2012 US Presidential Race Catch All

MilkmanDanimal wrote:
iaintgotnopants wrote:
Jonman wrote:

So we've all been discussing the GOP race, but no-one's said anything about the Dems. Barely here, and almost not at all in the media.

Is it just assumed that no-one can/will challenge Obama?

I could see an actual liberal run against him. But, it would either be just for show or an eccentric with a lot of money.

So, Dennis Kucinich, then.

I actually mentioned him in the post before I edited it. He might be legally required to run every time. I would prefer it would be somebody not insane though.

Yeah, this guy is insane.

IMAGE(http://www.bagofnothing.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/kucinich.jpg)

Hot wife or not, nobody that honestly believes they were abducted by aliens will ever be elected President until aliens live among us.

iaintgotnopants wrote:

Hot wife or not, nobody that honestly believes they were abducted by aliens will ever be elected President until aliens live among us.

IMAGE(http://www.americanpolitics.com/reaganmakessillyface.gif)

Tanglebones wrote:
iaintgotnopants wrote:

Hot wife or not, nobody that honestly believes they were abducted by aliens will ever be elected President until aliens live among us.

IMAGE(http://www.americanpolitics.com/reaganmakessillyface.gif)

Are you saying that Reagan believed he was abducted or that he was an alien living among us?

I'm saying that Reagan's crazy-ass horoscope stuff (via Nancy) is about on a par with Kucinich's crazy.

Tanglebones wrote:

I'm saying that Reagan's crazy-ass horoscope stuff (via Nancy) is about on a par with Kucinich's crazy.

It really wasn't.

Reagan quite possibly made decisions based on astrologists. And he was senile the majority of his second term. I'll take a belief in alien abduction and staunch liberalism over that any day.

DSGamer wrote:

Reagan quite possibly made decisions based on astrologists. And he was senile the majority of his second term. I'll take a belief in alien abduction and staunch liberalism over that any day.

I don't believe he made a single important decision based on an astrologist. And his senility was hidden from the public.

It's not about who I would rather have, the discussion is about general electability. You can't say you were abducted by aliens and become president. Not becasue of a rule, but the reality that the electorate will never vote for you.

And really, we've seen SGU. We don't need a sleep agent for the aliens in the White House.

But then there will always be a deficit because households and businesses have a propensity to save because of uncertainty.

Absolutely untrue. If the government doesn't run a deficit, then people will save by lending to each other, typically using banks as intermediaries. That's how it's supposed to work, in fact.

Man, my prejudices are showing. I assumed Elizabeth Kucinich was a model, since if I looked that good I would certainly pursue that field. Turns out she's an all around bad ass when it comes to being a good, compassionate person.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Senate voted overwhelmingly on Thursday to eliminate billions of dollars in support for the U.S. ethanol industry, sending a strong message that the era of big taxpayer support for biofuels is ending. The 73-27 vote may ultimately be symbolic since the White House has vowed not to repeal ethanol subsidies fully and the bill the repeal language is attached to is not expected to make it into law. But it underscores the growing desperation to find savings in a budget crisis that is forcing both sides of the aisle to consider sacrificing once-sacred government programs.

Link.

Does anyone know why the White House is so insistent on maintaining ethanol subsidies? This seems like one of those rare times when we have agreement to end a subsidy that nobody much likes except farmers.

Why the hell would Obama be against it? Does he own lots of corn fields or something?

KrazyTacoFO wrote:

Why the hell would Obama be against it? Does he own lots of corn fields or something?

Iowa caucuses. They literally hold this country hostage on that issue.

KrazyTacoFO wrote:

Why the hell would Obama be against it? Does he own lots of corn fields or something?

I googled this general explanation of the politics involved in ethanol subsidies. Maybe it's all about swing states and Obama's 2012 campaign.

DSGamer wrote:
KrazyTacoFO wrote:

Why the hell would Obama be against it? Does he own lots of corn fields or something?

Iowa caucuses. They literally hold this country hostage on that issue.

Funkenpants wrote:
KrazyTacoFO wrote:

Why the hell would Obama be against it? Does he own lots of corn fields or something?

I googled this general explanation of the politics involved in ethanol subsidies. Maybe it's all about swing states and Obama's 2012 campaign.

**facepalm**

It must be pretty early for me or something, that was a pretty obvious reason.

KrazyTacoFO wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
KrazyTacoFO wrote:

Why the hell would Obama be against it? Does he own lots of corn fields or something?

Iowa caucuses. They literally hold this country hostage on that issue.

Funkenpants wrote:
KrazyTacoFO wrote:

Why the hell would Obama be against it? Does he own lots of corn fields or something?

I googled this general explanation of the politics involved in ethanol subsidies. Maybe it's all about swing states and Obama's 2012 campaign.

**facepalm**

It must be pretty early for me or something, that was a pretty obvious reason.

I order you to begin watching old episodes of West Wing! Like it or love it, that show did a pretty nice job of explaining these kinds of political footballs. Ethanol was big topic at one point.

I guess this illustrates why it's so hard to get rid of subsidies in our system. Even on those rare occasions when House and Senate to agree to get rid of something, there's the White House that can block it. If the White House and House are ready to get rid of something, there's a senate filibuster to stop it. Always seems easier to vote these things in than get rid of them.

Seth wrote:

Man, my prejudices are showing. I assumed Elizabeth Kucinich was a model, since if I looked that good I would certainly pursue that field. Turns out she's an all around bad ass when it comes to being a good, compassionate person.

And she has a tongue ring. Dennis is a lucky man.

Malor wrote:
But then there will always be a deficit because households and businesses have a propensity to save because of uncertainty.

Absolutely untrue. If the government doesn't run a deficit, then people will save by lending to each other, typically using banks as intermediaries. That's how it's supposed to work, in fact.

This again.. Okay... I set it up.

Malor - we have had this debate before and I appreciate your insights. I think they have clarified my own thinking.

If we are running a huge trade deficit and want people to save the only way to have net savings is government deficits.

If we are a net export running country then we can save against each other without deficits. This is what countries like Norway do.

Our whole political/economic commentary is out of paradigm.

Of course, this savings is not REAL savings (as in tangible things) but financial savings. Financial savings is a potential claim on real products and services.

The reason I bring this up in this thread is because all candidates, Republicans and Obama, have made deficit reduction a priority. They all are out of paradigm and don't know what they are talking about when they don't make specific claims but general claims like "spending is too much" or "long term deficits are a problem."

I also bring this up to ground everyone and not lose focus on what matters. Jobs and prosperity.

If we are running a huge trade deficit and want people to save the only way to have net savings is government deficits.

I don't think you'd have net savings in that situation. If you're running an overall trade deficit, you are running a negative balance, and all a deficit would do is make that balance even more negative. Savings is deferring consumption. If you're running a trade deficit, you are consuming while others are deferring their turns. Deficit spending means you're consuming even more, making the problem worse, not better.

Savings is just deferring consumption. You're passing on your turn to take energy and goods out of the economy, and accepting some level of risk of losing that turn permanently, in order to hopefully get more energy and goods at a later date. When you buy government debt, the risk of losing nominal currency is very low, but I'd say the chance of losing buying power is nearly certain with most of the First World nations. You'll get back every dollar or euro you lent the government, plus interest, but those dollars or euros won't be worth as much. Real inflation is running higher than interest rates. The government, in essence, will have stolen buying power from you.

Long term deficits are a crushing problem, because you gradually need to transfer more and more turns for energy and goods away to your lenders. Every turn you give a lender in interest costs is a turn you can't take to build a road or a school. And no games with money will allow you to escape this truth for very long; if you cheat your creditors, they will stop lending to you.

Blah blah leave it out of this thread maybe?

Dr.Ghastly wrote:

Blah blah leave it out of this thread maybe?

Yeah instead let's talk about Dennis Kucinich's wife.

goman wrote:
Dr.Ghastly wrote:

Blah blah leave it out of this thread maybe?

Yeah instead let's talk about Dennis Kucinich's wife.

I agree, The "Ethanol stuff" is interesting but it's not that closely related to the topic. Candidates' wives on the other hands ;)....

Maybe the primaries should be converted to a beauty pageant or a reality show(pick one or maybe all of them put together). The voters can use SMSs to pick their favorite candidates and eliminate the others. I think Sarah Palin has a good chance because she'll probably be more entertaining to watch than the other candidate.

I wonder , do the wives really play a factor on Presidential election?

Personally I am really looking forward to the GOP debates. It'll be interesting to see who out-crazies the others. My money is on either Bachmann or Santorum (extra frothy).

Niseg wrote:

I wonder , do the wives really play a factor on Presidential election?

If they do, what happened with George HW Bush?

LouZiffer wrote:
Niseg wrote:

I wonder , do the wives really play a factor on Presidential election?

If they do, what happened with George HW Bush?

Mrs. Bush was already a grandma when she became first lady. show some respect before she backhands you old school style.

Ulairi wrote:
LouZiffer wrote:
Niseg wrote:

I wonder , do the wives really play a factor on Presidential election?

If they do, what happened with George HW Bush?

Mrs. Bush was already a grandma when she became first lady. show some respect before she backhands you old school style.

Apparently she either beat her kids too much or not enough.

Well I looked up the Political positions of Kucinich and Romney . And I like Kucinich better ,because he's against the death penalty and against baring arms. Romney looks like a cowboy compared to Kucinich . Arm the people and if they break the law give them hard time and/or the death penalty. In abortion territory I'm pro choice and my religion(Judaism) says you have to live 30 days after birth to be considered alive so I'm not a special case.

Lots of interesting stuff in there. Still Kucinich looks like a negotiate with anyone approach. If what that article say is true he'll probably won't do any better than Obama in foreign policy unless he knows how to negotiate using the "5th element " style (not literally - just when to back down and to use your superior position as leverage) .

Niseg wrote:

Well I looked up the Political positions of Kucinich and Romney . And I like Kucinich better ,because he's against the death penalty and against baring arms. Romney looks like a cowboy compared to Kucinich . Arm the people and if they break the law give them hard time and/or the death penalty. In abortion territory I'm pro choice and my religion(Judaism) says you have to live 30 days after birth to be considered alive so I'm not a special case.

Lots of interesting stuff in there. Still Kucinich looks like a negotiate with anyone approach. If what that article say is true he'll probably won't do any better than Obama in foreign policy unless he knows how to negotiate using the "5th element " style (not literally - just when to back down and to use your superior position as leverage) .

Kucinich is the exact opposite end of the political spectrum from, well, just about everyone. He'd have to challenge Obama for the Democratic nomination, whereas Romney is going for the Republican.

Personally I'd love to see a Ron Paul/Dennis Kucinich ticket. It would certainly make for some interesting politics and you know we'd go back to Constitutional government.