Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 10, 2012 at 3:09 PM in reply to: OT – Who will run for President on the Republican side? #737707February 10, 2012 at 11:09 AM in reply to: OT – Who will run for President on the Republican side? #737694
SK in CV
Participant[quote=poorgradstudent][quote=markmax33]There’s nothing moderate about the Republicans or Obama. They are all extreme at this point. Obama won the noble peace prize and is dropping bombs, or warring in 6 countries right now. 3 of them or more are new under his watch. Our debt is extreme. They are all the same, and don’t even moderate-ly consider the constitution before making decisions.[/quote]
I shouldn’t take the bait, but here goes:“Moderate” is defined by the political positions of the voters of a given country. In the US, Obama is a moderate leftist, but in Canada the same positions would make him a moderate rightwinger. A “moderate” Iraqi politician would almost certainly be a far, far rightwinger in the US. In 2012 the policies Ronald Reagan enacted would be called moderate and he would be a “RINO”, although compared to the overall voting electorate he still would be right of center overall.
Admittedly the left-right continuum is rather simplistic at times. It can be useful to split support of social freedoms and support of liberal markets into two separate categories. Obama and Romney are still both moderate left and right wingers respectively on those issues, falling neatly into the “classic” Democrat/Republican divide. Gingrich and Paul are more extreme on economic issues, both generally believing free markets fix everything. Santorum by far is the most against social liberty of the Republicans but closer to Obama on economic issues (although still right of center). Obama by far a bigger supporter of social liberty and social freedom than the Republicans.
You’re entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. If everyone else looks like an extremist to you, you’re probably looking at everyone else from a far extreme position.[/quote]
Great comment.
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]
Given my sons current endeavors as a drummer I’m ready to start the OFH campaign. So whats for dinner when I occupy FLU’s house?[/quote]I know this is partly a joke….but I have to share my experience with having a teenage musician. My son decided he wanted to play guitar when he was about 12. By a year later he had a band. We had the most ridiculous addition that had been made to our house, a room above the back yard, about 12 feet by almost the entire length of the house, probably close to 40 feet. Entrance was through a sliding glass door from the master bedroom. Upstairs. That became the music room. And for 5 years, at least 2 or 3 times a week, there were 2-6 kids in there making noise. Always had a drum kit set up. The old hammond organ. Two or three guitars, amps, wires. And kids.
It was annoying sometimes. The music sucked. Punk. Had to clear them out sometimes at night. Hard to take a nap on the weekends. They ate and ate and ate. But my son was always home. I always knew where he was.
I don’t know how old your son is. But there is an upside to being the cool parent who lets the band practice at their house. Well worth the annoyances.
February 9, 2012 at 11:33 AM in reply to: OT: Carmel Valley Residence: what are you donating to the ESC programs? #737631ParticipantBuild a wall. With barbed wire. Don’t let those kids out.
ParticipantHousing starts have been at or near record lows for the last 4 years. Inventory is now falling, but that all by itself is not predictive of rising prices. (There’s plenty of over-hang in the market. Exactly how much, I don’t think anyone knows.) One of the required assumptions needed to predict that housing stocks will rise is that prices will rise based on increased demand. They simply can’t make much money in most markets at current prices (including carrying costs). In order to assume rising prices, you must also assume that there is a need for more homes. Builders don’t think so today. Their expectations for new starts in 2012 will not exceed 2011 by more than 15%. That will keep starts at a level only seen at the troughs of recessions over the last 50 years. I doubt we’ll see 900,000 units before 2015.
Some big builders will make money. Some won’t. It’s far from a sure bet.
Participant[quote=pri_dk]One of the arguments for lower capital gains and dividend tax rates is that corporate profits are taxed twice. The corporation pays taxes first and then the shareholder is taxed again. So the total taxes paid on corporate profits is generally around 50%.[/quote]
That is the argument. Doesn’t always align with the real world though. Latest CBO numbers are that corporations pay an effective tax rate of about 12%, the lowest in 4 decades, despite one of the highest marginal rates in the world. So even combining the individual rate of 15% plus the effective corporate rate, the total is still much lower than top individual marginal rates.
Participant[quote=bpnbpn]The topic started was whether the workload in CV is too stressful for a kid…how is it compared with del sur schools…
We are way off topic discussing ethnicity.[/quote]
I can’t speak to how it compares to del sur schools, but my two kids in CV for high school were very comfortable. (both at TP) They were pretty much free range kids (ht to whoever here coined that phrase.) My daughter loved the work load. It challenged her. Never once even considered asking her if she’d done her homework. My son dealt with it. In the classes that interested him, he did the work and excelled. The one’s that didn’t, or where the teachers just didn’t provide the right motivation, he survived with as little effort as possible. I couldn’t have been happier with the education they got.
Participant[quote=markmax33]
Security Apparatus and control on free markets. Don’t forget how damaging something like Obamacare will be to innovation in the medical industry. The socialization doesn’t allow the market to pick winners and losers and allows people to maniuplate the market and make sweetheart GOV deals at high levels. I suspect every major medical insurance company will be donating to Obama’s campaign.[/quote]Please explain precisely what part of the health care bill will be damaging to innovation. I’ve read the bill. I know you haven’t. So do your research before you come back and explain the unexplainable.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
As to Obamacare: Given the public polling numbers on Obamacare’s popularity, do you think it was mandate or overreach? At less than 38% popularity, it appears like overreach to me.[/quote]I think it was neither. I’ve said before, congressional dems suck at politics. Polling on almost every feature of the ACA is positive (with the exception of the mandate). So the republican’s goal of making “Obamacare” his waterloo was at least temporarily successful. It’s messaging was effective. Most people disliked Obamacare, but they love the features of health care reform.
On the larger question..did he have a mandate? Eh. Healthcare reform was part of his campaign platform. So was exiting Iraq and ramping up Afghanistan. He won. Irrespective of the margin, I think the argument can be made that if he campaigned on those issues and won, he had a mandate.
What else is a politician going to do? Say “I won, but I didn’t win by that many votes, so I’m not really gonna do shit while I’m here”?
Somewhat relatedly, I’m sure Rick Santorum will be looking for a mandate as soon as he drops out. Probably hasn’t had one for at least the last year.
January 31, 2012 at 5:55 PM in reply to: OT – Who will run for President on the Republican side? #737107ParticipantI can’t tell from that map, which areas went for Ron Paul?
Participant[quote=markmax33]
I gaurentee I killed your portfollio. No offense but I bought AAPL at like $25, Chipotle at like $40 shortly after IPO, GOLD at like $25, MA shortly after IPO, and several other stocks that are up 400% over 6 or 7 years. I didn’t understand how to short or take options on the subprime homelenders because I didn’t have the cash at age 24 but I talked about it with my friends for hours.[/quote]
Gold at $25? Really? When you were like -10 years old?
Participant[quote=markmax33]
I’d like to hear Huntsman’s platform. He never mentioned it anywhere during this election. I’m not sure how you can support a guy who really hasn’t established a platform. Do you like him because he talks smoothly and looks respectable? We’ve been tricked by that many times before![/quote]
Just because you never made the effort to find it, doesn’t mean he didn’t have one. He did.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]SK: I’ll preface what I’m about to say by admitting I’m not so hot at political prognostications, but I’d be frankly stunned if Obama fails to win re-election. Paradoxically, the GOP noise machine has done an excellent job of laying the groundwork for a Republican presidency in 2012, but the putative nominees have completely squandered any chance of this happening as they’ve self-immolated on national TV.
So Obama gets another bite at the apple, and I believe we’ll experience more of the same (2nd terms rarely outperform 1st terms, as measured by results), hopefully leading back to a more moderate stance within the GOP. The key word is “hopefully” and I’ll freely admit to being somewhat Pollyanna about this. I’d also like to see someone like Huntsman win election in 2016, but let’s not go crazy, right?[/quote]
Someone like Huntsman? I hope someone like him emerges over the next 4 years. I like the guy. I disagree with him on a whole lot, but I think he’s pragmatic and has his eye on the right target. I never got the sense from him that it was party over policy. He added a bit of campaign rhetoric the last month he was still in it that I’m willing to give him a pass on. (I think he really does believe in science, but the constituency he was going after doesn’t, so he had to adapt.)
The problem he has is lack of spark. I’m not sure that can be learned. So I doubt it will be him. Maybe another governor. Congress tends to warp people that are there too long.
I have a friend who’s a producer for Fox radio in NY. Very conservative guy. Kind of a logical modern conservative. Has no problem with gay marriage. Thinks the republican war on women is stupid. His life is politics. I’ve asked him a few times what an electable republican presidential candidate looks like. He can’t even describe one. He would have loved Huntsman, but freely admits that the current party dynamics make it impossible for someone like Huntsman to ever get any broad support. He thought Romney was electable a month ago, but no longer. And pretty much like me, he has no idea what President Romney would look like, so he wasn’t all that keen on the idea.
So his wishful thinking is pretty much the same as yours, though he hasn’t a clue how his party can get from here to there. Unlike the Dems, the fringe, from the religious right to the tea party, to the Koch brothers/Karl Rove wing, can’t acknowledge real politics and continue to carry too much influence. The dems are too disorganized to get anything done, and the republicans too organized to adapt. No matter what your perception of progress, it may be an impossible goal.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=SK in CV][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
SK: While I love the Rogers quote, I was more referring to the radicalized elements in both parties that have been driving the independents back and forth (think Dems/Obama in 2008 and GOP in the 2010 mid-terms) in terms of voting. [/quote]I have no idea what was the least bit radical about Obama in 2008. He ran a pretty centrist democratic campaign, policy wise. No more than slightly left of center. His policies since then have matched his campaign, if anything moved further to the center. The only thing radical about his campaign was his rhetoric about changing the process. He underestimated the opposition party resolve to not allow any successes willingly.[/quote]
SK: I wasn’t referring to Obama in the 2008 campaign as being radical (he wasn’t); I was referring to his election as voter repudiation of the GOP (which had become reactionary), which the Dems mistook as more of a sweeping mandate than it actually was. The 2010 mid-terms were also mistakenly interpreted by the GOP as a mandate instead of continuing voter frustration/dissatisfaction with the status quo ante (as it became apparent that “business as usual” was still the norm, two years into a supposedly “transformational” presidency).[/quote]
Agreed. The frustration it caused me, was that they (congress and the admninstration) talked about it as a mandate, but then did nothing to exploit that mandate (whether real or imagined). That’s an exaggeration, they’ve actually done quite a bit, particularly at the executive level. But none of what they did was radical. Little steps. Eliminating DADT was a big deal. But it wasn’t radical. The time was right. Repealing DOMA? That would have been bigger, and more of what I was hoping for. But they’re Democrats. They suck at the political process.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
SK: While I love the Rogers quote, I was more referring to the radicalized elements in both parties that have been driving the independents back and forth (think Dems/Obama in 2008 and GOP in the 2010 mid-terms) in terms of voting. [/quote]I have no idea what was the least bit radical about Obama in 2008. He ran a pretty centrist democratic campaign, policy wise. No more than slightly left of center. His policies since then have matched his campaign, if anything moved further to the center. The only thing radical about his campaign was his rhetoric about changing the process. He underestimated the opposition party resolve to not allow any successes willingly.
-
AuthorPosts
