Media Endorsements of Presidential Candidates

[DeistPaladin]

Our debt is due primarily to spending too much.

...and not taking in enough revenue. Thank you for stating the obvious.

I've already answered your questions about how lowering tax rates can actually generate more tax revenues. You don't want to hear it but I've already covered it.

Remember who you're talking to. I once believed in "trickle down". I used to be a conservative Republican who thought Reagan was a president worthy of Rushmore.

Do you know why I see things differently now? Because I was brainwashed by the "lib-rul media"? No. Because I've adopted a new ideology and don't want to hear the truth that I once believed? No. Why then? Because it didn't work.

We've been hearing this "revenue neutral" thing ever since the days of Reagan. During his administration, when there were concerns his tax cuts would increase the debt, they said, "don't worry, the economic growth tax cuts create will increase the revenue to compensate." That didn't happen. When Clinton raised taxes, we were told the result would be economic disaster. That didn't happen. W Bush passed the most aggressive tax cuts for the wealthy and we were told not to worry, that tax cuts are revenue neutral. And he doubled the debt and crashed the economy.

Now in our last discussion, you had your reasons to think all those failures "don't count". Clinton benefited from the dot com bubble, yatta yatta. This is a Christian apologist tactic. "Prayer works but it didn't at that point because..." When has this theory been put into play and actually worked?

1. achieve energy independence on this continent by 2020

When you wish upon a star...

2. open new markets for American goods and services, while also confronting nations like China that cheat on trade and steal American jobs. In the debates Romney explained why his trade focus is on S. America.

...makes no difference who you are...

3. provide Americans with the skills to succeed through better public schools, better access to higher education, and better retraining programs that help to match unemployed workers with real-world job opportunities.

All while cutting spending.

...anything that you desire...

4. cut the deficit, reducing the size of government and getting the national debt under control so that America remains a place where businesses want to open up shop and hire.

Cut taxes, increase defense spending and balance the budget all at the same time.

Reagan tried to do this and failed. W Bush tried to do this and failed. Math is a bitch.

5. champion small business by pursuing tax reform that lowers tax rates for all Americans, and cut back on the red tape that drives up costs and discourages hiring.

Cut taxes and deregulation. That worked so well under W Bush, didn't it?

See, this is why I'm no longer a conservative Republican. I learn when things fail. I don't make excuses. I simply say "I was wrong" and adopt a new view based on the facts.

Now, if you think I'm wrong now, show me the facts. Don't just tell me, "some economist says blah blah blah." Show me actual data. Where has it been tried and shown to be successful by the results? Hypotheses are nice but since they failed so spectacularly here in the US, I need to see something with more substance.

[Annik]

Annik, what is this Աննիկ <3s Հովիկ? Annik heart Hovik in some exotic language?

It's Armenian. Aren't the letterforms beautiful?

[Tino]

Annik, what is this Աննիկ <3s Հովիկ? Annik heart Hovik in some exotic language?

It's Armenian. Aren't the letterforms beautiful?

Yes beautiful.

---

Paladin,

In other threads you and I have discussed these same issues and I'm not going to retype the answers here, especially since, as usual, you provide no data, just partisan assertions. But I will address your claim about tax cuts not "working." Refer to the Tax Policy Center website at http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/...?Docid=200 to see this data for yourself, and note that the revenue figures given are for government fiscal years (October to September) and in constant FY2005 dollars.

You say/imply that the Reagan and/or Bush tax cutting doesn't "work" without saying what "work" means, but I'm going to use "work" as raising revenues.

For FY81-88 (Reagan years) revenues grew from $599 billion to $909 billion. This contradicts your claim that the Reagan tax cuts didn't "work", but don't run off and get salty just yet. Let's look at Clinton.

For FY93-00 (Clinton years) revenues grew from $1154 billion to $2025 billion. You say Clinton raised taxes, and the data shows revenues also went up. Hold this thought. Let's look at Bush W.

For FY01-08 (Bush W years) revenues grew from $1991 billion to $2524 billion. This contradicts your claim that the Bush tax cuts didn't "work", but don't run off yet. What's the conclusion from these three data points? It's that depending on what's going on in the economy, the right solution might be raising taxes or lowering taxes, and properly applied, either approach can raise revenues in the right circumstances.

On the topic of spending and deficits, yes of course more revenue can offset more spending, but we have been historically been successful by keeping our spending below 20% of GDP. Deficits got large under Reagan when Congress let spending get into the 22-23% range. Deficits got small and turned into surpluses under Clinton when Congress controlled spending and got it into the 18-19% range. It doesn't always work, as Congress had spending under 20% during the Bush W. years but still ran large deficits. But spending has now ballooned to 24% of GDP and the deficits are a trillion+ dollars annually. Spending is the thing we can control directly, and cutting our spending back to 20% of GDP (Romney's plan) is a critical part of turning the economy around. With tax cuts across the board now (but with the removal of deductions and loopholes that benefit the wealthy) we'll have an improved environment for investment, which will increase investment in business, creating new businesses, which will need to hire people, which will lower unemployment and create more wage earners who will be paying taxes instead of getting unemployment benefits.

[Tino]

Do people really pay attention to news papers enough that their endorsements really mean anything anymore?

Just saw this possible answer to your question, by political analyst Michael Barone:

Most newspaper endorsements mostly don’t matter. The Washington Post on Friday endorsed Barack Obama; I confess that as much as I admire the editorial writers of the Washington Post (and I do) I haven’t read it yet. The Post, as I recall, has regularly endorsed Democratic candidates for a long time, although in 1988, when I was on the editorial page staff, it chose not to endorse either Michael Dukakis or George H. W. Bush, a stand that I think was logical in light of the paper’s editorial page stances—generally but not always liberal, often thoughtful in an intellectually interesting way—over the years.

But occasionally there comes an editorial page stance that matters. The Des Moines Register has endorsed Mitt Romney. The Register is not quite the statewide paper that it once was, but it is still clearly the most prominent paper in a state that is closely divided and has 6 critical electoral votes. The endorsement editorial is very much worth reading, because it tends to appeal to the high-minded affluent voters that can be found in large numbers on the west side of Des Moines and in its west side suburbs in Polk County and fast-growing Dallas County to the west. (Iowa was admitted to the Union in 1846, when the president was James K. Polk and the vice president was a Philadelphia banker named George M. Dallas, after whom Dallas, Texas, was also named.) The Register endorsed mostly Republicans from 1912 to 1960; it endorsed Lyndon Johnson and Hubert Humphrey in 1964 and 1968 and Richard Nixon in 1972; it has endorsed Democrats in every election since up until now. This is in line with a lot of editorial pages over the last century. They were Republican, but sort of thoughtful, up through the 1960s, and Democratic, but sort of thoughtful, from the 1970s on.

It is in the interest of the Romney campaign to transmit the text of the Register endorsement to voters in affluent suburbs all over the country; it is the kind of thing that will appeal to them, as they roll back from their trend of going more and more Democratic starting in 1992 and culminating in 2008 and recoil from the big government excesses of the Obama administration this year. It’s not the editorial I would have written. But, hey, the Register can speak for itself. The Real Clear Politics average of recent polls shows Iowa as 49%-47% Obama, and this endorsement could make a significant difference in this closely divided state. If we assume that Mitt Romney is leading Barack Obama in the following Obama 2008 states, as he is in RCP polling averages—Indiana, the Nebraska 2nd congressional district, North Carolina, Florida, Virginia and Colorado, Romney can win the presidency without Ohio if he wins Iowa and Wisconsin. The Register endorsement could go some ways to making the difference.

[cratehorus]

But spending has now ballooned to 24% of GDP and the deficits are a trillion+ dollars annually. Spending is the thing we can control directly, and cutting our spending back to 20% of GDP (Romney's plan) is a critical part of turning the economy around.

what cuts? at this point you don't even have to explain why these cuts will work or give any historical analysis, just say what you would cut and give a number..... please explain these cuts or shut the fuck up

[Tino]

what cuts? at this point you don't even have to explain why these cuts will work or give any historical analysis, just say what you would cut and give a number..... please explain these cuts or shut the fuck up

If you weren't such a lazy sack of shit you'd go look it up yourself, but I'll spoon feed some highlights to you. Read it and then go fuck yourself.

Set Honest Goals: Cap Spending At 20 Percent Of GDP

Any turnaround must begin with clear and realistic goals. Optimistic projections cannot wish a problem away, they can only make it worse. As president, Mitt’s goal will be to bring federal spending below 20 percent of GDP by the end of his first term:
•Reduced from 24.3 percent last year; in line with the historical trend between 18 and 20 percent
•Close to the tax revenue generated by the economy when healthy
•Requires spending cuts of approximately $500 billion per year in 2016 assuming robust economic recovery with 4% annual growth, and reversal of irresponsible Obama-era defense cuts

Take Immediate Action: Return Non-Security Discretionary Spending To Below 2008 Levels

Any turnaround must also stop the bleeding and reverse the most recent and dramatic damage:
•Send Congress a bill on Day One that cuts non-security discretionary spending by 5 percent across the board
•Pass the House Republican Budget proposal, rolling back President Obama’s government expansion by capping non-security discretionary spending below 2008 levels

Follow A Clear Roadmap: Build A Simpler, Smaller, Smarter Government

Most importantly, any turnaround must have a thoughtful, structured approach to achieving its goals. Mitt will attack the bloated budget from three angles:
1.The Federal Government Should Stop Doing Things The American People Can’t Afford, For Instance: •Repeal Obamacare — Savings: $95 Billion. President Obama’s costly takeover of the health care system imposes an enormous and unaffordable obligation on the federal government while intervening in a matter that should be left to the states. Mitt will begin his efforts to repeal this legislation on Day One.
•Privatize Amtrak — Savings: $1.6 Billion. Despite requirement that Amtrak operate on a for-profit basis, it continues to receive about $1.6 billion in taxpayer funds each year. Forty-one of Amtrak’s 44 routes lost money in 2008 with losses ranging from $5 to $462 per passenger.
•Reduce Subsidies For The National Endowments For The Arts And Humanities, The Corporation For Public Broadcasting, And The Legal Services Corporation — Savings: $600 Million. NEA, NEH, and CPB provide grants to supplement other sources of funding. LSC funds services mostly duplicative of those already offered by states, localities, bar associations and private organizations.
•Eliminate Title X Family Planning Funding — Savings: $300 Million. Title X subsidizes family planning programs that benefit abortion groups like Planned Parenthood.
•Reduce Foreign Aid — Savings: $100 Million. Stop borrowing money from countries that oppose America’s interests in order to give it back to them in the form of foreign aid.

If pursued with focus and discipline, Mitt’s approach provides a roadmap to rescue the federal government from its present precipice. But that respite will be short-lived without a plan for the looming long-term threat posed by the unsustainable nature of existing entitlement obligations. Learn more about Mitt’s proposals for entitlement reform: Medicare and Social Security.

2.Empower States To Innovate — Savings: >$100 billion •Block grants have huge potential to generate both superior results and cost savings by establishing local control and promoting innovation in areas such as Medicaid and Worker Retraining. Medicaid spending should be capped and increased each year by CPI + 1%. Department of Labor retraining spending should be capped and will increase in future years. These funds should then be given to the states to spend on their own residents. States will be free from Washington micromanagement, allowing them to develop innovative approaches that improve quality and reduce cost.

3.Improve Efficiency And Effectiveness. Where the federal government should act, it must do a better job. For instance: •Reduce Waste And Fraud — Savings: $60 Billion. The federal government made $125 billion in improper payments last year. Cutting that amount in half through stricter enforcement and harsher penalties yields returns many times over on the investment.
•Align Federal Employee Compensation With The Private Sector — Savings: $47 Billion. Federal compensation exceeds private sector levels by as much as 30 to 40 percent when benefits are taken into account. This must be corrected.
•Repeal The Davis-Bacon Act — Savings: $11 Billion. Davis-Bacon forces the government to pay above-market wages, insulating labor unions from competition and driving up project costs by approximately 10 percent.
•Reduce The Federal Workforce By 10 Percent Via Attrition — Savings: $4 Billion. Despite widespread layoffs in the private sector, President Obama has continued to grow the federal payrolls. The federal workforce can be reduced by 10 percent through a “1-for-2” system of attrition, thereby reducing the number of federal employees while allowing the introduction of new talent into the federal service.
•Consolidate agencies and streamline processes to cut costs and improve results in everything from energy permitting to worker retraining to trade negotiation.

[Tino]

Camille Paglia Ditches Obama, Endorses Jill Stein

"I consider him, now, one of the most racially divisive and polarizing figures ever. I think it's going to take years to undo the damage to relationships between the races. "

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/10/cam...ma-in.html

[Tino]

THE GREATEST GENERATION ENDORSES OBAMA

My gift to the unhinged - enjoy!

[Autumnlicious]

Since you've decided to lose sight of media endorsements and turn this into your private pro-Romney thread, I figured I'd strike back.

Republican Governor Christie praises Obama, doesn't care about what Romney has to offer despite FOX prodding at that.

REF: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/10/30/ch...-photo-op/?

[Tino]

Since you've decided to lose sight of media endorsements and turn this into your private pro-Romney thread, I figured I'd strike back.

Republican Governor Christie praises Obama, doesn't care about what Romney has to offer despite FOX prodding at that.

REF: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/10/30/ch...-photo-op/?

Don't be all bitter - I post them as I see them. Feel free to post any that you see.