What really bothers me about this election...

[Cain]

I think Romney should continue BSing, as it's gotten him this far. That's what I do -- just confidently repeat things I've overheard informed-sounding people say:

"Pullups are a more functional exercise."
"John Patitucci is probably the best living bass player."
"Of course rapidly accelerating and breaking results in more fuel use. That's just basic Newtonian mechanics."

 

[Grizzly Bear]

This isn't fair criticism. First, I doubt you're referring to Obama's "change the tone in Washington" but just in case -- that was a ridiculous, fuzzy platitude that a savvy voter should have put little or no stock in, and it's equally ridiculous to hold him to this sort of thing as if it's a policy position.

Too many voters took him at his word during the 2008 elections. I was not expecting him to bring sweeping radical changes to the extent of his campaign catering to the choir, but I did hold it against him when he said he would work across the aisle to get things done. Even with the Republicans in congress acting like asshats when it comes to bipartisanship, I've seen nothing better from Obama, and the democratic side of congress has done even worse.. And no I'm going to excuse Republicans for their behavior either, it's partly their fault congress has abysmally low approval ratings. My issues with him on bipartisanship aren't centered solely on the Obamacare stuff.

How can you so blithely overlook the sea change that occured in the political landscape? The GOP, dominated by bat **** crazy idealogues who hate Obama so much they'd rather drive the economy off a cliff than give one goddamn inch.

I'm not overlooking it. I've said many times already in different threads I believe the two parties have become polarized beyond belief. It's silly to suggest otherwise. I don't care if the cause is the tea party, birthers, or occupiers.... the question I'm concerned with is, what their solution for compromise? Both need to be willing to do it, not just one

 

[Chaos]

Show me the right-wing "politifact", show me the right wing "snopes".

Fox News.

 

[varwoche]

Too many voters took him at his word during the 2008 elections. I was not expecting him to bring sweeping radical changes to the extent of his campaign catering to the choir, but I did hold it against him when he said he would work across the aisle to get things done. Even with the Republicans in congress acting like asshats when it comes to bipartisanship, I've seen nothing better from Obama, and the democratic side of congress has done even worse.

BS. Do you not grasp that "Obamacare" is straight from the GOP playbook?

How does one work across the aisle when the other side is whacked out and intransigent? Just cave in across the board?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

It appears Romney is working a strategy of trying to appeal to the stupidest 15%, the most bigoted 15%, the most fearful 15%, the most fundamentally religious 15%, the richest 15%, the most gullible 15%, and the most blindly loyal 15%. If the intersection of those groups makes more than 51% of the electorate, he can win. Of course it would be because of stupidity, racism, fear, superstition, homophobia, and all that gullibility, not in spite of it.

Did you mean "union" instead of "intersection"?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

BS. Do you not grasp that "Obamacare" is straight from the GOP playbook?

Suggesting my argument is solely focused on "Obamacare" is a strawman. Why do you continue asserting my argument is obsessed on this one?

How does one work across the aisle when the other side is whacked out and intransigent? Just cave in across the board?

These are the facts:

In the house Republican majority they set a record for the frequency of party-line votes.

In the senate, Democrats held fewer partisan votes yet the average democratic senator fell in-line with his or her party's majority more than any time in the last 50 years.

You argue as though the partisanship is purely because Republicans want to block everything the democrats do. Not that the two parties as a whole are sharply partisan. Look if you're going to keep asserting that half truth I'm not going to do this silly back and forth. This is exactly the reason why I'm sick of both sides of the electorate, you're treating the problem like one side is the origin of the problem, and should give in on everything, and it's not the reality, no matter how many times you or someone else suggests it is. Both parties need to learn some basic discipline, the POTUS included, and I don't care if it deals with Romney or Obama, they're the same to me.

 

[DavidJames]

If you think they're both the same then you are either deluded or not paying attention. That's not to suggested it's only one sided, but it is lopsided. You can't keep waving off examples, you look foolish.

The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.

But yeah, keep thinking the Republicans really wanted to help Obama pass something that might make him look good.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

If you think they're both the same <snip>

Yes, I think they are both partisan, and they are pandering to their base. All they want to do is blame the other for the partisan problems. They're so polarized that their definition of "compromise" is demanding the other side votes with them on things they'll never mutually agree to. And then people wonder why everything in congress is stalled. I believe the facts I cited back this up sufficiently. If you think this is delusional then you're contradicting the record both parties have had for the last four years. The problem will not magically go away with one side "giving in" when both sides are playing this silly game, whether it's "lopsided" is irrelevant; what's more important is neither cares for an actual solution, it's "they're pushing me so I'll just push back." In that context I find policy differences a mute subject, they can't get anything done while they're playing giggles on the house and senate floor

 

[GeeMack]

Did you mean "union" instead of "intersection"?

Yes, that is what I meant. Thanks for the correction.

 

[varwoche]

Suggesting my argument is solely focused on "Obamacare" is a strawman. Why do you continue asserting my argument is obsessed on this one?

I didn't mean to suggest that your vague argument is based solely on this issue. I raise Obamacare because it's his centerpiece achivement, and it's from the GOP playbook.

You could cite some specifics on the other hand. What a concept.

These are the facts:

In the house Republican majority they set a record for the frequency of party-line votes.

In the senate, Democrats held fewer partisan votes yet the average democratic senator fell in-line with his or her party's majority more than any time in the last 50 years.

Taking this at face value, both sides are partisan, one moreso than the other. BFD. I suppose I could get a little more worked up if the GOP hadn't gone off the deep end in recent years, deserving of opposition.

(Don't blame me for speaking in generalities. By all means, cite some specific policy examples.)

Both parties need to learn some basic discipline, the POTUS included, and I don't care if it deals with Romney or Obama, they're the same to me.

This is lazy/mushy thinking, not factoring in the reality of GOP circa 2008-2012. In my view of course.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Both parties need to learn some basic discipline, the POTUS included, and I don't care if it deals with Romney or Obama, they're the same to me.

See post #60 where I cited the number of GOP members of Congress that signed the Norquist pledge.

Have Obama or any of the Democrats in Congress taken such a pledge to oppose GOP proposals? Remember again, they rejected a 10:1 ratio of spending cut dollars to tax increase dollars.

 

[R.Mackey]

There is currently no movement afoot among the Democrats, grassroots or otherwise, to destroy any insufficiently radical legislator through primary challenges. But there is for the Republicans. As long as this remains true, you cannot argue with a straight face that both parties are equally to blame for gridlock.

But this misses the point. The OP is about Romney. Nobody, not Republicans nor Democrats, not Tea Partiers nor Blue Dogs, not the press nor the GOP leadership nor even his own running mate can tell you what he'll actually do in office. His many promises contradict each other. Reaching bipartisanship with difficult or polarizing policies is one thing, but reaching a bipartisan compromise without even bringing a valid proposal is something else.

 

[IchabodPlain]

You really think the word "rates" makes a difference?

Absolutely.

I think when we hear that he would cut taxes by 20% we all understand that he's proposing to cut tax rates by 20%.

You can't even properly word what it is you're against. What you mean to say is that "when we hear that he would cut tax <rates> by 20% we all understand that he's proposing to cut taxes by 20%. Or you're just mis-quoting Romney, as John Stewart did in the OP.

It may be his fault for wording, but the plan is closer to tax reform, a la 1986-style, than tax cuts, GWB-style. That Romney chose to emphasize the rate reductions during the primary, is hardly unsurprising given his weakness with the GOP base at the time.

What else would it mean, as a proposal? You think it means he would cut tax rates by whatever figure it would require such that it cuts revenues collected by 20%? No one talks that way.

As a proposal, it aims to cut tax rates, while "broadening the base" by limiting deductions. This benefits s-corps and sole-proprietors (entrepreneurs), and lower-middle class earners who can't drop their effective tax rates through various deductions.

ETA: It also specifically hurts wealthy individuals who take far more advantage of deductions than any other income earner.

No one said he's claiming to cut revenues by 20%, though by cutting tax rates by 20%, the burden is on him to explain how that doesn't result in a loss of revenue--something he has failed to do.

I agree.

ETA: Arm waving about cutting unspecified deductions and closing unspecified loopholes is a failure to explain how his 20% tax cut won't result in a huge loss of revenue.

There are several plausible scenarios for the reduction in rates and other taxes to made up for in other ways. Romney, in my mind, is/has failed/failing to follow up on what (IMO) is a good proposal.

 

[ehcks]

You can't even properly word what it is you're against. What you mean to say is that "when we hear that he would cut tax <rates> by 20% we all understand that he's proposing to cut taxes by 20%. Or you're just mis-quoting Romney, as John Stewart did in the OP.

If you multiply your old tax rate by 80%, or you multiply your old end tax amount by 80%, your new total tax amount is the same. There isn't even a difference to argue semantics over.

 

[Brainster]

If you multiply your old tax rate by 80%, or you multiply your old end tax amount by 80%, your new total tax amount is the same. There isn't even a difference to argue semantics over.

And if that were the formula, you'd be right. However, it's not. Basically the current formula is as follows:

(Gross Income (G) - Deductions (D)) x Rate (R) = Tax (T)

What Romney is proposing is something like this:

(G-.5D)x.8R=T

Reducing the deductions by some effective percentage at the same time as reducing the rate by 20%.

 

[varwoche]

And if that were the formula, you'd be right. However, it's not. Basically the current formula is as follows:

(Gross Income (G) - Deductions (D)) x Rate (R) = Tax (T)

What Romney is proposing is something like this:

(G-.5D)x.8R=T

Reducing the deductions by some effective percentage at the same time as reducing the rate by 20%.

Don't you think we should break this part down? Here's the math: Sqrt(-1)

 

[RandFan]

Both parties need to learn some basic discipline, the POTUS included, and I don't care if it deals with Romney or Obama, they're the same to me.

See post #60 where I cited the number of GOP members of Congress that signed the Norquist pledge.

Have Obama or any of the Democrats in Congress taken such a pledge to oppose GOP proposals? Remember again, they rejected a 10:1 ratio of spending cut dollars to tax increase dollars.

Grizzly Bear, you are engaging in the age old false equivalency dodge. Both sides engage in partisan politics. However, both sides are not functionally the same. Not even close.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Grizzly Bear, you are engaging in the age old false equivalency dodge. Both sides engage in partisan politics. However, both sides are not functionally the same. Not even close.

I've already responded to this notion.

The problem will not magically go away with one side "giving in" when both sides are playing this silly game, whether it's "lopsided" is irrelevant; what's more important is neither cares for an actual solution, it's "they're pushing me so I'll just push back." In that context I find policy differences a mute subject, they can't get anything done while they're playing giggles on the house and senate floor

 

[RandFan]

I've already responded to this notion.

But both sides aren't simply "playing this game". That's what I don't understand about you persisting with this. The Democrats have demonstrated a willingness to negotiate and compromise. The Republicans say frankly "my way or the highway". So your rhetoric simply isn't matched by reality.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

But both sides aren't simply "playing this game". That's what I don't understand about you persisting with this. The Democrats have demonstrated a willingness to negotiate and compromise. The Republicans say frankly "my way or the highway". So your rhetoric simply isn't matched by reality.

You're entitled to your opinion then