Consequence of keeping the old black shoes

[Miles]

I heard that one of those precincts only had three registered republicans and it was suspected that they had moved. We are talking about downtown Philly.

[Brian Briggs]

Seriously If that was reported for Romney, even I would call BS. Let's be real Miles. I am not one to post a bunch of political stuff, but I know when to call BS know matter what side.

[Tank]

Welcome to the club Mr. Briggs....Miles doesn't answer your questions either !! Yes or No is pretty simple.

[Miles]

Tank, you cant read apparently.

Brian,

Check this out. http://www.phillyelectionresults.com/Ci ... sults.html

Obama got 85% of the vote in Philadelphia. He got 550k votes and Romney got 90k vote. There almost 1700 voting districts in Philadelphia. So each district has an average of 3500 people. You don't have to be a statistician or a genius like Tank to figure the odds are good that Obama would sweep some of those.

I don't know if you've ever heard of Carver homes or Techwood homes areas in Atlanta. I doubt there are a lot of republicans there.

On the other hand, the county I live in now, the county I lived in before, and the county where our business is located do not have one single Democrat on the ballot other than the President.

Now that sounds like a reasonable explanation to me. Or you can go with the Muslim brotherhood anti colonialist foreign exchange student bussing dead people in and stealing the election angle.

[Dan R.]

What in the world makes any one think that Miles knows the answer to any of these questions, let alone every liberal policy and party strategy? I never saw his name as a pollster. Just because he voted for Obama, doesn't make him public enemy #1, does it? We all only know, what we are told, how reliable is any of it?

I am embarrassed that all you conservative American heroes can't take your ass whipping with a little more class.

Neither side will ever agree with the other, is that a reason to alienate us from one another? I say not worth it.

[Tank]

Dan, the first thing I posted on this thread conceded that we lost, but Miles foists himself up as having knowledge on the subject, but a pretty well documented track record of not answering questions who's answer completely destroys his side of the discussion - the question Briggs asked him does not really require him to have any specific knowledge of an issue, it was a simple Yes or No to whether it's plausible to believe that one candidate would get 100% of the vote in any given district and the challenger not to get a single one....the answer just requires some common sense and honesty.

You know as we'll as I do that if Romney had won and these reports were coming out about his election, Miles would be screaming fraud.

Your original thought about not allowing political discussions here was probably right, debates and discussions cannot advance to a compromise of any kind when one side poses questions and the other side refuses to answer it.

[Miles]

By definition, yes.

Tank, I put it here so you could have another look. I'm typing slow so you might understand this time. You see that three letter word?

I'm sorry to foist my opinion on you. I know you would never be guilty of such a thing.

[Tank]

Sorry, double posted.

[Tank]

I apologize Miles, I did not see your post at the bottom of page 4, just your post at the top of page 5

[clhilde]

Is this what you wanted Miles
http://www.speaker.gov/general/fiscal-c ... businesses

[Dan R.]

We should all be able to post opinions and be respectful, don't you think?

[Miles]

Chris,

The only way the "fiscal cliff" happens is a total refusal to act on the part of Congress and the president. The president had a press conference yesterday. He said he would sign the bill to continue the bush tax cut for everybody for the first 250k in income. That means that 98% of Americans and 97% of small businesses would not be effected. He said he would do it immediAtely to alleviate the uncertainty in the economy.

He also said he was putting entitlement reform and discretionary spending on the table. So it's up to the republicans in the house. I am very confident it gets done. In the end, people will pay 4% more on income over 250k. There will be spending cuts and maybe even significant entitlement reform. In other words, maybe they will actually do something now.

[Dan R.]

Putting reform on the table and meaningful reform are 2 completely different things. The Dems should put up some up some substantial social program cuts with their offer, rather than leaving it open for later. Later is what caused this mess in the first place.

The Republicans are scared to death of a tax hike and the Democrats are scared to death of entitlement cuts.

If no compromise is reached, then both will happen. This is realistically the only way there will be any meaningful change. Alas, it will not happen, remember the bipartisan commission that was to solve this last year? The deadline came and went with little notice.

$250,000 is a great start, $500,000 would be better, $1m would be perfect. Perfect seldom occurs. If all the rhetoric says millionaires, then why not make the threshold a $1m? Honestly, 4% over 250,000 is crazy unreasonable. What is crazy unreasonable is the size of government, which has bloated under both parties. When it comes to growing government, there is no choice, since 1988, imo.

The fiscal is far more important than the social differences that divide us. With no money, no program will survive, good or bad, only government (& government employees.

[Tank]

I absolutely do Dan, with ya 100%, the problem is, what happens here white in these discussions is a microcosom of what's put this country in the situation it's in - people being unable to discuss the issues in a real way, by presenting their arguement, back it up with fact instead of conjecture and emotion, allowing the opposing view to do the same and then find some middle ground where neither side gets everything they want, but each get some of what they want, thats how a Constitutional Republic works, the way things are now, neither side gets anything and the American people get screwed, if we cannot even come to any kind of consensus here, how can we ever hold our elected officials accountable for the idiotic decisions they make ?

So, as an American, not a Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, we should all be equally outraged, whether our guy won the election or not by what appears to be some extremely questionable voting results, I doubt it would have made a difference in who won, but that isn't the point, the American people already have a questionable view of the voting process, that their vote doesn't count - it's one of our most basic and, IMO, most important rights, so anything that reaffirms that view MUST be investigated and dealt with our in the open in an effort to restore American's faith in the election process.

I love this country, I have been all over the world and seen some awful things, and I have seen the good that America is capable of, I believe that if this country ceases to be what our founders intended that it's not just a loss for us as American's, it will be a devistating loss to the rest of the world, I believe we are still the shining light on the hill, but that light is fading, and once it goes out it will never return.

[Dan R.]

Emotion is much more powerful than fact. This manifests itself in many ways every day. You are never going to change the mind of a fervent believer, no matter what that belief is.

Take a breath and look at the big picture and then how you can affect this picture through your small circle. We have all become accustomed to grande size everything and anything less is unacceptable. From soft drinks to automobiles, the amount of excess foisted upon us is staggering. I ordered a small Coke the other day, it was 20 oz!!!! Are you kidding me? what happen to a small? What was wrong with a 12 oz Coke?

Some Facts about the voter turnout, Obama got 7 million+ less votes this time. That makes the right look even more pathetic, don't you think?

I would bet that Miles or Hildy is far more likely to help me out, no matter my affiliation, than any government anything. That is what is important to me. I hope that they feel the same. Fabrication is our circle, let's make it stronger from every aspect, not necessarily by agreeing 100% of the time but by becoming better at everything we do and think.

[Ken Lago]

I am glad to see Brian have the ability to sound very reasonable because thats exactly what is needed from both sides, less emotion and more compromise.

[Miles]

Tank,

Investigate away. That's what happened the last time a Democrat got re-elected. The republicans assigned a full time investigator to try to come up with something on him. He has a full time staff and everything (Ken Starr).

Can't they just accept that they got beat and get to work on solving problems?

You said yourself, it would not make any difference in who won or lost the election. And I would bet you a Romney size bet that when they get through kicking and crying about losing, that nobody is going to find any meaningful voter irregularities.

So what's the point? The only point I see is the unwillingness to accept defeat.

Dan,

This is the perfect scenario to get something done. Like you said, if they don't compromise, spending cuts and tax increases are going to happen that nobody likes. So both sides now have real motivation to get something done. And neither side want to be blamed for the consequences of not getting something done. Both sides are going to have to give up something, and that's good.

[Dan R.]

The bad thing about any deal reached is that it will be watered down and responsibility will be kicked down the road (yet again). I doubt either side (or both sides) have a vested interest in making government work for the people. they are all concerned about themselves, every last one of them, red and blue!

If we are going to crash, then hit a tree and let's start rebuilding, already! The population can handle it, we need the government out of our way and not some corrupt machine like we have had for the last 75 years!

[dan k.]

I'm ok with falling off the fiscal cliff. No more tax hikes and spending has to be cut dramatically.

[Tank]

Miles - This "perfect situation" as you call it has existed for the last 2 years (since the 2010 mid-terms) Why, with the situation today (Dem controlled Senate & White House, Rep controlled House) is the same as it was on November 5th what gives you hope that, inspite of things being the same that something will change?

The real problem is the gov't should be reducing spending FIRST, because reduced spending has multiple economic benefits, first, it stabilizes our dollar, the printing frenzy we have been on, i.e. QE1, QE2 & now QE3, is destroying the value of our dollar and is the driving force behind the price increases we're seeing, gas cost is a perfect example, it litterally effects everything else, driving up the cost of everything.

Cutting spending first also will help restore investment in our economy from sources here as we'll as the rest of the world, which our economy desperately needs, and finally, cutting spending enough may actually make a tax increase on anyone unnesasary, in fact, could actually lead to an overall reduction of tax rates.

Raising taxes in a weak economy is an exceptionally bad idea because it has a negative effect of economic investment, growth and job creation, that's not just a Republican talking point, it's a proven historical fact....given that, doesn't it make dramatically more sense, if the end goal is economic recovery, to try the things that we know work first than to implement the things that we already know from history don't work?

My opinion is, real spending cuts, not just cuts to the projected spending because that's just Washington BS, and tax increases as needed until jobs are created to offset the increased taxes...it makes perfect sense, at least to me

[Miles]

Tank,

The debt ceiling compromise is what gives me hope. The fact the election is over and it didn't turn out the way congress expected, which means they realize the have to compromise. If they don't come up with a deal, things will kick in that nobody wants. The Bush Tax cuts will end for everyone, deep defense cuts will happen, as well as other cuts in spending. Nobody ever thought it would come to this, but it's here. So their is incentive and room to compromise on both sides.

Reducing spending only has two problems. One is, you can't cut enough spending alone to solve the problem. Two, is that cutting spending means that the middle class will have to pay to get us out of this mess. Cutting spending won't affect the ones that can afford to sacrifice the most. So, are you going to cut medicare, medicaid, social security, defense, student loans, welfare, etc. and not ask the top income bracket to kick in at all?

And don't give me the "job creator" argument. That doesn't hold water. That's trickle down. If that worked, everyone would have jobs.

[Tank]

Miles - That's where we disagree, our budget deficit for 2012 is going to be around $1.35 trillion, just on welfare alone we will spend $1.02 trillion, which was the bulk of our deficit...now, I haven't figured out the amount of money we're paying as interest on our debt, so just go with me here....currently in the US there are 47 million people receiving some kind of gov't welfare, to be clear, I do not think Social Security or Medicare are "welfare" because people were forced to pay into these systems so they have earned the benefit, so I am not including those people, but, if you just reduced the benefit for each person receiving gov't welfare by $5 a month, you would see a revenue savings of $775.5 million dollars, per month, times 12 months would be $9.3 billion dollars, local, state and federal gov't employ around 12 million people, do the same for them, reduce their salaries by $5 a month, that's another $60 million a month, that's an additional $720 million a year, then we reduce Senators and Congressmen wages to $0, at least until they start behaving like people who actually CARE about those who elected them, that saves us another $87.2 million in absolutely wasted money...

Actually, I have a better idea, why don't we just have every person in America send the Federal gov't and extra $5 a month, that would be about $1.6 trillion right there, our budget deficit would be wiped out in the first month and our National debt of $16+ trillion would be wiped out in just a little over a year...no tax increases, no tax cuts, no loss of benefits, no military cuts, no more paying interest to or borrowing from China and the BEAST that is the US Economy starts, as Duane put it, crunching again...

Disclaimer: Everything above the word "Actually" would work, but would take 20 years to accomplish anything, I think everything under the word "Actually" is a real, workable solution...now start poking holes in it, seriously, how awesome would it be if we, together, could come up with a workable solution that could be presented to our government that didn't hurt anyone, that allowed both sides to win and fixed the whole damn mess in one shot? I think the SFA and it's members would become VERY popular with the entire planet !!

So, don't tell me it won't work, tell me why not and offer some kind of a solution...please !!

[Miles]

Or, we could do all that, and ask the top income brackets to pay a little more taxes and solve all the problems twice as fast. Why should everybody pay except the top brackets. We're actually not talking about raising taxes. We're talk about letting the tax break expire. It was supposed to have expired years ago.

If I make 500k a year, we're talking about me paying 10,000 more in taxes. I doubt that would make me move out of the country or close down a business.

[Burkie]

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0770436145

I did not read this book but saw the interview before the election. He sounded matter of fact and apparently non-partisan.

Regards

[dsyverson]

Miles, Bush's policies have been demonized long enough. As noted earlier, in Obama's first 2 years he could've wiped them all out but he chose to focus on Obamacare instead. Obama talked a lot of smack (more than any other predecessor by a mile) and in reality Bush's economic record was pretty damn good all things considered:

"In the wake of a recession that began roughly seven weeks after President Bush took office, America experienced six years of uninterrupted economic growth and a record 52 straight months of job creation that produced more than 8 million new jobs. During the Bush presidency, the unemployment rate averaged 5.3 percent. We saw labor-productivity gains that averaged 2.5 percent annually — a rate that exceeds the averages of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Real after-tax income per capita increased by more than 11 percent. And from 2000 to 2007, real GDP grew by more than 17 percent, a gain of nearly $2.1 trillion.

As for Obama’s claim that Bush “turned a budget surplus into a deficit”: by January 2001, when Bush was inaugurated, the budget surpluses were already evaporating as the economy was skidding toward recession (it officially began in March 2001). Combined with the devastating economic effects of 9/11, when we lost around 1 million jobs over 90 days, the surplus went into deficit.

Rather than whine incessantly about the situation, President Bush proposed policies that triggered the kind of sustained growth that saw the deficit fall to 1 percent of GDP ($162 billion) by 2007. Indeed, before the financial crisis of 2008 – which I’ll return to in a moment — Bush’s budget deficits were 0.6 percentage points below the historical average. (My former White House colleague Keith Hennessey eviscerates Obama’s assertion that we faced a “decade of spiraling deficits” here).

Now let’s consider Mr. Obama’s record: an unemployment rate of 9.5 percent, with 131,000 jobs lost in July, during our so-called Recovery Summer (Vice President Biden promised us up to 500,000 new jobs a month back in April). The overall unemployment rate, incorporating people who want jobs but did not look during July, is now 16.5 percent.

According to J.D. Foster, Obama’s “job deficit” — the difference between current employment and the jobs Obama promised to create by the end of 2010 – stands at a staggering 7.6 million workers. The 2010 deficit is $1.471 trillion, or 10 percent of GDP, while the debt is $9.2 trillion, or 62.7 percent of GDP. (From January 20, 2001, to January 20, 2009, the debt held by the public grew $3 trillion under Bush, from $3.3 trillion to $6.3 trillion; in 20 months, Mr. Obama will add as much debt as Mr. Bush ran up in eight years.) And let’s not forget that the Obama administration passed an $862 billion stimulus package and assured us that unemployment would not exceed 8 percent; instead, unemployment topped 10 percent – a figure higher than what the Obama administration said would occur if the stimulus package wasn’t passed."

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/artic ... in-a-rout/