Could it be happening?!

[useless]

Delegated the task? As in "listen Bob, while I'm up there expressing my gratitude to them for all their great efforts on behalf of my campaign, I want you to circulate through the crowd and remind them the campaign is over at the end of my speech so they shouldn't expect cab fare home'? Yeah, that's how a good employer handles the employees upon dissolution of their company.

The man is a barracuda barely draped in human skin and if given the power of the presidency would be the worst disaster ever to befall the citizens of the United States.

They've already had Reagan and Bush(es)

 

[kochman]

Delegated the task? As in "listen Bob, while I'm up there expressing my gratitude to them for all their great efforts on behalf of my campaign, I want you to circulate through the crowd and remind them the campaign is over at the end of my speech so they shouldn't expect cab fare home'? Yeah, that's how a good employer handles the employees upon dissolution of their company.

The man is a barracuda barely draped in human skin and if given the power of the presidency would be the worst disaster ever to befall the citizens of the United States.

Worse than what we got instead or Bush? Dubious claim.

Again, you're assuming he was like, "OK, cut those damn cards off now!".
It was some management guy who did it. It was poorly timed, and I won't defend it, but it wasn't like Romney was actively cancelling cards.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Worse than what we got instead or Bush? Dubious claim.

Again, you're assuming he was like, "OK, cut those damn cards off now!".
It was some management guy who did it. It was poorly timed, and I won't defend it, but it wasn't like Romney was actively cancelling cards.

As I've pointed out elsewhere...

Reagan looked at the conditions of the time, produced a coherent analysis, and said 'if you have tax rates that are at record high levels and you cut them it will create enough economic growth that you will actually increase national income.' That actually worked.

GW Bush ignored the fact that taxation was at record low levels already, did no analysis beyond 'hey Reagan cut taxes and everyone loved him', and very nearly destroyed the world's economy out of mind boggling stupidity.

Romney ran on a promise to cut taxes which I believe he would have done, despite the fact that conditions had not changed substantially and that the predictable results had been verified in 2008. My conclusion was that he had taken his own words to heart; "If the economy collapses the rich people will come through it just fine". Apparently he believes that destroying the world economy would be a good thing, and since GW Bush didn't do it accidentally he needs to get in there and get it done.

Yes, I call that worse.

 

[onejayhawk]

Delegated the task? As in "listen Bob, while I'm up there expressing my gratitude to them for all their great efforts on behalf of my campaign, I want you to circulate through the crowd and remind them the campaign is over at the end of my speech so they shouldn't expect cab fare home'? Yeah, that's how a good employer handles the employees upon dissolution of their company.

The man is a barracuda barely draped in human skin and if given the power of the presidency would be the worst disaster ever to befall the citizens of the United States.

You might want to monitor the caffeine intake. Romney is no one's idea of a great President, but that's over the top.

J

 

[kochman]

As I've pointed out elsewhere...

Reagan looked at the conditions of the time, produced a coherent analysis, and said 'if you have tax rates that are at record high levels and you cut them it will create enough economic growth that you will actually increase national income.' That actually worked.

GW Bush ignored the fact that taxation was at record low levels already, did no analysis beyond 'hey Reagan cut taxes and everyone loved him', and very nearly destroyed the world's economy out of mind boggling stupidity.

Romney ran on a promise to cut taxes which I believe he would have done, despite the fact that conditions had not changed substantially and that the predictable results had been verified in 2008. My conclusion was that he had taken his own words to heart; "If the economy collapses the rich people will come through it just fine". Apparently he believes that destroying the world economy would be a good thing, and since GW Bush didn't do it accidentally he needs to get in there and get it done.

Yes, I call that worse.

So, you think that lowering tax rates is bad because you believe they aren't high enough to lower.

I will agree that Reagan's cuts were more easily excused... however, I don't think that modest cuts here or there are bad, especially when there is so much pork that can be cut (not that either party will ever seriously address that issue).

It's still a dubious claim to say that would make him the worst ever...
I agree with the caffeine monitor.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You might want to monitor the caffeine intake. Romney is no one's idea of a great President, but that's over the top.

J

It was meant to be 'over the top' as it seemed someone was defending the action based on 'they should have known the campaign was over and arranged their own rides home'. They have moved on and so have I, but I'm glad you got a laugh out of it as it was meant to be funny.

 

[kochman]

It was meant to be 'over the top' as it seemed someone was defending the action based on 'they should have known the campaign was over and arranged their own rides home'. They have moved on and so have I, but I'm glad you got a laugh out of it as it was meant to be funny.

Actually, I was defending the idea of a lifetime CEO probably wasn't personally cancelling credit cards... it's silly to even suggest he would get his hands dirty like that, clearly petite bourgeoisie work.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So, you think that lowering tax rates is bad because you believe they aren't high enough to lower.

I will agree that Reagan's cuts were more easily excused... however, I don't think that modest cuts here or there are bad, especially when there is so much pork that can be cut (not that either party will ever seriously address that issue).

Consult the CIA's world fact book...the US has lower taxation than any other country that has even reached the industrial age, much less gone past it. So yeah, when I say tax rates are low I'm not just making it up.

You are crossing 'cutting taxes', which is government revenue, with 'cutting pork', which is government spending. No matter how you distribute it, the basic fact is that we do not pay for the government we receive. The US has been 'borrowing governance' for decades, since taxes do not cover what we get (and I'm not saying we particularly want everything we get either, but that's not the point). Since that past governance cannot just be 'returned unused' we are going to have to pay for it.

Now, among that governance that we have borrowed there has no doubt been a whole lot of what you call 'pork'. I agree. However, if you look at the bigger picture the economy is driven by spending, and spending includes government spending. If you 'cut back' government spending without replacing it with some other spending the economy has less drive, and at present no one really has the money to spend that the government has, so if you back off government spending you will be backing off total spending.

Given the faltering economy removing that drive is a pretty high risk proposition. So while I am in favor of cutting 'pork', ie government spending that supports the economy but doesn't directly benefit me, and replacing it with 'wise investment', ie government spending that not only supports the economy but passes directly through my hands in the process, I'm realistic about the fact that actual reductions in spending have to be done cautiously over time.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Actually, I was defending the idea of a lifetime CEO probably wasn't personally cancelling credit cards... it's silly to even suggest he would get his hands dirty like that, clearly petite bourgeoisie work.

Yeah I got that the second time around, but already had a laugh for my initial over the top response so I let it stand. The question of course remains whether Romney felt any regret that his 'run a tight ship' philosophy led to that result, or if in the end he thought 'they didn't get me elected so screw them' and was perfectly satisfied with his underling's performance.

 

[JollyRoger]

Honestly, I haven't been excited about a Republican Presidential Candidate since Fred Thompson.

Grandpa Fred must have been a huge disappointment for you given the laziness of his campaigning.

 

[kochman]

Consult the CIA's world fact book...the US has lower taxation than any other country that has even reached the industrial age, much less gone past it. So yeah, when I say tax rates are low I'm not just making it up.

Oh jeez... you're still going on this.
First, you're wrong. The misery index, which covers Federal, state and local shows the US isn't the "lowest" tax rate industrialized country (Russia, Taiwan, New Zealand, Cyprus and Hong Kong).
http://www.forbes.com/global/2009/0413/034-tax-misery-reform-index.html (latest I could find was from 2009, but since taxes went up from there...)
Second, you've failed to mention how lowering taxes a little is the WORST thing a president could do.
Third, no one denied that tax rates are low compared to some places.

You are crossing 'cutting taxes', which is government revenue, with 'cutting pork', which is government spending.

No, pork isn't not simply government spending. It's much more specific and useless than that.
Do I really have to define this?
I'm not going to, I expect an adult with access to the internet to be able to figure it out if they weren't already aware of what pork barrel spending is.

There was a lot of stuff after that point in your rant that is rendered immediately irrelevant by the fact that your weirdly assigned pork as "government spending" (had I actually said that, you would have had some points).

Government spending that is targeted is helpful to the economy. And by targeted, I don't mean targeted to help your favorite representatives to get re-elected, I mean targeted to stimulate the economy in a meaningful way (such as infrastructure improvement on a national basis).

 

[Light Cleric]

Yeah I got that the second time around, but already had a laugh for my initial over the top response so I let it stand. The question of course remains whether Romney felt any regret that his 'run a tight ship' philosophy led to that result, or if in the end he thought 'they didn't get me elected so screw them' and was perfectly satisfied with his underling's performance.

This would have been way more appropriate if it had happened to Rudy Giuliani's group in 2008 instead. That was quite possibly the worst run campaign in recent memory.

 

[JollyRoger]

No, pork isn't not simply government spending. It's much more specific and useless than that.
Do I really have to define this?
I'm not going to, I expect an adult with access to the internet to be able to figure it out if they weren't already aware of what pork barrel spending is.

Is it spending or taxes?

 

[Wrymouth3]

That was quite possibly the worst run campaign in recent memory.

Explain this? This sounds really delightful. Was it a campaign that tried its hardest to piss literally every person off possible with utter stupidity, or was it a campaign where they just decided that no effort needed to be put forth or logistics needed attention and the campaign could run itself?

 

[Light Cleric]

Explain this? This sounds really delightful. Was it a campaign that tried its hardest to piss literally every person off possible with utter stupidity, or was it a campaign where they just decided that no effort needed to be put forth or logistics needed attention and the campaign could run itself?

Basically he ignored the smaller, earlier primary states like Iowa and New Hampshire and put all his eggs into Florida to win that primary and then a wave on Super Tuesday.

He finished 3rd in Florida primary and dropped out right after that.

It was one of those rare instances where it wasn't the candidate torpedoing his campaign, it was a genuinely dumb strategy.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Oh jeez... you're still going on this.
First, you're wrong. The misery index, which covers Federal, state and local shows the US isn't the "lowest" tax rate industrialized country (Russia, Taiwan, New Zealand, Cyprus and Hong Kong).
http://www.forbes.com/global/2009/0413/034-tax-misery-reform-index.html (latest I could find was from 2009, but since taxes went up from there...)
Second, you've failed to mention how lowering taxes a little is the WORST thing a president could do.
Third, no one denied that tax rates are low compared to some places.


No, pork isn't not simply government spending. It's much more specific and useless than that.
Do I really have to define this?
I'm not going to, I expect an adult with access to the internet to be able to figure it out if they weren't already aware of what pork barrel spending is.

There was a lot of stuff after that point in your rant that is rendered immediately irrelevant by the fact that your weirdly assigned pork as "government spending" (had I actually said that, you would have had some points).

Government spending that is targeted is helpful to the economy. And by targeted, I don't mean targeted to help your favorite representatives to get re-elected, I mean targeted to stimulate the economy in a meaningful way (such as infrastructure improvement on a national basis).

If you can find a definition of 'pork' that doesn't have it included as part of 'government spending' please provide.

Government spending, whether 'useless', 'targeted', or whatever other categories apply, does have one uniform economic effect. Just like the purchasing of anything, by anyone, it contributes to overall demand. The 'pork cutters' always try to pretend this isn't so, and that they can therefore 'cut pork' without adversely affecting the economy. As I said, it would certainly be good to replace pork with something more in keeping with the greater good (or at least something that involves me), but I haven't seen any of the traditional pork cutters address it that way.

just out of curiosity, what did I say that reduced your side of the conversation to snide remarks about my adulthood?

 

[kochman]

If you can find a definition of 'pork' that doesn't have it included as part of 'government spending' please provide.

Seriously?
You said pork is government spending.
It is a part of it, sure, but it is unnecessary and useless, can easily be cut, and doesn't help the economy.
You're changing the context... but we have a bigger fish to fry.

Are you now arguing that pork spending is good?

Actually, the rest of your blurb does just that... which is amazingly audacious and quite specious.

I can't even come to the table with a stupid argument like that. The relative millimeter of good it does compared to the relative mile of good that targeted spending can do...

This just goes to show that some people still think that "tax and spend" is a good idea.
I'm willing to venture at this point that you do support defense spending cuts?

I do, because it would be better spent elsewhere, in a targeted, meaningful manner.

 

[JollyRoger]

Seriously?
You said pork is government spending.

Are you arguing that it is not?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Are you arguing that it is not?

Yes, clearly he is.

He also says it can 'easily be cut', while ignoring the main point I have made. That being that 'pork', as part of government spending, does contribute to overall demand. So no, it actually can't be 'easily cut'.

But since the point is irrefutable I have now been reduced through 'not adult' to outright stupid, which I find wildly hilarious.

 

[kochman]

Yes, clearly he is.

He also says it can 'easily be cut', while ignoring the main point I have made. That being that 'pork', as part of government spending, does contribute to overall demand. So no, it actually can't be 'easily cut'.

But since the point is irrefutable I have now been reduced through 'not adult' to outright stupid, which I find wildly hilarious.

Dude, I didn't say that pork doesn't contribute to overall demand.

I said, and this is a pretty obvious statement, that the ROI on pork is not positive, where as targeted spending is... therefore, it's a net loss.

I can't believe that you are legitimately arguing that pork is a good thing... it's absurd. And yes, for someone as smart as your other posts seem, I find it as though someone must have hacked your account.