Sign in to follow this  
flyfishing3

Politics On Politics.

Recommended Posts

good interview with NATE SILVERS on MSNBC this AM.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/ns/msnbc_tv-morning_joe/

we can use this as the FODDER thread for Politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Mike has a new man crush. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

interesting interview with RAND PAUL.

http://news.yahoo.co...-115939587.html

some good thoughts but.....

All these guys that keep talking about GOVT revenue through growth is great, except when there is no growth. just saying it, doesn't make it happen.

RARElY, can policy create enough growth to generate income.

there will always be up and downs in GDP. the key is to minimize the LOWS and control the HIGHS.

what upsets me, is nobody is talking about strengthening the dollar. We need to raise rates, tighten up money and increase the value of our dollar first before we will see anything good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huntsman was the Mormon Obama feared most...

And with good reason. I do really like this line:

The GOP is looking at a new slate of candidates, but should never discount the power of a Huntsman candidacy. In 2012 they rejected him and kept a much less qualified field to battle, mostly over decade old issues. In their quest to be the most conservative candidate, they lost to President Obama by default. In other words they became easy pickings.

I won't make this about religion except to say that Huntsman can represent the moderate voice of today's Mormons (although he really is out on the left edge given he's more likely a Jack Mormon or Reform Mormon to use the Jewish term, than a fully committed member of the faith) while Romney represents those who are more entrenched in the cultural traditions of the 1950s.

I only hope the Republican Party finds a more moderate voice for 2016 because I'm not convinced Obama's replacement (whomever that will be from the leading Democrats out there) will do anything but continue in his same vein which is more than a little too left leaning for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you know i really liked hunstman, i talked with dad over the holidays about Huntsman. My dad is ultra left of left and he agreed Huntsman would of been a good choice for the REP. my dad would of still voted for BO but could of supported Him if elected.

I still think Huntsman would make a super SOS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i can't believe how nutty people are getting over Benghazi.

Sure its terrible anybody died, but does anybody really believe RICE just made this stuff up?

there are such bigger things to worry about.

if funding hadn't been cut for protection for the embassy's would the result have been different?

Graham ayotte McCain are really letting me down with all this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama set Rice up as the vigilant defender to fall on the sword because she was out of the loop. It's not Rice they believe who made this up, they just think she played the the knowing stooge. Which is why they object to her taking over the Secretary of State position.

If you think this is all about funding then you're being naive about this Mike. The draw back was not due to a reduction in funding but a conclusion that those forces were more necessary elsewhere than in one of the most dangerous areas of the world. The State Department made a naive decision based on what they believed was the situation on the ground. They thought the CIA was going to protect them. This was an administrative clusterf*ck.

Read the transcripts of what she said. And then consider how long it took for the administration to make an about face, in the waning days of an election, on what had really happened. She played the tool and did not come back to revise her statements when the intelligence community within just a day or two of those statements concluded that there was no protest prior to the attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh yeah i agree, but for Mccain, ayotte and especially FOX to go apoplectic over this, i don't agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a telling statement:

White House press secretary Jay Carney questioned the focus on Ms. Rice's TV appearances. The Sunday shows "have almost nothing to do—in fact, zero to do—with what happened in Benghazi," Mr. Carney said on Tuesday. The president's focus, he said, is bringing those who killed Americans to justice and averting future attacks.

The administration sent her out as a mouthpiece to publicly address the events in Benghazi and to attempt to deflect the impact of a terrorist attack on an Ambassador and now that she's getting blasted for parroting the party line, they're trying to walk back those statements or in this case, demote them as unimportant.

Rice represents a strategic pawn in this chess game and the Republicans realize they have the advantage here so they're not going to let up in trying to push the administration on a clear failure and to get them to acknowledge the failure. It's not fair, because Rice really just said what the intelligence community told her but the administration's PR failure here is going to cost her the nomination. Personally, I don't think she has earned the role nor has she established the prestige that the position requires. This woman is a technocrat, a good one, but she's a friend of Obama and he's trying to deliver someone he completely owns into the role of SS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The latest comment was priceless:

Covered under Obamacare?

Cannon, 1 min ago

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i've had it with these MFers. BO offer was BS, REP rebuttal also was a joke. Quite the shit and work together for real results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're playing political chicken, the problem is, all of them are acting like their heads have been cut off.

Who will blink first? Given the insanity of the Republicans my guess is the President will blink this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't know if i agree with that.

we watch/read all the same stuff for the most part, but the increase in taxes will happen if nothing is done. thats a +1 for BO imo. he can then go back and lower the low/mid's retro actively.

all the cuts and stuff should happen, so he'll give some there. I think he's dug in like a tick on rates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, given the predictions by economists of the various calamities that will arise if the fiscal cliff is allowed to proceed, including a thorough roiling of the economy, I don't think the outcome Obama would encounter from allowing this to happen would be quite as rosy as the picture you paint Mike. But he and the media are doing their best to make it look like the Republicans are going to take the greater share of the blame. Which if the story is spun hard enough will be the case.

But there are economists who agree with your assessment that making a retroactive "tax cut" is likely Obama's BATNA.

If I look at how the change will impact me, I'm staring at a 16% increase in my tax burden which lops off almost $5k from my pocket next year. If that happens I'm going to have to look even more closely at how my deductions and tax strategies are implemented.

Interesting interactive graphic here:

http://www.paycheckcity.com/fiscalcliff/cliff.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this