posted
My predictions: we wake up on November 7th with the President reelected and we find that this thread has mysteriously been "poofed"!
If the voters are buying the GOP/Romney story that Obama has screwed up mightily, then the polls should be showing Carter/Reagan numbers. Romney reminds me of a GOP version of John Edwards--great smile and hair, but not much substance. I think the GOP will find out that it takes more than Brylcreem to win the White House.
Posts: 831 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Messrs. Smith & Smith, if you would prefer to review election strategy from sources other than that appearing in The New York Times, here is a "chalkboard" appearing in The Journal today:
Bottom line; Romney must win FL (we know Ocala Mike will be helping him out), but Obama could win without it.
For myself, I've now seen Obama's address on the C-SPAN website and I previously watched Romney's live. Now it's on to the debates; for even if I watch them the morning after on C-SPAN, I will do my best to stay away from either the print or talking heads until I've done so.
And finally, if you value the one-time Fox News tagline, as I do, of "We report, you decide", C-SPAN is where to go.
Posts: 10970 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, lets have a bet on who can get closest to the electoral votes of the winner. The Winner gets accolades from everyone that bet and the winner is acknowledged as the KING of politics until after May, 2013. The King must be shown the due deference associated with the position and the rest of us must acquiesce to his political knowledge for the entire 7 months.
My bet is 322 electoral votes for Romney.
And Mr. Norman, if I had cable, I'd watch C-SPAN.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Smith, possibly C-SPAN is blocked if you are not a cable subsriber (can't help you on this one as both my ISP and cable are Comcast), but here is C-Span on the Web:
Both RNC and DNC have been available on the web "gavel to gavel" (and with a timeline to enable you to locate any speaker in particular you wish to hear); surely same for the debates.
Even if the debates start after my bed hour, I'll watch 'em next morning as I'm up and about at 430A - and I don't need either Sean or Rachel to formulate my thoughts on the issues being addressed.
Posts: 10970 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
The election is about who can win the hearts and minds of the 39% who consider themselves neither liberal or conservative.
The incumbent wins 4 more years with 322 electoral votes.
And, because he is a hero of mine, a quote from John Kenneth Galbraith:
“Trickle-down theory - the less than elegant metaphor that if one feeds the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.”
Posts: 1618 | From: Ocala, FL | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've already got a steak and lobster dinner at Ruth's Chris right now as a bet. I wouldn't bet an expensive meal like that unless I knew I was right. Obama doesn't have a chance this time around.
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, Ocala, you're mirroring my pick? You pick Obama at 322 electoral votes?
And, as an FYI, John Galbraith does not have a clue what "trickle down" is. I'll help him. If the really rich/big business are spending a bunch of money, it trickles down throughout our economy.
It is very similar to what is happening with the Eagle Ford shale oil find in South Texas. Everyone is benefiting from the dramatic increase in spending by the big oil companies.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fortunately in SC, no political calls or ads. Everyone knows exactly how they will vote. As for Amtrak, ride 'em while you can and imagine what a Virgin U.S. Rail would look like.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
"The problem with trickle down economics is that eventually the people on the bottom get tired of being trickled on"--Norm Rice, former Seattle mayor
Posts: 831 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Vincent, are you expecting that two Electors will vote for "others"? Otherwise correct to read Obama 340 Romney 200; vice 340 198.
I think from the views expressed at this topic, such has moved forth with a high degree of maturity and respect. Had same could be said for the earlier topic I originated, I would not have "poofed" it.
Further, I believe that all here hold that whoever wins will have little if any impact on Amtrak. The "RR rhetoric" of "we'll zero it out" is simply a play to their strong Red State base where Amtrak service is at beast characterized as "one a day at 0-dark-30", or otherwise meaningless as a transportation resource.
"The War is The War", and today our armed forces can best be considered a band of mercenaries that are, at least when compared to "when I was in", well paid, but otherwise to civilians pursuing their daily lives it's "out of sight out of mind'. The casualty rate, by historical standards, is quite low. At this time, no service is confronted with recruitment shortfalls. Wars always have and always will end with nothing having really, save a short lived sweeping under the rug, been settled.
So we get down to the one and only issue that matters and was aptly described by Bill Clinton as "it's the economy, stupid".
The Republican nominees are holding that the economy can best be revived through stimulation by investment, which means to create an environment, i.e. low taxes, in which parties with funds to invest will choose to invest them in plant and equipment to produce goods and services that people in a free market will choose to buy. From this stimulation will come the jobs and the "trickle down" (stow the wisecracks, please) economic activity they bring.
Only problem, while such stimulation worked during the Reagan era, it "belly-flopped" during the Bush 43 years. I doubt if anyone reading this posting could answer the "are you better off today than you were four years ago?" in the affirmative when Bush 43 left office (I know I couldn't; the Obama years have been roundly a stand-off).
So it figured that the Obama administration chose to try what was last done during the New Deal - and that was stimulation by consumption. Any of the Obama legislation starting with Stimulus, banking reform, auto industry bailout, and the Social Security tax cut, were all enacted by putting with rapidity $$$$ in the pockets of people that would spend it, as distinct from invest it.
Only problem, it really hasn't worked - nor did it really work during the New Deal.
So with the two means of stimulation flopping, where do we go from here? Try again what worked during Reagan, but flopped during Bush 43, or stick with FDR/Obama and hope for better times.
May the best man win.
Posts: 10970 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What worked for Reagan will work now. We are in a similar situation. The recession has not been cured, due to poor government decisions. Giving the rich some "free" money will stimulate them into doing that landscape job on their property they have been postponing, allowing the landscaper to buy a new mower and hire 1 or 2 people. Or the rich will use that found money for a new bath, allowing the contractor to buy a new tool and hire 1 or 2 people. It did not work for Bush 43 due to the lack of a recession.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
Giving the rich some "free" money will stimulate them into doing that landscape job on their property they have been postponing, allowing the landscaper to buy a new mower and hire 1 or 2 people. Or the rich will use that found money for a new bath, allowing the contractor to buy a new tool and hire 1 or 2 people.
A truly remarkable view of economics that many do not share. Who's to say that the "free" money won't simply be salted away in bank accounts (which seems to be the case now)? Why stop with SOME "free" money; let's just give the whole country to a handful of billionaires.
-------------------- Ocala Mike Posts: 1618 | From: Ocala, FL | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike on Reagonomics: "It did not work for Bush 43 due to the lack of a recession." As someone who had some college economics, that is hurting my brain. So if an administration starts with a surplus and ends with a record deficit, the lack of an initial recession is a contributing factor?
GBN: As opposed to the simplicity of comparing the very opposite policies of FDR/Obama vs. Reagan/Bush43, what would happen if you added Eisenhower. At the beginning of his term, debt was something like 125% of GDP (a higher % than it is now). By massive government spending on the interstate highway system, higher education, and medical facilities (all what might be called infrastructure), the US economy was greatly improved over the long term. Does this not lend some validity to the Obama strategy?
I would submit that for the short term, most economists would agree that reducing government spending in bad economic times is risky. Over the last 30 years, it is only the Reagan years (with some tax increases) that supply-siders point to as the success of their theory. If you count Bush41 as the 3rd year of Reagan it ended in a recession. So did Bush43.
By contrast, Clinton had a tax increase and an improved economy. There are, of course, other factors that contributed to this history. But when Bush41 used the term "voodoo economics", I think he turned out to be right.
Oh, and my bet is Obama with 295 electoral votes in extra innings. But if declared the "king of politics", I refuse to serve. Like Groucho, I refuse to join any group that would accept me as a member.
Posts: 1577 | From: St. Paul, MN | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike Smith: What worked for Reagan will work now. We are in a similar situation. The recession has not been cured, due to poor government decisions. Giving the rich some "free" money will stimulate them into doing that landscape job on their property they have been postponing, allowing the landscaper to buy a new mower and hire 1 or 2 people. Or the rich will use that found money for a new bath, allowing the contractor to buy a new tool and hire 1 or 2 people. It did not work for Bush 43 due to the lack of a recession.
You are spot-on, once again. The thing that really makes me scratch my head is that this is so simple and so easy. It's Econ 101, and we have history to prove this as correct. Yet there are plenty of people out there who disagree---which I don't think I will ever understand. Employees don't work for the poor---employees work for "the rich". Why is this so hard to comprehend?
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
Giving the rich some "free" money will stimulate them into doing that landscape job on their property they have been postponing, allowing the landscaper to buy a new mower and hire 1 or 2 people. Or the rich will use that found money for a new bath, allowing the contractor to buy a new tool and hire 1 or 2 people.
A truly remarkable view of economics that many do not share. Who's to say that the "free" money won't simply be salted away in bank accounts (which seems to be the case now)? Why stop with SOME "free" money; let's just give the whole country to a handful of billionaires.
I know "many" do not share the obvious. The clueless Krugman immediately comes to mind. Your speculation about rich people and salt was proven wrong in 1982 through 1992, and arguably until 2007. And the "all or nothing" fix rarely works.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And TSR, by king, I mean you will be revered as the expert in all things political, through May 2013.
And you may have forgotten the record deficits happened after the Pelosi/Reid idiots took over our US Congress in 2007. There was no time to try the economic theory that worked so well for Reagan.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
To hold the captioned viewpoint is clearly within Mr. Smith's First Amendment rights; however I hope the smart fellow Mr. Smith has shown himself to be at this Forum has formulated his views from sources other than this kind of tripe, i.e. reading Mr. Krugman's material in The Times, listening to his thoughts on "Meet The Press", "Face The Nation", and "This Week".
Posts: 10970 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Krugman is what I have always called an "educated idiot". His comments are so incredibly off-mark most of the time. I love it when the daytime radio talkers recite his quotes, and then demonstrate why he's wrong.
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just have to bust in here on Sat. night. Couple of things on my mind. I think you are all forgetting the dot-com bust in 2002-3(?). The country was headed toward a recession and to forestall it the gov't passed the "Bush tax cuts". It was an attempt to get the investor class going again. I believe most economists would say it was successful, and the fact that none here seems to remember that downturn would suggest that it was a success. But please try to remember why the Bush tax cuts were enacted in the first place.
What should have happened was a repeal of those cuts in 2005 when the economy was clearly free of recession and which would have enabled the gov't to give them back in 2009.
As to Paul Krugman, GBN, I do read and listen to all those sources that you've cited, and I'm still with Mike Smith on this. He's a Keynsian when most mainstream economists understand that the Keynes philosophy is out-dated and simplistic. A Model T Ford was great in its time, but we're on to hybrid!
Posts: 527 | From: Maynard, MA, USA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr Norman, I have read Krugman's NYT blatherings, and listened to his myopic, simplistic thoughts on the Sunday shows. That is how I came to the conclusion that he was clueless.
Smitty nailed it; Krugman's an educated idiot. (And Hannity is boring, most of the time)
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
While many of us here hold that "it's the economy, stupid" will be the deciding factor in the Election, this interesting article appearing in Today's Times Business section, holds it may not be the deciding factor:
THE unemployment rate is 8.1 percent, hiring has slowed to a trickle and the economy is weak. For a president seeking re-election, those are high hurdles.
In fact, if the maxim, “It’s the economy, stupid,” still has any validity in American politics, it might seem that Barack Obama’s goose is already cooked.
But that’s not what the polls or prediction markets are showing. President Obama and Mitt Romney appear to be running neck-and-neck, and in major betting markets Mr. Obama is the heavy favorite.
Has the economy lost some of its ability to influence politics?
Posts: 10970 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TBlack: As to Paul Krugman, GBN, I do read and listen to all those sources that you've cited, and I'm still with Mike Smith on this. He's a Keynsian when most mainstream economists understand that the Keynes philosophy is out-dated and simplistic. A Model T Ford was great in its time, but we're on to hybrid!
I wouldn't go that far. Keynean economics is to economics what Phrenology as a determinant of criminal tendencies is to psychoanalysis. that is, it never was real.
Posts: 2979 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No prediction for the election from me...... not yet anyway.
Playing however on Mr. Norman's 'Red Meat for the Red State' electorate statement, I am curious whether anyone here has ever seen the Lincoln, NE station (either the old one or the new one just opened this summer) by daylight?
-------------------- David Pressley
Advocating for passenger trains since 1973!
Climbing toward 5,000 posts like the Southwest Chief ascending Raton Pass. Cautiously, not nearly as fast as in the old days, and hoping to avoid premature reroutes. Posts: 4203 | From: Western North Carolina | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TBlack: As to Paul Krugman, GBN, I do read and listen to all those sources that you've cited, and I'm still with Mike Smith on this. He's a Keynsian when most mainstream economists understand that the Keynes philosophy is out-dated and simplistic. A Model T Ford was great in its time, but we're on to hybrid!
I can't stay away. Mike Smith's example, of the "rich" spending money which provides others with spending money and so on, IS Keynesian economics in a nutshell!
Posts: 406 | From: La Grange, CA | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
Or do you think poor people will spend money to benefit the rich?
I can't stay away either.
In a consumer-based economy, which ours is the last time I looked, THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS. Henry Ford knew that, and so did every other successful capitalist who "built a better mousetrap." After all, there have to be customers for those mousetraps and, hopefully, they will have enough money to buy them.
It's trickle up, not trickle down.
Posts: 1618 | From: Ocala, FL | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is CIRCULAR - and that is Keynes' theory. Trickle down by definition assumes an end to the flow at some point. It reminds me of that old saying, "I know s**t rolls down hill, but why am I always in the valley?".
I don't understand why some folks think a rich man's dollar spent on lawn care is more valuable to the economy than a poor man's dollar spent on food.
The other part of Keynes' theory that has never been adhered to by politicians of either party is that in good times, govt is supposed to slow its spending and pay off the debt.
Posts: 406 | From: La Grange, CA | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Moving to another event, the 5 point "Obama bounce" could well be eroded by the developments in Libya.
Quite simply, "we got hit" - and on a 9/11 anniversary to boot. So far as I'm concerned, this matter will be "Red Meat" ("He can't keep us safe") for Rush and Sean with little room for Rachel and Arianna to counter.
Moving to another event, the 5 point "Obama bounce" could well be eroded by the developments in Libya.
Not likely, unless Obama totally misplays things. Rush, Sean, Rachel, and Arianna are not running, and the guy who is is totally clueless on foreign policy. He's already "fumbled" by getting his timeline wrong and criticizing a statement made BEFORE THE ACTUAL ATTACK in an attempt to defuse things. Anyway, all this is playing into the incumbent's hands because attention is drawn away from "THE ECONOMY, STUPID."
Obama never ran a lemonade stand, admittedly, but then Willard never took out OBL.
Posts: 1618 | From: Ocala, FL | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
"Doesn't he know how to read his INTEL briefings?"
"Why didn't he get our diplomatic corps out of there?'
"President Bush kept us safe for seven years and five months; this guy can't. But I will"
"Diplomacy means the stongest armed forces on this planet. We will find the money to keep them so by identifying and eliminating meaningless and wasteful programs"
Stand by!!!
However, I am (pleasantly) surprised that the Dow has not fallen off a cliff Today.
Posts: 10970 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course poor people "spend money to benefit the rich". They SPEND any money that have on goods & services from sources owned by the rich because they cannot afford to do otherwise.
-------------------- My new "default" station (EKH) has no baggage service or QuikTrak machine, but the parking is free! And the NY Central RR Museum is just across the tracks (but not open at Amtrak train times. . ..) Posts: 337 | From: Goshen, IN | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Random thoughts: "Trickle Down" is based on the old economic theory that rich people who keep more of their money put it into jobs that less well off Americans fill. That's changed. Now they invest it in manufactoring jobs in China, call centers in India, and banks in Switzerland and the Cayman Islands. When the Fox News people recite the mantra that GWBush "kept us safe for 8 years", are they saying someone ELSE was President on 9/11/2001? And even discounting the one big day when he DIDN'T keep us safe, remember the Anthrax attack a short time later. I heard an interesting fable the other day: The Republicans are an elephant walking in a parade. The Democrats (or to some on this board, the President) are the guy following the elephant with a broom, shovel, and a wheeled trashcan. The elephant has just eaten, and he is doing major bowel movements on the street. Then he turns around and throws the guy's broom away. He continues down the street, relieving himself. He turns around again, and throws away the guy's shovel. Then he REALLY goes to town. He turns around once more, and says, "You're not cleaning this up fast enough!"
Posts: 516 | From: Richmond VA USA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by RR4me: It is CIRCULAR - and that is Keynes' theory. Trickle down by definition assumes an end to the flow at some point. It reminds me of that old saying, "I know s**t rolls down hill, but why am I always in the valley?".
I don't understand why some folks think a rich man's dollar spent on lawn care is more valuable to the economy than a poor man's dollar spent on food.
The other part of Keynes' theory that has never been adhered to by politicians of either party is that in good times, govt is supposed to slow its spending and pay off the debt.
Everything in our economy is interrelated, but the rich person has many more dollars to spend and can afford to HIRE people to do work his money can buy. Most rich people are holding onto their money due to the sorry state of affairs in our Nation and the uncertainty of what tomorrow will bring. Taking money from them for our extremely wasteful government does not help our economy, it stifles our economy.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Judy McFarland: Of course poor people "spend money to benefit the rich". They SPEND any money that have on goods & services from sources owned by the rich because they cannot afford to do otherwise.
No, they spend money to benefit themselves. They get that money from doing work rich people want done. There is nothing mysterious or difficult to understand about this basic fact. I just cannot see that poor person saying "Geez, Maserati looks like he could use some money, I'll go buy one of his cars to give him some of my money."
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jerome Nicholson: Random thoughts: "Trickle Down" is based on the old economic theory that rich people who keep more of their money put it into jobs that less well off Americans fill. That's changed. Now they invest it in manufactoring jobs in China, call centers in India, and banks in Switzerland and the Cayman Islands. When the Fox News people recite the mantra that GWBush "kept us safe for 8 years", are they saying someone ELSE was President on 9/11/2001? And even discounting the one big day when he DIDN'T keep us safe, remember the Anthrax attack a short time later. I heard an interesting fable the other day: The Republicans are an elephant walking in a parade. The Democrats (or to some on this board, the President) are the guy following the elephant with a broom, shovel, and a wheeled trashcan. The elephant has just eaten, and he is doing major bowel movements on the street. Then he turns around and throws the guy's broom away. He continues down the street, relieving himself. He turns around again, and throws away the guy's shovel. Then he REALLY goes to town. He turns around once more, and says, "You're not cleaning this up fast enough!"
There is not a single thing in your post that is real. It appears to be an emotionally-based fantasy. But that's OK. You may like living within your fantasy.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
While this 538 column appearing in Tomorrow's Times print edition shows that President Obama got a "convention bounce" and Gov. Romney did not, remember it was compiled PRIOR to 9/11-II (Libya).
Not sure if the damage will be enough to ensure Gov. Romney's election, but is sure hasn't helped the President. There's a lot of Red Meat to broil from this one, and the grill is just getting fired up.
Posts: 10970 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sickened by what is going on. Especially the media who conspired to attack Romney in his press conference. They were caught on a "hot mic" conspiring. I hope they will be fired. But what is going on right now in the mid-east is a direct result of this president's foreign policy (or lack thereof). We need an adult in the White House to put a stop to this, before ALL of us are destroyed by this man.
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Obama doesn't have a chance this time around.
