geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:[By the way, Ireland has the lowest corporation tax around these parts (excepting the havens), and it did them no real good - the recession has led to the government needing to be bailed out by the rest of us. The companies that moved there to benefit are now moving elsewhere.

Was Ireland's financial collapse due to a low corporate rate or too much spending?

Neither. The one sentence version: The bad decision by the gov't to back up giant banks that took tremendous risks in a speculative real estate bubble has, largely, bankrupted the country.

Well, thanks for refuting Danivon!

It was due to a property speculation bubble. The Irish started making spending cuts in 2008/9, way before most other countries. Instead of helping, this appears to have hit growth, leading to more bank bailouts that the Irish state could not afford to guarantee without UK and EU assistance.

So, neither, unless low taxation can be seen as fueling the Celtic Tiger boom and bust.

Love this analysis of the President's speech (n.b. it was not a policy--as is made evident in the critique):

If Obama wants to make a serious debt reduction proposal, it has to be presented in detail, in budgetary form, so that it can be analyzed properly and scored by the Congressional Budget Office. Obama hasn't done that; instead, he purports to shave trillions off the national debt with breathtaking insouciance:

My budget calls for limiting itemized deductions for the wealthiest 2% of Americans - a reform that would reduce the deficit by $320 billion over ten years. But to reduce the deficit, I believe we should go further. That's why I'm calling on Congress to reform our individual tax code so that it is fair and simple - so that the amount of taxes you pay isn't determined by what kind of accountant you can afford.

So Obama wants our tax code to be "reformed" so that it is "fair and simple." What does that mean? A flat tax? Just kidding. It means nothing at all until we see a proposal. And, by the way, itemized deductions for the wealthiest 2% of Americans are already limited.

I believe reform should protect the middle class, promote economic growth, and build on the Fiscal Commission's model of reducing tax expenditures so that there is enough savings to both lower rates and lower the deficit.

Time out! Is Obama endorsing the recommendations of the Bowles-Simpson commission? Well, no, he didn't say that. He wants to "build on" those recommendations. And in case it wasn't clear, "reducing tax expenditures" means "raising taxes."

And as I called for in the State of the Union, we should reform our corporate tax code as well, to make our businesses and our economy more competitive.

What on earth does that mean? Has Obama finally figured out that we have the highest corporate tax rates of any developed country? (If it is any consolation, corporate income tax rates are higher in Ivory Coast.) How, exactly, does he want to "reform our corporate tax code?" He doesn't say.

This is my approach to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the next twelve years. It's an approach that achieves about $2 trillion in spending cuts across the budget. It will lower our interest payments on the debt by $1 trillion. It calls for tax reform to cut about $1 trillion in spending from the tax code.

Sure. Until we see an actual budget, it is useless to talk about numbers. Numbers are, after all, just that--numbers. They are specific and quantitative, a fact that Obama may or may not understand.

One blindingly obvious fact about Obama's speech is that it almost completely ignored the fact that he submitted a budget for FY 2012 just 60 days ago that included projections for the next decade

Hear that sound? Yeah, that's the vacuum of Presidential leadership this nation is currently struggling with.

ricardo
The republican position is now viewed simplistically as attacking medicare and social security and defending tax breaks for the uber wealthy. Whatever the eventual budget that gets hammered out, I think Obama seems to have struck a pretty powerful strategic position. More importantly, everyone is saying cuts will be necessary. So when he signs a bill making them happen it won't be imposing them on an unwilling populace but making them with a populace resigned to their importance.

Esteban

Trust me. I hope the White House thinks like you--that people will be fooled by the President's charade of a speech.

Careful what you wish for Esteban. I heard blurbs of the speech today and from what I heard it was politically great. Who likes dealing with private health insurance companies? Doing away with Medicare means dealing with private health insurance companies for the rest of your life. Oy. Good thing old people retire because that's going to be a full-time job when you're old. Pitting this fight as a struggle between the poor and weak and the rich and powerful is very powerful when there are a lot of people feeling poor and weak. Score one Obama.

And as a swing voter, my vote matters more than yours. (Oh wait a minute . . . I live in New York . . . my vote is meaningless).

geojanes wrote:Careful what you wish for Esteban. I heard blurbs of the speech today and from what I heard it was politically great.

Jorge, great? It was so "great" that it put the VP to sleep. Was it on prime time?

I think for a speech to be "great" it would either have to galvanize the country, convert the undecided, or solve the seemingly unsolvable. I doubt it did any of those things. It was filled with red meat for Obama's acolytes.

Who likes dealing with private health insurance companies?

Who thinks the federal government will improve the situation? How does Obamacare poll? Do people think their care will get better or worse? Do they think costs will go down?

What was the speech about? Healthcare or the budget? Or, blasting Paul Ryan?

Doing away with Medicare means dealing with private health insurance companies for the rest of your life. Oy.

Nice straw man that you either created or imported from the Straw Master. Ryan's plan does not do away with Medicare.

Which is better: having insurance companies compete for business or having the government decide what level of care you are entitled to?

Good thing old people retire because that's going to be a full-time job when you're old. Pitting this fight as a struggle between the poor and weak and the rich and powerful is very powerful when there are a lot of people feeling poor and weak. Score one Obama.

Except that's a lie. Of course, when you're at about a 0.25 BOC (blood/Obama content), you're bound to be a bit of a drunkard for more Kool-Aid.

And as a swing voter, my vote matters more than yours. (Oh wait a minute . . . I live in New York . . . my vote is meaningless).

Sure. Did you vote for Obama in 2008?

Translation: you're a swing-voter like Michelle Obama is a swing-voter.

I think polls in swing states are pretty interesting. Most of them don't show your drink doing so well.

Furthermore, what are the odds the Democrats recapture the House in 2012? Keep the Senate? i put both at about .0000001%. While you are LUI (living under the influence) of Obama, most Americans are dubious--and think he is doing horribly on the economy (and not so great on most other issues).

He's going to spend $1B on getting re-elected. It might not be enough.

Doctor Fate wrote:Well, thanks for refuting Danivon!

What did he refute? I didn't claim that the low corporation tax rates had caused the financial crisis, just that they didn't help much. Business didn't recover from the recession quickly despite the 'incentive'.

Steve, with all due respect, you are not 'undecided' but it seems that George is more of a swing voter. So perhaps he's a better judge than you are (or a committed left winger would be) of whether it appeals to the likes of him. That he voted for the winner last time doesn't disprove that (love the demi-insulting rhetoric though, always nice to see such stuff from a man of God).

Is it or is it not true that Ryan's bill includes the same cuts to Medicare that the Republicans vehemently opposed less than a year ago?

danivon wrote:Steve, with all due respect, you are not 'undecided' but it seems that George is more of a swing voter. So perhaps he's a better judge than you are (or a committed left winger would be) of whether it appeals to the likes of him.

With all due respect (a phrase which, as you've just demonstrated, generally indicates a lack of respect is about to hit the keyboard), I suspect you've no idea what a genuine "swing voter" is.

George is clearly left-of-center. Whether he has ever voted for a Republican in his life is hardly the qualification of a "swing voter." Mr. Gun Control himself, the current mayor of New York, used to be a Republican. In that sense, labels are indeed useless.

A genuine swing voter is someone who does not understand enough to vote intelligently. I don't think that is George.

That he voted for the winner last time doesn't disprove that (love the demi-insulting rhetoric though, always nice to see such stuff from a man of God).

Pretty tame, I'd say--look at your own eye and remove the beam. Still, I'm sure George thinks he can defend himself from my rhetoric.

Is it or is it not true that Ryan's bill includes the same cuts to Medicare that the Republicans vehemently opposed less than a year ago?

Is it or is it not true the President now is against the Bush tax cuts, which he took credit for extending a few months ago?

Here's a good review of the speech from the NYT:

In fact, the address on Wednesday appears to have done exactly the opposite for Mr. Obama. The speech’s several starkly partisan moments and his willingness to draw clear lines in the sand over the issues of taxes and Medicare sparked a significant amount of praise among liberal members of the president’s party.

“Liberals have wanted a full-throated affirmation of why government is a good thing,” wrote Jonathan Bernstein, a political blogger. “Obama delivered, with perhaps his strongest case for a liberal vision of government that he’s given so far during his presidency.”

Steve Benen, a blogger for Washington Monthly, wrote that “what made his remarks this afternoon especially satisfying was his defense of the progressive vision. The president made a point of reminding his audience that government, the institutions of the modern welfare state, and the modern social compact are worthy of a spirited defense.”

In other words, only "swing voters" who ignore the facts about what was missing from the President's speech would fail to see it's clear partisan and liberal content. He didn't so much address problems as make his first 2012 campaign speech.

How do I know he's not serious about debt reduction? He's had three previous opportunities: December with the budget deal, his State of the Union address, and the 2012 budget. He has never made debt reduction a priority until Ryan skunked him. So, his response was measured and statesman-like? No, it was bitter . . . and a bit clingy.

He's a pathetic excuse for a leader and the sooner the election gets here and he loses, the better for the nation and the world.

Doctor Fate wrote:A genuine swing voter is someone who does not understand enough to vote intelligently. I don't think that is George.

Blimey! You do like to slag off the voters, don't you? Perhaps they are intelligent enough to not fall on one side all the time? Or are the only intelligent people those who agree consistently with yourself?

Pretty tame, I'd say--look at your own eye and remove the beam.

I don't claim to live by the Bible, let alone preach to others how to.

Is it or is it not true the President now is against the Bush tax cuts, which he took credit for extending a few months ago?

So, both sides as bad as each other. I think I said that early on in the thread.

danivon wrote:Perhaps they are intelligent enough to not fall on one side all the time?

Or, foolish enough to vote on personalities, etc. Look at any polling about overall political knowledge--it's pretty sad. How many know who the Speaker is, who the USSC justices are, etc.

Most "swing voters" are impulse voters. They vote on conditions, not on any particular philosophy--because they have little idea what the country was founded to be or what it should be.

You may not like my characterization. It just happens to be true.

With regard to George, perhaps he'd like to explain how much of a "swing voter" he is. My guess is that he has only voted GOP when the Democrat was out to lunch or maybe the Republican was "reasonable" (like the Democrat-Republican-Independent Bloomberg).

Or are the only intelligent people those who agree consistently with yourself?

Funny. How many times have you questioned my intelligence? Again, remove the beam from your own eye.

I don't claim to live by the Bible, let alone preach to others how to.

This should prevent someone from making political observations how?

So, both sides as bad as each other. I think I said that early on in the thread.

But, Obama is different. "Hope." "Change."

"Post-partisan."

"We are not Red States and Blue States, we are the United States."

Maybe not.

Steve, my point is that you are not being particularly charitable. Or forgiving. I could probably list more... I would never wish to prevent you from expressing yourself. The more the better, I say! that way people can see what you represent.

Also, my point on intelligence was really that there are thoughtful and intelligent people across the poltical spectrum, including in the centre. Indeed, I notice that Min X and Ray Jay are both quite centrist and are far from being unwitting boobs.

danivon wrote:Steve, my point is that you are not being particularly charitable.

I'll be emailing you. Someone has hacked your account. Normally, when the real Danivon goes on the attack, he tries to have a point.

***Sorry! I forgot! I'm not permitted sarcasm!!!***

To whom am I not being charitable? To "swing voters?" Please note, I did not say all swing voters fall into the know-nothing category. I don't doubt George's intelligence. I doubt his genuineness with regard to being a fence-sitter politically.

Or forgiving. I could probably list more...

I see. What has this to do with forgiveness?

I would never wish to prevent you from expressing yourself. The more the better, I say! that way people can see what you represent.

Okay. Thanks.

I'm not particularly concerned that you disagree with me. You think the country's on the right course. Sadly for you and the President, nearly 70% of Americans disagree with you.

Also, my point on intelligence was really that there are thoughtful and intelligent people across the poltical spectrum, including in the centre. Indeed, I notice that Min X and Ray Jay are both quite centrist and are far from being unwitting boobs.

Well, that's quite a Mt. Rushmore of Straw Men you are constructing. I would not and have not insulted the intelligence of those two--or George for that matter. If you think I've dissed George, feel free to point out where with some specificity. i know George "well" for a Redscape acquaintance. Well enough to know that he has one irredeemable quality: he loves the Yankees.

I guess I can forgive that one. After all, I sat behind some genuinely nice Yankee fans last Saturday at Fenway.

No, you generally 'dissed' or impugned the intelligence of swing voters as a group. I just pointed out a few examples of those who may change allegiance who are exceptions to your rule.

Do I think the US is on the right course? I think you are doing better than mine, which has a government cutting with glee and we have seen growth falter, unemployment keep rising (a small fall last month, but we are having our census now) and RPI inflation at about 5%. Oh, and one tax that would shock most Americans - VAT is now 20%

danivon wrote:No, you generally 'dissed' or impugned the intelligence of swing voters as a group. I just pointed out a few examples of those who may change allegiance who are exceptions to your rule.

Right. You assumed I meant every single swing voter. But, I'd already said:

Danivon wrote:Or, foolish enough to vote on personalities, etc. Look at any polling about overall political knowledge--it's pretty sad. How many know who the Speaker is, who the USSC justices are, etc.

Most "swing voters" are impulse voters. They vote on conditions, not on any particular philosophy--because they have little idea what the country was founded to be or what it should be.

So, were you willfully ignoring what I said? Maybe the bold helps.

Do I think the US is on the right course?

You are welcome to your opinion. But, when nearly 70% of Americans disagree with you, that can't bode well for the President, can it?

And, our growth estimates are being changed--downward. As gas prices rise and the economy stagnates, Libya turns into a quagmire, and the President consistently leads from the back, I don't see his numbers improving. Could I be wrong? Sure. It's a long time between now and the election. Still, I would not want to bet on your man.

Hold on there amigo. I didn't say that Obama's speech was true. Yo no se!! I just said I thought it was good politics. There is a big difference!! I have no idea if it has any truth in it at all. But I do know this: when you talk budgets people's eyes glaze over. It may be really important but most people don't care. What he did was turn the discussion from budgets "to you're taking from the old and poor and giving to the wealthy and health insurance companies, and I'm not going to let that happen (anymore)." Oh man! Compared to Mr Ryan's charts and graphs speech (which I thought was very good, (unlike Obama I saw all of that one because of a link Steve posted)) politically, Obama was way ahead considering the current pulse of America. Sure, Ryan was talking apples and Obama was talking oranges, but that's part of politics: taking your chances to get your message out.

As far as how much of a swing voter I am, I would probably be a Rockefeller Republican, except that they don't exist anymore. I did vote for Mr. Bloomberg twice and I don't regret it. When it comes to other elections, I most often vote for third party candidates, which is what I do when I'm not happy with the major parties. I know I voted for Ralph Nader twice and a libertarian at least once - in 1992, I think. I did vote for Obama in 2008 and felt good about it because: he said he would close down Gitmo and end the war in Iraq, and I had no confidence McCain would do either. If I'm being honest, it also helped that he was kinda, sorta black: the election of a black man, even one who is only kinda black, to the presidency of this country actually made me feel great about America for about 15 minutes.

Finally, for the record, I follow the Yankees because they're good, they're on the radio, and they're in the American League. But I still love the Tigers.