Originally Posted by Mikebert

No he didn't. At least not in the debate I saw. Romney never said he was abandoning his plan to cut taxes across the board by 20%. He said it was revenue neutral, but I note both Reagan and Bush II said their tax cuts would not increase the debt, when they did. I don't see why anyone would expect Romney to say anything different. Given deficit growth, the idea that taxes could be cut for higher incomes while preventing middle class taxes from increasing is self-consistent.

Somewhat more problematic is Romney's claim that he would not reduce taxes on the wealthy, when in the same debate he reveals that tax cuts on unincorporated small businesses is mechanism for job creation. I recall him clarifying that his tax cut on individuals lower taxes on business that are taxed at the individual rate as opposed to the corporate rate. This tax cut would be a tax reduction for these businesses only if they are not offset by the loss of deductions and other loopholes. Thus, for Romneys job creation plan to function after-deduction taxes on the wealthy must come down. So if you believe that Mitt wants to spur job creation (as I do because this is good politics) and that he does not want to raise taxes on the middle class (as I do because raising taxes is bad politics) then the tax plan will not be revenue-neutral, anymore than Reagan's or Bush's were. Unless offset by spending reductions on popular programs, which is bad politics, it will increase the deficit. I note that Romney did not talk about any meaningful spending cuts and tried to imply that his plans will provide the middle class goodies that Obama does.

What Romney DID do at this debate was embrace Cheney's Law: (Republican) Deficits don't matter (politically to the GOP base).

Based on the enthusiastic reception to his performance amongst Republican partisans here and elesewhere, I would say Cheney's Law is still valid, which eases my mind somewhat in the event that Romney gets elected.

I view the deficit as being more of a government issue that government needs to begin taking steps to address and lower than issue of mine at this point.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Yeah, that's kinda what I've been saying.
I think he's ditching the plane.
Subconsiously or otherwise.

that's funny.

romney fogs the debate atmosphere with hyperactive bullshit, aka the "gish gallop."

obama stays cool, and people read that he's "given up."

but he appears to be plenty fired up at his rallies the last couple of days.

the guy is *very* competitive. he's just not a blowhard about it.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Quite a few retail and service jobs can be and have been sacrificed to internet retail web pages. Travel agencies, insurance, book selling and retail electronics can stand as example fields where ma and pa independents have been severely pressured by national chains, which in turn have been pressured by direct from the web sales.

I am seeing growth in non-necessity storefronts, karate studios, nail polishing studios and coffee retailers. These are a decent way go find employment, but they don't feel necessary to me. They kept people employed somewhat through the Great Recession, but if we had a true depression where people were actually going hungry, would such places keep going?

Right, there are specific jobs that will decrease, and the total amount of work required to maintain current GDP might decrease, but that doesn't mean the amount of work that can or needs to be done has changed in any meaningful fashion. Note: At all times, there is a nearly infinite amount of work that needs to be done in order to achieve all of our individual and collective desires. New technologies are likely to enable new types work and new levels of worker productivity, but they are unlikely to bring us meaningfully closer to utopian contentment. Think of a flowchart.

Is this utopia? -> No -> There is no shortage of work to be done

If one answers yes, they should revisit the question when they're sober and/or the bill has come due.

One interpretation of the steam shovel is that 10 diggers will lose jobs, but another interpretation is that we can keep full employment and build canals and tunnels that are ten times bigger. One interpretation of the internet's effect on knowledge careers could be that we need a tenth as many travel experts, or another interpretation is that we can have the same number of experts available for ten times as many topics. Certainly, there is some more meaningful contribution to society than trying to upsell speakers and gold-plated cables at Best Buy?

The monetary system is the root of how we value an individual's contribution of society, so that is going to determine what types of work are rewarded and how much those workers are compensated. They'd like us to think it is some chaotic and unknowable market, but really it is just a handful of TBTF banks that own most of the assets and politicians in the country. All money flows through these primary dealers, and as it trickles down you might get a little damp if you do the bidding of someone down the chain. The closer you are to the owners, though, the higher the pay.

For the executives and large stakeholders at these financial institutions, they might even be tempted to answer yes to the utopia flowchart. For them I'll add a second caveat: make sure you're not standing on anyone's neck. Homo sapien is a vicious animal when it feels trapped.

Originally Posted by Aramea

You would and that is your perogative.

McCain seems to think that Romney needs to stay frosty:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/deb...0/05/id/458825

Good advice.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Is he at a payphone trying to call home?

Yeah, we may get that; Obama, then Ryan. I don't think he hates the job; just got overconfident in the debate. But sometimes it has been charged that he doesn't engage and takes things for granted, and the debate reminds people of that.

On the bright side, if Ryan does win in 2016, first: he will likely not have a Tea Party Senate, since they can't unseat as many Democrats that year; and second, any Republican administration would quickly fall out of favor because their policies are so out of date, especially with the new demographics. The zero year usually means a change in party, so having Republicans in for 4 years might be a better set-up for 2020 than Democrats for twelve years going into the zero year! 4 years of Ryan would really ramp up the frustration, the ongoing economic crisis, and our desire for change in this 4T. 8 years of Romney would do that too of course. The 2020s do look like a time of increasing action and change, leading up to the climax in 2025-27. Republicans would be very unlikely to lead such a time of change and reform; they would quickly be run over.

The possible alternative scenario I see is a Republican win in 2020, after 12 years of Democrats; followed by a quick meltdown and increased activism leading up to 2024-25. The best would be simply to have Democrats in charge from now on, and for the progressive change to outstrip them as well by the mid-20s. In any case, the duopoly in power and the 2-party system is certainly due for a fall. People don't really want it anymore. If not in a 4T, then when would it crumble?

Why do you feel that we will not see significant change before 2020? Do you really think the American public will stand still for 8 more years of the same-old, same-old? I'd like to think not.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Well I could have mentioned the politically impossible task of getting a larger stimulus than was available. Given the nature of his opposition and the de facto permanent filibuster in the Senate Obama did as well as could be. We could easily be in europe's shape right now.



True. FDR never had to deal with resource depleation, global warming nor a long term lowering of the demand of labor. This 4T is more complex even if the US does not install a supply side government next year. If we do I expect our current SNAFU to be totally FUBAR by 2016.

Does FUBAR stand for f****d up beyond all repair?

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

Does FUBAR stand for f****d up beyond all repair?

Yes; I was given that name in a Lifespring training years ago. They told me.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

Does FUBAR stand for f****d up beyond all repair?

Ahh so you do know a bit of GI era slang! :

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

Why do you feel that we will not see significant change before 2020? Do you really think the American public will stand still for 8 more years of the same-old, same-old? I'd like to think not.

I'd like to think not too. But "the stars" make clear that we are in another version of the 1850s; muddle muddle muddle as divisions and frustrations get worse.

Originally Posted by the bouncer

that's funny.

romney fogs the debate atmosphere with hyperactive bullshit, aka the "gish gallop."

obama stays cool, and people read that he's "given up."

but he appears to be plenty fired up at his rallies the last couple of days.

the guy is *very* competitive. he's just not a blowhard about it.

Did we watch the same debate?

I haven't been impressed by most of the post debate spin. It seems fairly obvious that it's spin. One bit from CNN feels right though. Millennials to candidates: Talk to us

Now, I'm a boomer rather than a millennial. I have different specifics I'd rather have heard of. Still, I felt more or less the same way. All the talk is on a few issues, and the spin is on presentation rather than issues.

But I'm sympathetic with the point of view of the author. For discussion purposes.

Originally Posted by Valarie Kaur

As a politically active Millennial invested in this year's election, I was surprised by my own response to the first presidential debate: I was bored.

But not for all the reasons the pundits are talking about. To be sure, President Barack Obama's lackluster performance and Mitt Romney's free rein over the moderator led us into the weeds of policy without a compass. But that wasn't the only reason the candidates didn't speak to me.

The debate was supposed to be about domestic issues, but focused exclusively on economic policies and health care plans. As a Millennial, or a member of the generation born in the 1980s and 1990s, I care deeply about the economy and health care. My generation faces crushing educational debt of $904 billion in 2012, up from $241 billion a decade ago; many of us don't have health insurance; and we face an unemployment rate that, at 12%, is 50% above the national average.

But we also want our leaders to connect the dots.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

A few one day polls have been released showing Romney leading in FL and VA and tied in OH. Nothing definitive yet, just early signs. Republican online voter registration supposedly spiked during the debate, as well as donations to the Romney campaign.

So far we have two outfits with one-day polls, both showing Romney now ahead in a few swing states, but Rasmussen (usually a Republican outlier poll) shows Obama 1 point ahead of where We Ask America does. Meanwhile Gallup shows Obama going up, for now.

Originally Posted by The Rani

If you really believe that, they why not go into hibernation for 8 years instead of blasting Republicans on the internet?
Let them win til 2020, then the liberal restructuring will arrive. Nirvana man!

Good point. I guess I feel it is always the right time to blast Republicans (I'm in for them to go down, "cause it's always a good time"). The less power they have, the less damage they can do now or later. Not that I think my blasts will make much difference. It's just talk around the water cooler.

But if Republicans are gone, and the Democrats are in power, then they too will fall to the restructuring; but then that won't mean a Republican takeover, but a new party system that will be better. I'm all for that.

Originally Posted by The Rani

You've just reinforced (in my mind) that Obama is no Xer.
He can't do snark. In fact, he tried it a bunch of times on Romney ... "is he keeping his plan a secret because it's too good?"
Boomer trying Xer speak = fail

They should hire the T4T queen of snark to enhance his talents.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Ahh so you do know a bit of GI era slang! :

It's GI!? I thought it was an internet thing. Civic either way?

Originally Posted by Aramea

I don't see much Boom in Obama.

I agree that he isn't a supersnarker.

No boom and no snark.

So what can a Joneser bring to the debate next time?

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Did we watch the same debate?

do you hate big bird?

Here we have a Conan video showing just how much Romney will go after Big Bird...

Kindly do not take too seriously...

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Well I could have mentioned the politically impossible task of getting a larger stimulus than was available. Given the nature of his opposition and the de facto permanent filibuster in the Senate Obama did as well as could be. We could easily be in europe's shape right now.



True. FDR never had to deal with resource depleation, global warming nor a long term lowering of the demand of labor. This 4T is more complex even if the US does not install a supply side government next year. If we do I expect our current SNAFU to be totally FUBAR by 2016.

It would be. But the trouble with that scenario, is that then you would likely see a party WH switch in 2016 (back to Democrats because things are FUBAR), and then because 2020 is a zero year, it will go back to the supply side/trickle-down Republicans (Democrats having been too timid and/or blocked again from solving the SNAFU); which would only make the situation worse by 2024, so then back to the Democrats again. That's a party switch every term for 5 elections. That just doesn't happen. So, Obama will win in 2012; then party switches in 2016 and 2020, seems the most likely scenario.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Here we have a Conan video showing just how much Romney will go after Big Bird...

Kindly do not take too seriously...

Big Bird is just too big to fly away. But Rmoney doesn't want to bail her out!

Seriously, I wonder which has a higher approval rating.

Go, Big Bird!!!

Originally Posted by The Rani

I'd advise him to forego debates altogether and stick with teleprompters, football fields, and cheering crowds.
Seriously.

That might work. But certainly you should not work for Rmoney in debate preparation. You would cause him to seriously underestimate Obama.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

It's GI!? I thought it was an internet thing. Civic either way?

Well it is a 4T thing.
See, during WWII the GI's, who after all had grown up during the depression, considered a f**ked up situation nornal. Hence SNAFU-Situation Normal All.....well I think you see.
Now being civics raised in a 4T they were used to "effed up" situations.
However, when things went FUBAR then they became beyond all repair.---Even for a generation of can do fixers and builders.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Good point. I guess I feel it is always the right time to blast Republicans (I'm in for them to go down, "cause it's always a good time"). The less power they have, the less damage they can do now or later. Not that I think my blasts will make much difference. It's just talk around the water cooler.

But if Republicans are gone, and the Democrats are in power, then they too will fall to the restructuring; but then that won't mean a Republican takeover, but a new party system that will be better. I'm all for that.

Would you rather deal with Republicans in congress or deal with us directly?

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Would you rather deal with Republicans in congress or deal with us directly?

Oh, congrats on your run for Congress.

Originally Posted by the bouncer

you know, people were saying this four years ago, and the apocalypse still hasn't happened.

Article

The US-China situation of the past four years was like the Britain-US situation in 1927. Britain had gone down, but it had the US to support it as long as there was an expansive boom in the US...

1.) The Debt Ceiling Debate
The angry mob that really hates this president and has always hated him—the Republicans in the House—do not simply go away on November 12. They have jobs for two more years, at least. And if they sabotaged Obama in ‘11 and ’12, wait until you see what they do in ’13. Well, wait until you see what they do to him in December this year. The House are going to push the president, and the country (and maybe even the world) to the brink of ruin over the debt ceiling. On January 1 the kicked can—the debt ceiling—can’t be kicked anymore and the country will have to raise the ceiling on the money it can borrow, or risk defaulting on its outstanding loans. We have a lot of loans out there. The president is not going to sleep well this Christmas. Or New Year’s. The Republicans will do everything they can to nail him on this. Obama’s real Waterloo wasn’t the Health Care Act; it’s the debt ceiling. And he’s going to come out the other end completely white-haired. The failure of Simpson-Bowles is going to finally catch up with him in spectacular fashion.


2.) Global Economic Downturn

There is another global economic “correction” on the horizon. QE3 + The Eurozone Crisis + China’s New 5 Year Plan are all going to conspire to create a perfect shitstorm for the planet next year. QEing—quantitative easing—is last ditch effort economics: just print more money, things will solve themselves later. The PIIGS countries in Europe would love to have the right to print money—the European Central Bank just enacted a form of our QE3—but it’s a short hit and has the potential to backfire in high inflation rates, and other weird economic issues I don’t really understand. Speaking of the Eurozone, something’s going to give next year. All of these economies are running on fumes: there just isn’t enough demand across the board for a stable continent-wide situation. The Germans will continue to sell cars to the Chinese, but not as they once did. Why? The Chinese economy will be slowed further in 2013 on purpose. In March, the new Chinese Politburo will issue its next 5-year plan and I have an inside scoop that party officials will officially throttle the economy down to 7 percent growth rate in that 5-year plan. That’s way down from historic highs of 10 - 12 percent over the past decade or so. China is looking inward for more sustainable growth, and as they downshift, the whole global economy downshifts with them.


3.) Israel & Iran

Israel will strike Iran in the first three months of 2013. Probably just after the inauguration in January. Netanyahu and Ehud Barak, though challenged internally and by the polls, seem kind of weirdly unstoppable (see David Remnick’s recent piece in The New Yorker, “The Vegetarian”). Israel will strike Iran unilaterally, and the President, though he won’t want to, will not vociferously condemn the attack once it’s happened. And the Israeli strike will not only out Iran’s nuclear facilities, it will take out anything important connected to them, like roads, bridges, power stations, communications towers... the extent of the strike will actually freak people out, it’ll be much wider than most people currently predict. When Bibi goes in he’ll make it really count, for the next 20 years. With one shot at it he will hit Iran hard, and...


4.) Arab Winter

A major strike on Iran (or even a minor strike, for that matter) will throw the region into a definitive state of religious winter. Look at the hysterics caused by The Innocence of Muslims. That will be nothing compared to the geo-religio freakout that will follow a military strike on Iran. The small but vocal religious fanatics we all know and love will be joined by mainstream Arabs from across these newly hatched protean-democracies. These Arab Spring front-liners will join the zealots to defend Iran, violently. As much as these people don’t care for the Persian version of Islam, aside from the obvious schismatic-historical reasons, there’s just way too much solemnity, sorrow, and self-infliction of pain in Persian Shiite Islam for the sensualism and materialism of the Arab world to handle—the Arabs and the Persians are united in their hatred of Israel. United by hate. What will Newbama do? What will he even be able to do? Middle East and West will be divided further, the right wing in the USA and Iran, Israel and Egypt, and Syria, and Libya, Yemen, Pakistan... all right wings everywhere will be emboldened while moderates everywhere will crawl back into their holes. Spoilers Russia and China will criticize and meddle to push their own agendas further in a moment of crisis and markets will nosedive when Iran disrupts the flow of oil through the Gulf. Then Obama will have to get involved. Oh, what a fucking bloody mess, and with no allies in the Arab world that he can stand shoulder to shoulder with to get us through. If Arab Winter falls across the Middle East, Obama will consume his second term in a real, not perceived, clash of civilizations. And, of course, it will be argued that it was all his fault.


So there you have it. That’s why Obama is so, so fucked.


Right off the bat Washington will draw first blood with debt ceiling brinksmanship. Then the world economy will take us all down the shitter and he’ll preside over the slide. Israel will defang Iran on his watch and the whole of Islam will rise in unity against the Jews and the Christians and he won’t have a single friend he can count on.



All of this spells one sure thing: Obama’s second term will guarantee a pretty hard right Republican will take the White House in 2016. That’s why they didn’t field a real candidate this time around. Why burn a real contender. Just wait it out.

Of the above four things (and provided some of Xenaxis' Generational Dynamics analysis) it looks like Israel might not defang Iran if Iran goes through the typical Awakening political realignment, which Xenaxis predicts is on the horizon. But even so, that wouldn't keep the rest of it at bay it seems.

~Chas'88