The US Presidential Election 2012, we're off ... we debated ... and it's finally over. Options

[Parsifal]

We already know that Romney is a pathalogical liar. It looks like he's picked a running mate cast from the same die.

[Parsifal]

Now Romney/Ryan are claiming that they want to "save Medicare". Yeah, sure.
That's the same spiel that got seniors to vote them into a majority in the House before Ryan did his famous bait and switch which is to take Medicare away from everybody under age 55 and give them health insurance vouchers (worth much less) instead. That's saving Medicare?

Now they're saying that Medicare must be saved from the $716 billion in cuts President Obama wants to make over the next 10 years. Although that same $716 billion was in the budget plan that Ryan got the House to pass this year. "We would never have done it" he told campaign reporters.

I fear that American politics (and possiby the presidency) is going further and further into the sewer.

[ic1male]

Shit! Have I missed the National Conventions? I've neglected C-SPAN due to the Olympics so I have no idea what's happening.

[Parsifal]

Shit! Have I missed the National Conventions? I've neglected C-SPAN due to the Olympics so I have no idea what's happening.

No you haven't.

The Republican National Convention will be August 27-30 in Tampa Bay, FL.
You're better off turning your volume off for this one because nothing they say will be true.

The Democratic National Convention will be September 4-6 in Charlotte, NC.

While we're at it, here's a trivia question for you:
Who was Charlotte, NC named after? (No cheating! )

[ic1male]

I did know this. Isn't it some French Queen or something?

[Parsifal]

I did know this. Isn't it some French Queen or something?

How about an English queen (sort of)?
The wife of George III.

[ic1male]

At least I was on the right track. You know, I never did any Royal history during my schooling. It was a choice. You either did history or geography. I chose geography. So I know nothing about Britain's past.

[Parsifal]

At least I was on the right track. You know, I never did any Royal history during my schooling. It was a choice. You either did history or geography. I chose geography. So I know nothing about Britain's past.

Shame on you.

I'm currently watching the PBS series (on DVD) on the US Civil War which was 150 years ago (1861-1865). Strangely enough, the subject is somewhat related to this thread (albeit tangentially). Volume 1 of the series talks about the cause of the war which first and foremost was due to lack of compromise between the states in the north and those in the south. Sound familiar? Scary. It mentions how compromise is at the heart of a democratic government.

The situation here is indeed becoming very worrisome.

[ic1male]

I haven't even seen any footage of Mitt Romney's running mate yet.

[Parsifal]

I haven't even seen any footage of Mitt Romney's running mate yet.

Slick, charming and deceitful.

[Kev]

I haven't even seen any footage of Mitt Romney's running mate yet.

Slick, charming and deceitful.

And dead, soulless, eyes.

[Mister R]

Romney is no more bound to Ryan's budget...

I'd be inclined to agree but Ryan's been thrown into a fairly unique situation here. Firstly the only thing anyone really knows about him is his budget. Secondly nobody actually seems to know what Romney's policy plans are so there isn't a 'Romney budget' for people to really get behind instead. Thirdly the Democratic tactic is going to be to tag Ryan (and by extension Romney) with the Ryan budget. Fourthly Ryan's a much more dynamic figure than Romney so there's just more interest in him than Romney. And there's more. Individually (or a couple of these problems) could be overcome. Combined though they make a very big mountain to climb and the Republican's aren't doing a good job. You only have to watch Ryan and the Republican surrogates talk themselves in circles on the issue to see that's the case.

When someone suggests that a person is unappealing because they were a low ranking congressman when the deficit and debt increased, it is quite sensible to point out that the impact of that is more than a little mitigated by the fact that the alternative is a ticket which increased the deficit and debt by more, in less than half the time, and had more control of events during the time in which it happened. This suggest that your imagination is confined to levels which are completely unhinged from reality.

Lovely. Not what I took exception to. I took exception to your nonsense statistic hence me saying this is a nonsense statistic.

Now they're saying that Medicare must be saved from the $716 billion in cuts President Obama wants to make over the next 10 years. Although that same $716 billion was in the budget plan that Ryan got the House to pass this year. "We would never have done it" he told campaign reporters.

That's not the issue.

The issue absolutely is not that the Republican's are using the same 'cuts' as Obama the issue is that there aren't any cuts to begin with. It is demonstrably untrue to say that Obama (or anyone else) has cut $700 billion from Medicare. Its also demonstrably untrue to suggest that these '$700 billion cuts' negatively effect Medicare or the services it provides.

Also for the record this magical $716 billion figure Republicans have settled on comes from a CBO report that details how much Medicare spending would increase if 'Obamacare' is repealed. So the Republican argument is that since a repeal of the Affordable Care Act would necessitate a $700 billion increase in Medicare spending Obama has cut or 'stolen' $700 billion from Medicare to fund Obamacare.

Paul Ryan has had an absolute pig of a week though.

It turns out that whilst he was publicly denouncing stimulus spending he was requesting funds for his state and secured more than $20 million from the fund as a result. Worse than that tapes of him forcibly arguing for stimulus and extolling their virtues and historical success and that sometimes Government spending is needed and essential has also been dusted off this week whilst he's been claiming stimulus spending doesn't work. There's also interesting comments from him on those tapes about how unemployment can continue to drag even when recovery begins...

Ultimately what the tapes are is Paul Ryan making all the arguments that Democrats should be making. Its somewhat staggering.

[sanitynotincluded]

. I took exception to your nonsense statistic hence me saying this is a nonsense statistic.

When the issue is debt and deficit, the fact that the incumbents have accrued both at both a higher rate and to a higher level than any previous administration is by no means nonsense to anyone who isn't wilfully burying their head in the sand.

[Parsifal]

However, the Ryan budget promises to increase the national debt even further. Even if their secret voodoo plug-ins work (i.e. eliminate tax "loopholes" which Ryan won't specify) it won't be enough to fill the gap between the tax cuts for the rich and the stated budget cuts to the vulnerable. In fairness, Ryan has said that more budget cuts (which he won't spicify) would be used to close the gap.

This post has been edited by Parsifal: Aug 20 2012, 20:32

[Mister R]

When the issue is debt and deficit, the fact that the incumbents have accrued both at both a higher rate and to a higher level than any previous administration is by no means nonsense to anyone who isn't wilfully burying their head in the sand.

Lovely but again not what I took exception to. Once again that was your nonsense statistic so again hence me using the phrase nonsense statistic.

[sanitynotincluded]

When the issue is debt and deficit, the fact that the incumbents have accrued both at both a higher rate and to a higher level than any previous administration is by no means nonsense to anyone who isn't wilfully burying their head in the sand.

Lovely but again not what I took exception to. Once again that was your nonsense statistic so again hence me using the phrase nonsense statistic.

You seem to suffer from parsy syndrome. (Are you in fact Parsy?). It doesn't matter how often you scream "nonsense" or "lies" at arguments you cannot refute, you will not make them so.

[Mister R]

The utter hypocrisy of your post is staggering. You made a completely unsubstantiated claim that didn't include a single piece of data that Obama had spent more than Bush and then bemoan a rebuttal of said claim for lacking detail. Perhaps I should take a moment to point out that no matter how often or how forcefully you say something it doesn't become reality?

None the less your claim was:

As opposed to Obama, who was in the White house while Obama and congressional democrats spent more in 4 years than Bush spent in 8?

In reality not true.

From 2002-2008 Bush spent about $17.9 trillion.
From 2009-2013 Obama is projected to spend about $17.7 trillion.

You'll notice 17.9 is a bigger number than 17.7. You'll also notice that Obama has been given a five year term whilst Bush's spending does not include his first year in office (it would go up to $19-20 trillion with 2001 included). Although it should be noted Obama undoubtedly will spend more than Bush if he secures a second term. Also for what its worth

Projected Obama spending 2010-2013 is about $14.2 trillion
Projected Obama spending 2009-2012 is also about $14.2 trillion
Projected Obama spending 2010-2012 (which strips out the equivalent years we did with Bush) is about $10.7 trillion.

Key to the dispute over spending though is what spending should actually be attributed to what President. Lets look at 2009 as an example to highlight this debate. The US fiscal year runs from October 1 to September 30. So in reality when you tag Obama with fiscal 2009 spending you're tagging him with roughly 4 months when he wasn't in office. Equally you're tagging him with roughly 5 months of spending that weren't under his first budget. The same is true for Bush if you include fiscal 2001 spending nearly half of that year is actually Clinton spending. By the same token if Romney were to win the upcoming election nearly half of 2013 spending would still be under Obama's budget. So its a difficult situation to decide how much spending in the first year of any President's first term should be attributed to them and how much spending of their successors first year in office should also be attributed to them.

Equally important to remember is that whilst we might hear a lot of talk about repealing something on the first day in Office that's rarely, if ever, a viable option. Any President who takes the oath is unavoidably left with policies and spending that were initiated by their predecessor that they can't simply get rid of in a blink of an eye. At this juncture it should be noted that Bush grew federal spending at a rapid rate throughout his two terms and his final budget included a near 18% rise in federal spending that Obama inherited.

Also important to remember is the level of federal spending required on specific programmes grows basically regardless of who's in Office and what their policies are. Social Security, Medicare etc. all have annual increases that are largely out of the control of the President although in some instances they can constrain some of that growth. These things must also be taken into account when looking at spending.

Talk of deficits and debt is slightly different. I would however caution that an increase in the deficit and/or debt doesn't automatically go hand-in-hand with increased spending. Revenue has an important role to play in these things as well.

Finally comparing spending under different Presidents is never really like for like anyway. Different Presidents operate in different times which means different economic conditions and different realities. I'd also point out that as a general rule Presidents aren't all powerful and supreme when it comes to the budget. Its not just them deciding what's going to be spent so tag them with all the spending regardless of fiscal years and the reality they're operating in is somewhat ridiculous. In fact to tag anyone political party with spending is ridiculous. It hasn't just been Democrats spending money during Obama's first term just as it wasn't simply Republican's spending money during Bush's two terms. Its a ridiculous nonsense argument.

[Parsifal]

Its a ridiculous nonsense argument.

It's not his first and won't be his last.

[Invader Zim]

As a brit can I just say BORING lol

How can you tell if a politician is lying ? their lips are moving

[Mister R]

In other news the Republican Party is apparently determined to self destruct this election cycle.

Todd Akin, a Republican Congressman from Missouri who is now standing for the Senate, was interviewed earlier this week and one of the topics that came up was his stance on abortion. As part of that he was asked if he believed abortion should be allowed in the case of rape his response was to state (and this is a direct quote) “if its a legitimate rape the female body has ways to try and shut that whole thing down”. Just in case anyone doubts that's a direct quote:



If you watch that clip you might notice two other things. The person interviewing him has absolutely no follow up to the use of the term legitimate rape nor to the frankly bizarre claim that women who are 'legitimately raped' don't get pregnant. Instead he moves onto the economy. The second thing you'll notice is that the answer to the question is no abortions shouldn't be allowed in the case of rape.

Perhaps unsurprisingly the media has picked up on this statement. Pointing out that his medical facts are wrong (although do apply to ducks interestingly enough) and questioning what exactly he means by the term 'legitimate rape'. To their credit the right has been relatively quick to distance themselves from his and his comments although it did take Romney two attempts to get that right and are now calling for him to pull out of the Senate race. Akin says he won't and that he misspoke and what he actually meant to say was 'forcible rape'.

If you've never heard the term forcible rape before (and here's where things begin to get trickier for Republicans) it appears in a Bill Akin and Republican Vice-Presidential nominee Paul Ryan co-sponsored which seeks to remove federal funding for abortion. There was exemption in the original language of the Bill that funding would be given in the case of 'forcible rape' but denied to those who's rape was classed as 'unfounded'. Still no clearer on what it means? Well it depends on what State you live in but reasons why a rape may be considered unfounded rather than forcible include – a victims failure to attempt to fight their attacker off, if an attacker doesn't use a weapon or enough physical force, the victim hasn't sustained physical injuries or if there was a previous consensual sexual relationship between the two.

If you're wondering there are a reported 32,000 pregnancies from rape each year in the US. However it should be noted that its estimated that 54% of all rapes aren't reported. Of the 46% that are reported only 12% result in an arrest being made, 5% in a felony conviction and 3% in jail time. Of rapes that are reported 8% are classed as 'unfounded' by matching some of the criteria laid out above.

This all becomes a problem because it now throws a spotlight on the Republican platform regarding abortion which it seems won't include exemptions for rape this election cycle. And the fact that Mitt Romney was in 2007 endorsed by and publicly welcomed and boasted about the endorsement of Dr. John Willke who is a proponent of the notion that 'forcible rape' doesn't result in pregnancy. Romney's statement on Willke

I am proud to have the support of a man who has meant so much to the pro-life movement in our country. He knows how important it is to have someone in Washington who will actively promote pro-life policies. Policies that include more than appointing judges who will follow the law but also opposing taxpayer funded abortion and partial birth abortion. I look forward to working with Dr. Willke and welcome him to Romney for President