Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Katrina Oniseki]

He'd be better off saying he likes Justin Bieber.

[Tiberious Thessalonia]

Rage was out of date and they are back now. vOv

[Casiella]

OTOH this is possibly the best thing that's happened to them in years.

[hellgremlin]

Paul Ryan reminds me of Damien Thorn from Omen III.

[Norrin Ellis]

There's a very serious demand for fiscal responsibility amongst the electorate right now, and Ryan is the only member of Congress with an actual plan to achieve it rather than mindless demagoguery; therefore, he's the right choice to appeal to voters who find that issue most salient.  That said, party identification (PID) is the most effective indicator of vote choice, so the outcome of the election is largely a function of which party can best mobilize their base.

As far as predictions go, Obama has the distinct advantage.  Incumbency is almost a ticket to victory in presidential elections.  However, I do recall a particularly interesting retrospective voting model that has been very accurate in predicting outcomes for quite some time.  If I can find it, I'll plug in the numbers and see what it says.

[Saede Riordan]

That said, party identification (PID) is the most effective indicator of vote choice, so the outcome of the election is largely a function of which party can best mobilize their base.

I view that as a very real problem to the current democratic process. the two main parties have too much power, and blueball any other potential candidates to the point where people refuse to even consider them. Its stupid, we should be voting for people, and for actual political choices, not the false dichotomy of party A and Party B.

That said, Ryan, despite having a fiscal plan, doesn't have at all a good fiscal plan, since it plans on slashing huge amounts of funding to a lot of lower income services, continuing the tax cuts to the wealthy when its becoming increasingly clear that trickle down economics just don't work, and not touching the incredibly bloated military budget, which tends to be the drain through which most of the nation's money flows right now.

[Vikarion]

That said, Ryan, despite having a fiscal plan, doesn't have at all a good fiscal plan, since it plans on slashing huge amounts of funding to a lot of lower income services, continuing the tax cuts to the wealthy when its becoming increasingly clear that trickle down economics just don't work, and not touching the incredibly bloated military budget, which tends to be the drain through which most of the nation's money flows right now.

While I dislike the size of the military budget, it is not true that the United States spends most of its money on military expenditures. For example, in 2010, Department of Defense spending came to 663 billion dollars, out of a total budget of 3.55 trillion. That's (military spending is) roughly one-fifth of the total budget, and while a sizable amount, not nearly as much a drain as the social programs (such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security) are. Assuming that the pie chart on Wikipedia is correct (and it appears to be on light examination), welfare and entitlement programs and departments comprise roughly 60% of the United States's spending, and they are the biggest (and one of the likely to increase even more) drains on the treasury.

At the same time, revenue intake is declining, in part because of the recession, and in part because the U.S. government has created an atmosphere hostile to businesses unrelated to the banking industry or other powerful donors. In addition, despite the fact that the Federal Income Tax is fairly low for most people, the actual tax burden (Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes, etc, are not counted as income taxes) is much greater. Whether or not you view this as a good thing, it is true that many manufacturing and service industries can no longer afford to employ or operate in the U.S. The likely result is that Congress will increase the tax burden on individuals and businesses, as increasing the top marginal tax rates (taxing the rich) won't put more than a minor dent into the deficit. If they do, in a major way, this increased burden will likely decrease retirement savings, spending, and business activities, which will increase the loss of revenue and place greater burdens on the welfare and entitlement arms of the government.

[Lyn Farel]

Without any offense intended, it made me gently giggle when you say one fifth of the total budget. It may be one fifth but that table never ceases to amaze me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget

That said, party identification (PID) is the most effective indicator of vote choice, so the outcome of the election is largely a function of which party can best mobilize their base.

I view that as a very real problem to the current democratic process. the two main parties have too much power, and blueball any other potential candidates to the point where people refuse to even consider them. Its stupid, we should be voting for people, and for actual political choices, not the false dichotomy of party A and Party B.

I may say something completely ignorant but isnt that a little due to the fact that both blocs have incredible amounts of money injected into their campaigns and structure, and also due to the electoral college thingy ?

[Tiberious Thessalonia]

The important thing from that link is this.

[Z.Sinraali]

As far as predictions go, Obama has the distinct advantage.  Incumbency is almost a ticket to victory in presidential elections.  However, I do recall a particularly interesting retrospective voting model that has been very accurate in predicting outcomes for quite some time.  If I can find it, I'll plug in the numbers and see what it says.

Retrospective models are easy. It's when they have to make predictions that they fall down.

[orange]

The important thing from that link is this.

Russia & China are not worried about projecting power across two large bodies of water (the Atlantic & Pacific).  The USA, to be able/capable of helping to defend its allies like Japan or Poland, has to.

[Tiberious Thessalonia]

Oh, the US could easily project power for much cheaper than that.  Hell, if they paired back their military spending by 400 billion it would still put them at 2x China's entire expenditure.  The problem is that the US does not do these things efficiently.

[orange]

Oh, the US could easily project power for much cheaper than that.  Hell, if they paired back their military spending by 400 billion it would still put them at 2x China's entire expenditure.  The problem is that the US does not do these things efficiently.

Nope, not efficient at all.

We do things like compete designs between major contractors, invest in expensive technologies to keep our men & women in uniform alive, develop new technologies (which other nation's steal).

And you know the worst part about it - the defense industry employs millions people in decent paying jobs the world over.

In order to avoid getting important programs (like the F-22 or F-35) cut by Congress, we have to do ridiculous inefficient things like put jobs related to those programs in every State or even district (the old, you cut this program you are cutting jobs in your district).

I know a lot about the inefficiencies in how the United States spends those hundreds of billions of dollars.

[Vikarion]

I don't think that anyone here is arguing that the U.S. should not cut military spending. It's just that:

A) The U.S. cannot and should not cut all military spending, and,

B) Cutting military spending by even something like 80% would not do all that much to solve the real fiscal problems for the U.S.

The growth of welfare and entitlement spending is the major problem for the United States, and it is unlikely that it can achieve a balanced budget without either the economy rebounding in a major way, cuts being made to the programs, or both.

[orange]

And as I think has been discussed before, many of us would support simplification of the US Tax Code, which should in turn make taxation "fairer" or more transparent.