal outlets!!!

men in flowing shiny gowns and fancy hats in europe are upset about marriage equality in the US:

"It is clear that in Western countries there is a widespread tendency to modify the classic vision of marriage between a man and woman, or rather to try to give it up, erasing its specific and privileged legal recognition compared to other forms of union," Father Federico Lombardi, said in a tough editorial on Vatican Radio.

"If not, why not contemplate also freely chosen polygamy and, of course, not to discriminate, polyandry?" he said.

Well, why not, if it's all mutual and between adults?

"The Church is the only institution to say that, while persecuting homosexuals in undoubtedly unjust, opposing marriage between people of the same sex is a point of view that must be respected," the Vatican newspaper editorial said.

no persecution, just the withholding of basic rights. yeah, that's the ticket.

pacino wrote:men in flowing shiny gowns and fancy hats in europe are upset about marriage equality in the US:

"It is clear that in Western countries there is a widespread tendency to modify the classic vision of marriage between a man and woman, or rather to try to give it up, erasing its specific and privileged legal recognition compared to other forms of union," Father Federico Lombardi, said in a tough editorial on Vatican Radio.

"If not, why not contemplate also freely chosen polygamy and, of course, not to discriminate, polyandry?" he said.

Well, why not, if it's all mutual and between adults?

"The Church is the only institution to say that, while persecuting homosexuals in undoubtedly unjust, opposing marriage between people of the same sex is a point of view that must be respected," the Vatican newspaper editorial said.

no persecution, so the withholding of basic rights. yeah, that's the ticket.

If you make a law against polygamy or polyandry at least it affects everyone the same.

Bill Kristol on FOX this Sunday:

"Four presidents in the last century have won 50 percent of the vote twice: Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Reagan, and Obama," the conservative pundit explained. "It pains me to say that, to put him in with those other three, but it's a fact. Democrats picked up seats in the House and the Senate. The president is in good shape. ... I think there will be a big budget deal. It will be an Obama budget deal much more than a Paul Ryan-type budget deal. Elections have consequences."

He continued: "The leadership in the Republican Party and the leadership in the conservative movement has to pull back, let people float new ideas. Let's have a serious debate. Don't scream and yell when one person says, 'You know what? It won't kill the country if we raise taxes a little bit on millionaires.' It really won't, I don't think."

"I really don't understand why Republicans don't take Obama's offer to freeze taxes for everyone below $250,000 -- make it $500,000, make it a million," Kristol insisted.

"Really? The Republican Party is going to fall on its sword to defend a bunch of millionaires, half of whom voted Democratic and half of them live in Hollywood?"

pacino wrote:"Really? The Republican Party is going to fall on its sword to defend a bunch of millionaires, half of whom voted Democratic and half of them live in Hollywood?"

nah, just for the ones who paid to get them into office.

drsmooth wrote:This guy Frum ain't dum

I read the whole article, but really, he lost me in the first paragraph:

David Frum wrote:When eco­nom­ic conditions are as bad as they were in 2012 and the incumbent wins anyway, that’s not “close.” That’s the challenger party throwing away a sure thing

That piece of "analysis" that keeps getting thrown around - that the economic situation should have been a portent of an out-party victory - is THE fundamental error being made this election season. Nate had a great post about it back on Labor Day. No matter how much the Romney/Ryan team tried to say otherwise (and it was there best and really only shot to win, so I don't blame them), their assertion that the economy was in the toilet was, quite simply, countervailed by reality: the economy is and has been on a just-good-enough track to predict re-election for the incumbent party. I understand why Romney/Ryan had to claim otherwise; to me it is inexcusable when a so-called analyst fails to understand this.

mozartpc27 wrote:

drsmooth wrote:This guy Frum ain't dum

I read the whole article, but really, he lost me in the first paragraph:

David Frum wrote:When eco­nom­ic conditions are as bad as they were in 2012 and the incumbent wins anyway, that’s not “close.” That’s the challenger party throwing away a sure thing

That piece of "analysis" that keeps getting thrown around - that the economic situation should have been a portent of an out-party victory - is THE fundamental error being made this election season. Nate had a great post about it back on Labor Day. No matter how much the Romney/Ryan team tried to say otherwise (and it was there best and really only shot to win, so I don't blame them), their assertion that the economy was in the toilet was, quite simply, countervailed by reality: the economy is and has been on a just-good-enough track to predict re-election for the incumbent party. I understand why Romney/Ryan had to claim otherwise; to me it is inexcusable when a so-called analyst fails to understand this.

yeah, the most recent jobs report showed a ton of good indicators. we all keep hearing 'in this economy' in our lives, on the news, everywhere...but i think the only thing that will make people stop saying that is the UC rate going down below 7%. that's not going to happen in the 4th quarter, so expect to keep hearing it.

pacino wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:

drsmooth wrote:This guy Frum ain't dum

I read the whole article, but really, he lost me in the first paragraph:

David Frum wrote:When eco­nom­ic conditions are as bad as they were in 2012 and the incumbent wins anyway, that’s not “close.” That’s the challenger party throwing away a sure thing

That piece of "analysis" that keeps getting thrown around - that the economic situation should have been a portent of an out-party victory - is THE fundamental error being made this election season. Nate had a great post about it back on Labor Day. No matter how much the Romney/Ryan team tried to say otherwise (and it was there best and really only shot to win, so I don't blame them), their assertion that the economy was in the toilet was, quite simply, countervailed by reality: the economy is and has been on a just-good-enough track to predict re-election for the incumbent party. I understand why Romney/Ryan had to claim otherwise; to me it is inexcusable when a so-called analyst fails to understand this.

yeah, the most recent jobs report showed a ton of good indicators. we all keep hearing 'in this economy' in our lives, on the news, everywhere...but i think the only thing that will make people stop saying that is the UC rate going down below 7%. that's not going to happen in the 4th quarter, so expect to keep hearing it.

I mean, Reagan was re-elected at historic landslide proportions with unemployment at 7.7%. Granted, in the run up to his re-election, jobs had been getting added at a truly heroic rate, but the point is Obama being re-elected with unemployment at 7.9% and on a steady, if somewhat slow, downward trajectory does not really constitute some shocking "upset" that requires some extraordinary explanation or that underwrites a conclusion that Romney and the Republicans fumbled an easy touchdown.

bleh wrote:And as a friendly reminder

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study

I probably didn't read this as closely as you, but can you explain this:

A rise in the capital gains top rate could increase
investment because of reduced risk.

This seems ludicrous on its face, that higher cap gains rates increase investment because it reduces the variability of the returns. I was skimming through the study when I saw this, and I have no idea how anyone can type such a thing with a straight face (unless I'm misinterpreting at this late hour).

That confusion aside, it's clear to many people that follow this stuff closely that the highest economic growth in the last 50 years or so has occurred in Democratic administrations. Most of us have probably seen the charts. We're also aware that the pace of economic growth has been slowly declining since the 1950s (obviously in a cyclical manner, with the business cycles). I'm not exactly sure what a "study" of these data was supposed to find, considering that the study found that all of these relationships were not statistically significant. After all, there are numerous international studies with more robust data that suggest that low government spending, stable political systems devoid of market interruptions, existence of financial stock markets, and low, steady inflation are all statistically significant drivers of economic growth. My first google hit shows this. Or this. And this.

Basically, this study's findings did nothing to "debunk conservative economic theory." But I'm interested in hearing why you (or others) think otherwise.

dajafi wrote:I've said this before, but I really, really don't get why the top rate kicks in at $250k. A decent compromise I think would be to leave the rate at the current 35% up to a million, push it to 39% there, and set another rate (43%) that kicks in at $4m.

Do that, end the vile carried interest dedication, phase in some means testing for Medicare, push the SS start age back for white-collar workers like me, strengthen the IPAB and we're probably done.

And we're still running a huge deficit. How is that "probably done?" Did you estimate the deficit based on what you said? It wouldnt surprise me if it was still close to $1trillion/year. For someone who was quite aggressive in holding Romney's feet to the fire with respect to closing the deficit, you're amazingly cavalier with your own recommendation for what Obama should do.

And not to detract from Werthless making well thought out points/asking worthwhile questions, but I hadn't actually clicked the link before (study has been linked previously) and just saw this was the Forbes thing pacino was talking about. It's a liberal blogger with Forbes as a platform He describes himself as "Writing from the left on politics and policy" and was one of those who ran with that awful 'study' earlier this year showing Obama has increased spending less than any president since Eisenhower.