2012 Elections

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:15 pm

I'm not trying to prove your opinion false. I'm pointing out that the analogy that you constructed didn't work because you were comparing apples (a candidate with a stated intent to restrict gay rights) to oranges (two candidates with a stated intent to help the economy).

You may personally believe that one candidate or the other will do harm. That doesn't change the fact that it's not like the initial case where there is no opinion involved. Romney and his party are PROUD to be against gay rights. Voting for them enables them to pursue that agenda (in addition to the economic agenda that you approve of). The author would just like you to say that you are fine with trading his rights for what you perceive is a better economic plan (hopefully you are an economist and not just making an uneducated, ideological guess like most voters).

He would do the same for you. He would happily own up to the fact that he will enable Obama's economic plan in a trade to not have Republicans enshrine discrimination against him into law.

Do you see that I haven't said anything about your opinion of which economic plan is better? I don't care which one you think is better, that has nothing to do with the author's point.

Fretmute · Post by **Fretmute** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:19 pm

Chrisoc13 wrote:It's the classic being open minded until it means being open minded about something you don't agree with.

The last few posts here have really made me wonder if I am the only one who finds no identity in either party. Apparently everyone else agrees straight down the platform of a party.

How, exactly, am I being closed minded?

Look at it this way. Next Tuesday we all get to vote for which pizza we'll all be eating for the next four years. There are really only two choices on the menu, and we have a pretty good idea of the toppings. I might love pepperoni, and hate anchovies, but if I vote for the pepperoni and anchovy pizza, and win, we're getting anchovies. And then we all have to eat them. Regardless of my personal conviction, my vote was for anchovies, even if I only really cared about the pepperoni.

We all almost certainly have our own favorite topping. That's not anything wrong with that. My point is that we have to understand and accept our responsibility for the consequences of voting for it.

Chrisoc13 · Post by **Chrisoc13** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:20 pm

RunningMn9 wrote: The author would just like you to say that you are fine with trading his rights for what you perceive is a better economic plan (hopefully you are an economist and not just making an uneducated, ideological guess like most voters).

I don't have to be an economist to vote with the economy in mind as my number one concern. That is a pretty high bar to set in order to have the economy as my number one issue wouldn't you say?

It isn't as simple as he boiled it down to. There are far too many issues to boil it down to economy vs. gay rights. I have a voice beyond the election, I have the ability to contact my elected leaders and let them know my thoughts on legislation and my opinion. It isn't that black and white.

Chrisoc13 · Post by **Chrisoc13** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:23 pm

Fretmute wrote:
Chrisoc13 wrote:It's the classic being open minded until it means being open minded about something you don't agree with.

The last few posts here have really made me wonder if I am the only one who finds no identity in either party. Apparently everyone else agrees straight down the platform of a party.
How, exactly, am I being closed minded?

Look at it this way. Next Tuesday we all get to vote for which pizza we'll all be eating for the next four years. There are really only two choices on the menu, and we have a pretty good idea of the toppings. I might love pepperoni, and hate anchovies, but if I vote for the pepperoni and anchovy pizza, and win, we're getting anchovies. And then we all have to eat them. Regardless of my personal conviction, my vote was for anchovies, even if I only really cared about the pepperoni.

We all almost certainly have our own favorite topping. That's not anything wrong with that. My point is that we have to understand and accept our responsibility for the consequences of voting for it.

Sorry I didn't mean you in particular, I meant the sentiment as a whole that it can be boiled down to gay rights vs. economy. It would be great if it were just a pizza we were voting for, it would be far more clear. Can pepperoni override the taste of anchovies? etc. But it isn't that clear and bringing it down to look like a black and white issue is not a fair way to approach it. It is far more complex than simple decision, there are far more factors at play.

Grundbegriff · Post by **Grundbegriff** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:27 pm

Chrisoc13 wrote:It would be great if it were just a pizza we were voting for, it would be far more clear. Can pepperoni override the taste of anchovies? etc. But it isn't that clear and bringing it down to look like a black and white issue is not a fair way to approach it. It is far more complex than simple decision, there are far more factors at play.

Pizza with two toppings, the idiotic meme goes. Well, in truth it's more like voting for this supermarket chain or that one.

geezer · Post by **geezer** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:29 pm

Grundbegriff wrote:
Chrisoc13 wrote:It would be great if it were just a pizza we were voting for, it would be far more clear. Can pepperoni override the taste of anchovies? etc. But it isn't that clear and bringing it down to look like a black and white issue is not a fair way to approach it. It is far more complex than simple decision, there are far more factors at play.
Pizza with two toppings, the idiotic meme goes. Well, in truth it's more like voting for this supermarket chain or that one.

...which is annoying when one generally prefers the farmer's market

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 3:09 pm

noxiousdog wrote:
Combustible Lemur wrote:The problem is that Romney will have the power to potentially end abortion to hold back gay rights, to damage planned parent hood, his party is anti science and dismissing of global warming.
Seriously?

Reagan couldn't. Bush I couldn't. Bush II couldn't. But somehow Romney is going to be able to do those things?

Abortion: - 30 years of moving the supreme court rightward (since Reagan) has created the possibility that the next President could very well stack the court enough that overturning Roe v. Wade is a possiblility. 4 Justices are in their 70's and older (Ginsberg turns 80 next year). If Romney were to be a two-term President, he could well name 4 Justices to go with Thomas, Alito, Roberts, Sotomayor and Kagan.

Gay Rights: uh, I'm pretty sure that Reagan, Bush, Bush 2 did hold back Gay rights (as did Clinton by signing DOMA). I don't know if DADT would be re-instated under a Romney Administration (but it would be pretty easy).

Planned Parenthood: pretty sure they are being damaged all over - from the Komen attempt last year, to Texas, to North Carolina, to there being zero in Mississippi, etc.

Global Warming - do you seriously think that Bush 2 didn't impede US efforts to combat Global Warming? How about Preventing CA from enacting tougher emissions rulesfor starters, or actively distorting NASA Scientists reports to stifle evidence of Global Warming.

Don't kid yourself.

Grundbegriff · Post by **Grundbegriff** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 3:14 pm

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 3:23 pm

Chrisoc13 wrote:I don't have to be an economist to vote with the economy in mind as my number one concern. That is a pretty high bar to set in order to have the economy as my number one issue wouldn't you say?

And I'm the one that just likes to argue?!?

The economist comment had to do with your ability to evaluate the short- and long-term consequences of vaguely articulated competing economic plans, not your ability to have "the economy" be your top political issue.

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 3:37 pm

Pyperkub wrote: Abortion: - 30 years of moving the supreme court rightward (since Reagan) has created the possibility that the next President could very well stack the court enough that overturning Roe v. Wade is a possiblility. 4 Justices are in their 70's and older (Ginsberg turns 80 next year). If Romney were to be a two-term President, he could well name 4 Justices to go with Thomas, Alito, Roberts, Sotomayor and Kagan.

I've heard this for 20 years. It's not going to happen now, or ever. The morning after pill is being given away in schools, and you think they'll really overturn RvW? Less than 30% of Republicans want abortion outlawed completely. (Surprisingly 20% of Democrats).

There's just not widespread support for it regardless of media and political coverage.

Gay Rights: uh, I'm pretty sure that Reagan, Bush, Bush 2 did hold back Gay rights (as did Clinton by signing DOMA). I don't know if DADT would be re-instated under a Romney Administration (but it would be pretty easy).

No, it wouldn't. Even that article is filled with backtracking and self questioning.

Planned Parenthood: pretty sure they are being damaged all over - from the Komen attempt last year, to Texas, to North Carolina, to there being zero in Mississippi, etc.

Yeah, I don't know about all that. They built a $26 million dollar, 78,000 sq ft. new complex in Houston in 2010. That doesn't sound very damaged.

Global Warming - do you seriously think that Bush 2 didn't impede US efforts to combat Global Warming? How about Preventing CA from enacting tougher emissions rulesfor starters, or actively distorting NASA Scientists reports to stifle evidence of Global Warming.

Meh. Ask me again in 20 years. I get the concepts, of course, I'm just highly skeptical that there's going to be a measurable difference between the carbon emissions of an Obama presidency, and those of a Romney presidency.

Don't kid yourself.

Don't participate in the fear mongering. Still, it's really the abortion thing that makes me respond to these. That's fear mongering at it's finest.

silverjon · Post by **silverjon** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 3:43 pm

noxiousdog wrote:
Planned Parenthood: pretty sure they are being damaged all over - from the Komen attempt last year, to Texas, to North Carolina, to there being zero in Mississippi, etc.
Yeah, I don't know about all that. They built a $26 million dollar, 78,000 sq ft. new complex in Houston in 2010. That doesn't sound very damaged.

It took several search attempts to find information on this facility that wasn't from a pro-life resource, but here's a reference for anyone else curious.
http://www.chron.com/life/mom-houston/a ... 717914.php" target="_blank

Chrisoc13 · Post by **Chrisoc13** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 4:01 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:
Chrisoc13 wrote:I don't have to be an economist to vote with the economy in mind as my number one concern. That is a pretty high bar to set in order to have the economy as my number one issue wouldn't you say?
And I'm the one that just likes to argue?!?

The economist comment had to do with your ability to evaluate the short- and long-term consequences of vaguely articulated competing economic plans, not your ability to have "the economy" be your top political issue.

Oh no certainly I should have clarified - I love to argue at times, I'm just not as good as dissecting someone else's position as you are

I am not an economist (obviously) and as such my evaluations are going to be below a professional level. But I am a professional on very few if any issues so i do what hopefully everyone does: I read and make the most educated decision I believe I can.

Combustible Lemur · Post by **Combustible Lemur** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 6:04 pm

noxiousdog wrote:
Combustible Lemur wrote:The problem is that Romney will have the power to potentially end abortion to hold back gay rights, to damage planned parent hood, his party is anti science and dismissing of global warming.
Seriously?

Reagan couldn't. Bush I couldn't. Bush II couldn't. But somehow Romney is going to be able to do those things?

The States are pushing hard and Romney can lean the legislative climate that direction.
Conservative supreme court placements are a potential leaning in that direction. I would hope that he cant. But I wont vote for a party that has an active interest in those agendas. I don't think Romney's budget is going to work the way he wants it to either. I think he doesn't stand to improve the economy more than his party plans to damage social issues I find important.
Like someone else put it both are trying to help the economy, only one is an avowed opponent to abortion and gay rights.
Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

cheeba · Post by **cheeba** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 6:59 pm

Combustible Lemur wrote:Like someone else put it both are trying to help the economy, only one is an avowed opponent to abortion and gay rights.

Oof.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:15 pm

silverjon wrote:
noxiousdog wrote:
Planned Parenthood: pretty sure they are being damaged all over - from the Komen attempt last year, to Texas, to North Carolina, to there being zero in Mississippi, etc.
Yeah, I don't know about all that. They built a $26 million dollar, 78,000 sq ft. new complex in Houston in 2010. That doesn't sound very damaged.
It took several search attempts to find information on this facility that wasn't from a pro-life resource, but here's a reference for anyone else curious.
http://www.chron.com/life/mom-houston/a ... 717914.php" target="_blank

This is the recent development:

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied a request from Planned Parenthood Thursday to reconsider its recent decision allowing the state to keep the abortion giant out of its Women’s Health Program.

“Today’s ruling affirms yet again that in Texas, the Women’s Health Program has no obligation to fund Planned Parenthood and other organizations that perform or promote abortion,” said Governor Rick Perry following the decision. “In Texas we choose life, and we will immediately begin defunding all abortion affiliates to honor and uphold that choice.”

Of course, as Frum points out today, a primary driver in abortions is poverty:

Even here in the United States, where parental benefits are much less generous, abortion responds to economic conditions. In the prosperous 1990s, abortion rates declined rapidly. In the less prosperous '00s, abortion rates declined more slowly. When the economy plunged into crisis in 2008, abortion rates abruptly rose again.

Combustible Lemur · Post by **Combustible Lemur** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 9:01 pm

cheeba wrote:
Combustible Lemur wrote:Like someone else put it both are trying to help the economy, only one is an avowed opponent to abortion and gay rights.
Oof.

I know, my grammer suffers badly when I type on the kindle.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 9:46 pm

Chrisoc13 wrote:
RunningMn9 wrote:Voting Republican doesn't mean you agree with everything they stand for. It just means that you are responsible for enabling everything they do after you help put them in power. Moreso when they've come right out and told you what they want to do.
What a stupid argument this has become. Nobody agrees with everything in either parties platforms. If I vote for someone I am not responsible for their choices by any means. I would have to vote for myself only if that was the standard.

If a candidate says "If I'm elected, I will do X, Y and Z," and you say, "I like X," and so you vote for him, you are *also* voting for him to do Y and Z, even if you disagree with them. While you might not support Y and Z, you still voted *for* Y and Z by voting for the candidate, and you are responsible for enabling Y and Z. You can't vote for a candidate who says "If I'm elected, I will do X, Y and Z," and after elected when he does Y and Z, say "Don't blame me, I was only voting for X!" That's logically unsupportable.

We all own the consequences of our voting. Sometimes those consequences are unknown at the time. Then, it's debatable whether a voter is culpable for them. However, when a candidate makes explicit promises to do something, and you vote for him, you are enabling and ratifying his intentions to do those things, even if you disagree with them.

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 9:48 pm

cheeba wrote:So those of you who voted for and are voting for Obama all support the war on drugs, right?

I do not support the war on drugs. But I did vote for Obama to continue his policies regarding it, as part and parcel of voting for him. Of course, there is no viable candidate who is taking a different position, so that's sort of a non-starter of an issue.

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 12:40 am

Yes.

The difference being that Obama didn't actively court the vote of the Police like Romney courted the Evangelical vote.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 1:19 pm

Combustible Lemur wrote:
cheeba wrote:
Combustible Lemur wrote:Like someone else put it both are trying to help the economy, only one is an avowed opponent to abortion and gay rights.
Oof.
I know, my grammer suffers badly when I type on the kindle.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

Spell check too

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:17 pm

Has anyone posted the Google Voter Information Tool yet? See everyone on your ballot (and maybe questions, but I don't have any so can't check)!

Exodor · Post by **Exodor** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:20 pm

According to this Blog post Mitt's campaign is doubling down on the Jeep lie - to the point where Chrysler felt the need to set the record straight again

Fiat chief executive Sergio Marchionne has now felt compelled by Romney’s disinformation campaign to set the record straight a second time. In an email to shareholders, he confirmed: “I feel obliged to unambiguously restate our position: Jeep production will not be moved from the United States to China.”

Marchionne added: “Jeep assembly lines will remain in operation in the United States and will constitute the backbone of the brand. It is inaccurate to suggest anything different.” Yet the Romney campaign is expanding its ad campaign claiming the contrary.

Disgusting.

cheeba · Post by **cheeba** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:23 pm

Combustible Lemur wrote:
cheeba wrote:
Combustible Lemur wrote:Like someone else put it both are trying to help the economy, only one is an avowed opponent to abortion and gay rights.
Oof.
I know, my grammer suffers badly when I type on the kindle.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

Nothing to do with your grammar. It's the over-simplification involved to equate their economic policies into "they're both trying to help" added to the free pass that Obama seems to get on gay rights when he lied about being anti-gay rights to get elected.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:27 pm

cheeba wrote:
Combustible Lemur wrote:
cheeba wrote:
Combustible Lemur wrote:Like someone else put it both are trying to help the economy, only one is an avowed opponent to abortion and gay rights.
Oof.
I know, my grammer suffers badly when I type on the kindle.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
Nothing to do with your grammar. It's the over-simplification involved to equate their economic policies added to the free pass that Obama seems to get on gay rights when he lied about being anti-gay rights to get elected.

But in any event he *is* pro gay rights, yes? Got rid of DADT, is not defending DOMA on appeal, is now pro-gay marriage. Yeah, he may well have been pro gay marriage in 2008 (but unwilling to take that stand publicly), but for any voter for whom gay rights is an important issue, I'm not sure "He's more pro gay rights than he said he was in 2008!" is such a stinging criticism.

"I'll show Obama for saying he's less pro gay rights than he is - I'll vote for the candidate who is actually opposed to gay rights!"

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:34 pm

Exodor wrote:According to this Blog post Mitt's campaign is doubling down on the Jeep lie - to the point where Chrysler felt the need to set the record straight again

Fiat chief executive Sergio Marchionne has now felt compelled by Romney’s disinformation campaign to set the record straight a second time. In an email to shareholders, he confirmed: “I feel obliged to unambiguously restate our position: Jeep production will not be moved from the United States to China.”

Marchionne added: “Jeep assembly lines will remain in operation in the United States and will constitute the backbone of the brand. It is inaccurate to suggest anything different.” Yet the Romney campaign is expanding its ad campaign claiming the contrary.
Disgusting.

Couldn't believe it. I had to find the ad on youtube. Still can't believe it. The Bain guy in charge of Murders and Executions put this up? What a piece of... work.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:39 pm

LordMortis wrote:
Exodor wrote:According to this Blog post Mitt's campaign is doubling down on the Jeep lie - to the point where Chrysler felt the need to set the record straight again

Fiat chief executive Sergio Marchionne has now felt compelled by Romney’s disinformation campaign to set the record straight a second time. In an email to shareholders, he confirmed: “I feel obliged to unambiguously restate our position: Jeep production will not be moved from the United States to China.”

Marchionne added: “Jeep assembly lines will remain in operation in the United States and will constitute the backbone of the brand. It is inaccurate to suggest anything different.” Yet the Romney campaign is expanding its ad campaign claiming the contrary.
Disgusting.

Couldn't believe it. I had to find the ad on youtube. Still can't believe it. The Bain guy in charge of Murders and Executions put this up? What a piece of... work.

The beauty of it is that the line in question is probably literally true - that Obama had Chrysler "sold to Italians who will build Jeeps in China." Chrysler is apparently looking at re-starting Jeep plants in China that have been idle since 2009. But in context it's horribly misleading, because it makes it sound like American (and specifically) Ohio jobs are going to be shifted to China. That's not the case - the reality is that Ohio Jeep plants are now running at full capacity, and Chrysler wants to expand production in China to sell in China and east Asia.

cheeba · Post by **cheeba** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:52 pm

El Guapo wrote:I'm not sure "He's more pro gay rights than he said he was in 2008!" is such a stinging criticism.

As I've already said, 15% unemployment is the stinging criticism. If you want to say Obama is more pro gay rights than Romney, well sure, that's fine. But if you're going to base your vote on that while dumbing down their economic policies to "they just wanna help the economy" then you're on a shaky position, considering Obama's willingness to waffle on gay rights for votes.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:59 pm

cheeba wrote:
Apollo wrote:15% unemployment? So now we're making up new ways to measure unemployment so as to make the incumbent look bad?
U-6.

Table A-15

U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force

Oh, and the number for September is 14.2, down 1.5% year over year.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 3:03 pm

cheeba wrote:
El Guapo wrote:I'm not sure "He's more pro gay rights than he said he was in 2008!" is such a stinging criticism.
As I've already said, 15% unemployment is the stinging criticism. If you want to say Obama is more pro gay rights than Romney, well sure, that's fine. But if you're going to base your vote on that while dumbing down their economic policies to "they just wanna help the economy" then you're on a shaky position, considering Obama's willingness to waffle on gay rights for votes.

Sure. I didn't have an issue with your criticism of the equating of their economic policies - I agree that they are likely to be substantially different. That's why I only criticized your argument on gay rights.

As for the "waffling" - he's moved in only one direction on gay rights that I can see. Do you have any reason to think that Obama's suddenly going to reverse his now public stance on gay marriage, for example? Sure, Obama's probably not going to act in lockstep with GLAD, and he took his time on DADT, but his administration has been the most pro-gay rights administration in history.

My broader point is just that if gay rights is one of your top issues, that weighs very heavily in favor of Obama, and I don't see his reticence in 2008 to say how pro gay rights he actually is undercuts that, without evidence that he's likely to move back the other way. I certainly understand that there are people who don't rate gay rights as one of their most important issues, however.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 3:05 pm

cheeba wrote:
El Guapo wrote:I'm not sure "He's more pro gay rights than he said he was in 2008!" is such a stinging criticism.
As I've already said, 15% unemployment is the stinging criticism. If you want to say Obama is more pro gay rights than Romney, well sure, that's fine. But if you're going to base your vote on that while dumbing down their economic policies to "they just wanna help the economy" then you're on a shaky position, considering Obama's willingness to waffle on gay rights for votes.

Can anyone clarify Romney's economic policies? Because as far as I can tell, he is literally running a campaign based on "I wanna help the economy". That people would get upset about it being described that way is baffling. He has literally shown no plan whatsoever.

Exodor · Post by **Exodor** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 3:06 pm

GreenGoo wrote:Can anyone clarify Romney's economic policies? Because as far as I can tell, he is literally running a campaign based on "I wanna help the economy". That people would get upset about it being described that way is baffling. He has literally shown no plan whatsoever.

Cut taxes across the board and massively boost defense spending.

And his foreign policy would be exactly the same as Obama's except more gooder.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 3:06 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:
cheeba wrote:
Apollo wrote:15% unemployment? So now we're making up new ways to measure unemployment so as to make the incumbent look bad?
U-6.
Table A-15

U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force
Oh, and the number for September is 14.2, down 1.5% year over year.

So it's unemployed and underemployed. Which is useful to consider, but not if we consider it to be the "unemployment" number.

Is there a timeline of this value over the long term, so we can place this number in context?

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 3:08 pm

GreenGoo wrote:
cheeba wrote:
El Guapo wrote:I'm not sure "He's more pro gay rights than he said he was in 2008!" is such a stinging criticism.
As I've already said, 15% unemployment is the stinging criticism. If you want to say Obama is more pro gay rights than Romney, well sure, that's fine. But if you're going to base your vote on that while dumbing down their economic policies to "they just wanna help the economy" then you're on a shaky position, considering Obama's willingness to waffle on gay rights for votes.
Can anyone clarify Romney's economic policies? Because as far as I can tell, he is literally running a campaign based on "I wanna help the economy". That people would get upset about it being described that way is baffling. He has literally shown no plan whatsoever.

I take his economic policies to be some mixture of cut taxes in a non-progressive fashion, cut spending, and encourage privatization and de-regulation.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 3:09 pm

El Guapo wrote: his administration has been the most pro-gay rights administration in history.

In absolute terms. But relative to the times? I think Clinton's administration was far more aggressive in pushing gay rights, given that he had bee pushing allowing openly gay service members, and ended up compromising with DADT, while Obama did ot aggressively persue it at all.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 3:13 pm

Defiant wrote:Is there a timeline of this value over the long term, so we can place this number in context?

Run your numbers here going back to 2002. You can run any of the other type of tables here.

Freezer-TPF- · Post by **Freezer-TPF-** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 3:14 pm

Exodor wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:Can anyone clarify Romney's economic policies? Because as far as I can tell, he is literally running a campaign based on "I wanna help the economy". That people would get upset about it being described that way is baffling. He has literally shown no plan whatsoever.
Cut taxes across the board and massively boost defense spending.

And his foreign policy would be exactly the same as Obama's except more gooder.

The Romney plan seems to be: cut taxes (or, close so many loopholes that you end up actually raising taxes on certain populations) and increase the deficit by boosting defense spending, with a side order of repealing Obamacare and causing tens of millions to lose insurance coverage.

Or, maybe he actually will slash overall government spending, which should boost unemployment back up and slow down this recovery further, or even reverse it.

Oh, and he wants to provoke a trade war with China. Sounds solid.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 3:17 pm

Defiant wrote:
El Guapo wrote: his administration has been the most pro-gay rights administration in history.
In absolute terms. But relative to the times? I think Clinton's administration was far more aggressive in pushing gay rights, given that he had bee pushing allowing openly gay service members, and ended up compromising with DADT, while Obama did ot aggressively persue it at all.

Clinton also signed DOMA. Now, Congress may well have overridden a veto of DOMA, but as best as I can recall I don't think the administration did much to try to fight it.

As for DADT, the reason why Obama didn't "aggressively pursue it", as I understand it, is that he wanted to (and ultimately did) get its reversal passed statutorily by Congress, rather than accomplish it via executive fiat. The result is that (I think) Romney could not immediately reverse it upon entering office.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 3:23 pm

Freezer-TPF- wrote:Oh, and he wants to provoke a trade war with China. Sounds solid.

Looking like he was going to provoke a trade war with China was one of the few things I liked about Obama. *shrug* It took him too long but he finally stood up to their rubber/tire subsidies. I was hoping that bit of boldness was going to keep going. Alas, not so much, even if he counts that as a feather in his cap.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 3:29 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:
Defiant wrote:Is there a timeline of this value over the long term, so we can place this number in context?
Run your numbers here going back to 2002. You can run any of the other type of tables here.

I was hoping for 20+ years (ideally, 50+

) to really give us context, but we got to make do with what we got. Looks like by this rate, it's actually 1.2% less than it was in 1/09, but still higher than any time before then. Part of the reason is that it shot up like crazy - like 80% between 4/08 and 2/09, and 50% between 9/08 and 2/09.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 3:33 pm

How's 1994 grab you? Beyond that, you're looking at historical interpretations of other data.