[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33]Huntsman out:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/15/politics/gop-campaign-wrap/index.html

It’s a 2 man race.[/quote]

Yep.

Obama v. Romney

Oh, you meant for the republican nominee.

Yep.

Romney and NotRomney.

[SK in CV]

So you’re saying that because RP might come in 2nd place in Virgina, that’s evidence that he’s electable in a general election?

Sorry.

Fail.

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33]
I’m sorry but that is slander [sic] again. You create coiltion [sic] by telling them to obey the constitution. [/quote]

Really? You create a coalition by telling them what to do? With people you describe as “children”? Never had kids, huh? I think you deeply underestimate the obstacles all presidents face in enacting their agendas.

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33]
Obama has no shot against Paul in a debate! He’ll ask him about his illegal wars, his bank bailouts, etc and Obama goes home crying everytime. You seem to have missed the fact that Ron Paul has defeated many front runners. He killed Guilliani in the 9/11 debate and he went from front runner to back of the back. He killed Newt. He’ll kill Santorum. Obama has 0% chance against Ron Paul in a debate where he gets to actually explain everything and call him out.[/quote]

LOL! I’m sorry to be so condescending, but Obama can’t wait for a debate with Ron Paul. I’m not a big Obama fan. But I predict if it ever happens (which is unlikely), every Ron Paul fanboy will think Paul won (because fanboys tend to think whatever their idols do is perfect), and everyone else will think he got demolished. I doubt we will ever know if I’m right.

And just for fun, see Article I, Section 8, Clause 3.

Congress shall have the power to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.

No amendment necessary, it’s already in there.

(And your man made a pretty big blunder in the debate today. For being such a strict constitutionalist he should probably review what the 4th amendment says and doesn’t say about privacy.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=aldante]Pray tell SK, what does “guarantee” electibliity? The only thing I know to does is getting more electoral votes then the next guy.
And I thank you for your in depth analysis. But it does not change my summation of what I discussed above. (in fact it reinforces my point)
Btw Ron Paul did not vote for the NDAA. He was on the campaign trail trying to change a country that would even consider having it come to the floor for a vote. And unlike any other candidate he has denouced it’s passage.[/quote]

You want to know why Ron Paul is unelectable?

He wants the US to withdraw from the WTO.
He wants to eliminate all foreign aid.
He wants to eliminate the Department of Commerce and virtually all trade regulations.
He opposes constitutionally guaranteed citizenship.
Given the chance, he would repeal the equal rights amendment.

Despite claiming to be a libertarian:

He released an add in Iowa questioning whether the repeal of Roe v. Wade would actually eliminate enough abortion rights.
He opposed classification of birth control as a preventative medicine.
He wants to allow states to determine the validity of same-sex marriages, but wants to retain the Defense of Marriage Act (parts of which have already been deemed unconstitutional in federal court.)
He opposes the federal court decision of Lawrence v. Texas which decriminalized consensual sodomy.

And his rediculous claims on the gold standard, which has repeated lead to deflation, bank panics and depression (in the US alone, in 1807, 1837, 1873, 1882, 1893, 1920, 1933, and 1937) while opposing central banks, which, over the last 60 years, have successfully eliminated depressions and bank panics in every country utilizing central banks and following keynsian monetary policy. (To summarize that, under the gold standard the US had 8 depressions in less than 140 years. Under Keynsian monetary policy, as imperfect as it is, not a single depression in the 60+ years since the gold standard was dropped.)

You, and some of his supporters may think these are all good things. I don’t. Once his proposed policies, which are so far outside of the mainstream, are publicized, he can’t win. Few women will vote for him. (He supports policies that are downright hateful to women.) Minorities won’t vote for him. (He want to designate english and the national language, and prohibit use of any language other than english in government documents.) Even his opposition to LGBT rights is no longer mainstream.

Obama would love to run against Ron Paul. He would be an easy target. As would every other current GOP candidate that isn’t named Mitt Romney or Jon Huntsman. That’s a short list of why he’s unelectable.

[SK in CV]

[quote=aldante]
IMHO, the primary debate should be about the ideas each candidate brings to the table. Hash those out with logic, facts, and mature discussion. But to discuss someone’s “electability”? Come on people.
By the way I have seen people call Dr. Paul an extremist but there is nothing more extreme in this debate then all of the other candidates supporting the NDAA. Dr. Paul is the only one who has a reasonable stance on that issue. If one believes in the Bill of Rights that is. I make the prior statement because I believe that one of the main characteristics which separates America from any other country now or through history is due process. NDAA basically makes the President a king who can take away that right at will. That is extremism to the nth degree.
The reason that I support Dr. Paul is that he’s the only one who has a detailed plan to substantially change the current direction of this administration.[/quote]

Your “electability” argument is full of holes. The primaries do select the the republican presidential nominee. It won’t guarantee electability. No one besides Romney has a chance, unless Huntsman makes a run at it.

But related to Paul….if he opposed the NDAA, why didn’t he vote against it?

[SK in CV]

[quote=TemekuT]

I swore I would stop posting tax code here and I don’t work with tax prep anymore, but, since my last tax refresher course was 3 years ago, and now that I’ve had to do a quick review of AMT so I could defend my post, the following are considered for AMT purposes:

1. Personal and dependency exemptions are not allowed as deductions for AMT.

2. Property tax deductions are not allowed for AMT. Futhermore, state and personal property taxes are not allowed.

3. Only the interest on mortgages related to the home is allowed. The portion related to the allowed $100,000 deductible for a home equity line not related to home improvements is excluded.

4. There are other Schedule A items that are subject to AMT.

I won’t bother to mention the less common Schedules B & D items that are subject to AMT, except to note that those items are common to high earning, high net worth individuals.

Furthermore, consider that many taxpayers take deductions for non-allowable items…Mello Roos and other bond items, and deductions for non-allowable mortgage interest in excess of basis.

One basic guide I used to give taxpayers that were subject to AMT was never prepay property tax or the 4th state quarterly estimate, as the benefit would be wiped out from the AMT.

Good news regarding the phase-out of itemized deductions. This provision has been repealed for 2011. That means it’s still part of tax code so who knows what will be decided in 2012.

In 2010 35% of taxpayers earning between $100,000 and $200,000 were subject to AMT. I don’t consider that income level to be high in most areas of California.

Now, the reason for my initial snarky post – based on my CPA background and years of real estate sales – most people significantly overestimate the tax advantages of home ownership. The less informed do not understand the benefit of the standard deduction amount. The more informed do not understand the AMT nor the deduction phaseout. Many deduct non-allowable portions of propery tax and mortgage interest. The tax code is a train wreck and subject to the whims of Congress from year to year. Pay interest if you will, but don’t overestimate the tax savings when making your calculations. And plan on the mortage interest deduction being whacked in the near future. After all, somehow the deficit has to be reduced, or at least held stable.[/quote]

Thanks for posting this so I don’t have to. Paying interest NEVER saves money.

[SK in CV]

I don’t know if I should be embarrassed to say this…but what the hell.

I have no experience dumpster diving. I do, however, have a son who is apparently very experienced. He lives in a norcal old hippie town. Someone else mentioned the (urbanrealtor I think?) punk culture influence, and that’s probably where he got it. He knows what days of the week to go to what stores, bakeries, restaurants, distributors. He doesn’t get all his food this way, but a lot of it, shares it with his household, the household next door, etc.

I was visiting a couple years ago when one of his roommates came home with the weekly take from the commercial bakery. Expected a couple dozen loaves of 3 or 4 day old bread. Instead got a bag full of dope. Had to be 3 or 4 lbs. Not good shit mind you. Stems and leaves, no buds. Maybe remnants. But still.

Course that got shared all around too. The things people throw away these days.

[SK in CV]

[quote=SD Realtor]It doesn’t matter how long. In fact all the trillions we have used to prop up the current lame scheme could have been used to help these poor old people you refer to. Instead under the current scheme housing is way overpriced, wall street continues to make record profits and the debt for all of these overpriced assets is still backed by the taxpayers.

[/quote]

I think it does matter how long. I think you’re making the argument (and correct me if I’m wrong.) that if the Federal government (directly and indirectly through it’s agencies and the GSEs) took a hands off approach, and let the real estate market take another tumble quickly, that somehow there would be a recovery to normalcy faster than the current approach. That kind of extreme dynamics in the market would hurt. (I think you’ve acknowledge that.) The social pain would be enormous, and the current political climate would virtually insure that entitlements would not increase substantially. I’m not sure why a return to normalcy could be any faster than the current approach. We won’t create households any faster. We won’t need more houses in 5 or 10 years because of that approach.

I’m not ecstatic with any of the individual programs which have slowed the resolution of the market overhang. But I’m also not convinced that anything could have been done to make it better. As a whole, I think they’ve worked.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=briansd1]
Looking at the big picture, there have been prosecutions of financial executives for malfeasance — not enough IMO, but still justice is being done.

Other political appointees would have been even more lenient. I believe that a reversal of political winds would be of great benefit to the big banks.[/quote]

Brian: Justice is being done? Whaaaaaat? Where? Have you been playing with your Alternative Reality Barbie doll again? (available at a soon-to-be-bankrupt Sears store near you!).

You think this adminstration is truly being tougher on financial crime than, say, a GOP administration? What a joke. Obama is just as much in Wall Street’s pocket as any of those plutocratic GOP assholes. The WHOLE game is fixed, Brian, don’t you get that? Or is it simpler to delude yourself into believing that svelte, fit Obama is really in this for the “common man”? Dude, please.[/quote]

I’ll go a step further and say that it’s very possibly been worse than a Republican administration. At least with respect to expectations v. reality.

And this particular prosecution annoys the crap out of me. I have no idea whether they’re guilty. I’ve read some arguments that may be sound, with reasonable defenses for these two schmucks. The bigger problem isn’t these prosections, it’s the prosecutions that aren’t happening. Out of the scores of financial institutions that comitted violations of dozens of laws and regulations over the last 8 years, these are the two that Holder chooses to prosecute? And for these wimpy charges? It’s rediculous. And disgusting.

[SK in CV]

[quote=AN][quote=SK in CV]Oh markmax33, what are we going to do with you? He doesn’t need 34%+, he needs 290. Just like every elected president in the last 50 years. I thought the constitution was important to you.[/quote]
I thought it’s 270. Since there’s 538 electorates and there are currently only 2 real parties, to get the majority, it’s 270. If you don’t get 270, then the 12th amendment kicks in and the House decide the winner. What we never had was a viable 3rd party candidate. What would happen if one get 181, one get 180, and one get 177? Does it still go to the House or does the one with the majority (181) win?[/quote]

Typo. Yes, half plus 1 of 538. It’s 270. Irrespective of how many candidates. Goes to the house, the house decides. And as a practical matter, even if RP got 250, the house wouldn’t vote for him.

[SK in CV]

dup

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33][quote=zk]I’d like to see Romney get the nomination. I would get a kick out of fundamentalist christians having to choose between a democrat and a mormon.[/quote]

All those disgruntled christians would go vote for the most christian guy in the race running as a 3rd party candidate. Ron Paul would not only steal many votes from the Republicans but there are a ton of independents and liberals out there dying for another option. All he needs is 34%+ in a 3 man race![/quote]

Oh markmax33, what are we going to do with you? He doesn’t need 34%+, he needs 290. Just like every elected president in the last 50 years. I thought the constitution was important to you.

[SK in CV]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=SK in CV]He did miss golden opportunities, and I think it’s unlikely he’ll get the chance again. [/quote]

Can either of you guys provide specific examples of these missed opportunities, such as “he should have done A but choose to do B?” – things he could have realistically accomplished given the opposition he has faced from the Republicans?
[/quote]

Yeah. He could have and should have passed real health care reform. He (and some Senate Dems) negotiated against themselves, knowing full well that not a single Republican would support a bill that he put forward anyway. He (and they, primarily Max Baucus) continued to negotiate, it got worse and worse, and not a single republican voted for it. Surprise!

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I think Obama is doing a better job of “telling the story”, but that’s simply rhetoric standing in the place of substance. At some point, there needs to be a serious and substantive discussion on tax reform, entitlement reform, foreign policy and strategic policy (which will drive reform of the DoD) and immigration policy. Up to this point, we’ve settled for kicking the can down the road and Obama has missed some golden opportunities, especially regarding tax reform and reform of the financial sector.[/quote]

I have to agree with all of this. Obama is a great story teller. The problem has been (my opinion here) is that he promised change, but was more comitted to getting things done, without regards to whether they really were consistent with the change he promised. Too concerned with changing the tone in Washington, than changing the policies in Washington. Form over substance. The exact opposite of what a tranformational leader needs to do. And he underestimated the republicans dedication to party over policy. There never was peace to be made, he never should have tried.

He did miss golden opportunities, and I think it’s unlikely he’ll get the chance again. There never was much he could have done about the economy given the political realities. It cost more money that it should have, but what was done accomplished as much as it could have. But there was plenty he could have done with all the other things you mentioned. I think you attribute it to lack of leadership. I attribute it to bad tactics. But whether by malevolence or incompetence, it just hasn’t worked.

I doubt another four years of him will help much. But I have little doubt it’s better than the alternative. It will be a slow easy roll.

[Author]

Posts