68
   

The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House

 
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Thu 15 Sep, 2011 04:10 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:

At the end of 2010, about 54 million people were receiving benefits:
37 million retired workers and dependents of retired workers, 6 million survivors of deceased workers, and 10 million disabled workers and dependents
of disabled workers. During the year, an estimated 157 million people had
earnings covered by Social Security and paid payroll taxes. Total expenditures in 2010 were $713 billion. Total income was $781 billion ($664 billion
in non-interest income and $117 billion in interest earnings), and assets held
in special issue U.S. Treasury securities grew to $2.6 trillion


http://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2011/tr2011.pdf

As I understand it all of the debt is in US securities, so that $117 interest is money that we the taxpayers pay by way of issuing debt....it is not really money coming in except by looney Washington accounting practices.

With SS we have $664 billion coming in after costs of running the SS system is deducted, and we have $713 billion going out. The net flow is out....
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Thu 15 Sep, 2011 04:16 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
As a matter of fact, Perry is going to back-track about social security being an ponzi scheme before the election, because his advisers are going to tell him that's a self-inflected death wish in politics
Have you paid ANY attention to the career of Perry? This is extremely unlikely....you sound like all those people who said that DSK would pay off the maid and admit to some low level charge to get free of the American "Justice" system...I pointed out early that if you know the man then you know that this is not going to happen. It is not in these guys DNA to be like everyone else, to do what others would do, they dance to their own drummers....they live by a code as our forefathers often did but of which few do in these modern times.
hingehead
 
  2  
Reply Thu 15 Sep, 2011 04:22 pm
Forgive me for intruding - I don't follow this thread closely, and understandably the coverage we see of this side of your politics is very limited. But it struck me in one of the debates (I know this is 'grab' based) that Bachmann's role is to make Perry seem more centrist. I don't suppose that's intentional, but her reaction to Texas' HPV vaccination seemed odd at best, almost Palinesque.
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Sep, 2011 04:28 pm
@hingehead,
She's a loony tune for sure. Definitely Palinesque, though she's a little less stupid.

She definitely makes Perry look more reasonable by comparison. I don't think there's much intentionality there either, except that Perry watched the race and thought that if Michelle Bachmann was doing as well as she was, he could do even better. (Which has been the case.)

Meanwhile, the scenario I'm really hoping for (and that I think is possible) is that with Obama looking about as weak as he ever has, the Republicans are emboldened to go ahead and nominate Perry, who then proceeds to tank in the general election. (As Obama strengthens considerably from where he is now, and Perry proves himself to be a Tea Party goofball.)
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  3  
Reply Thu 15 Sep, 2011 04:43 pm
@sozobe,
sozobe wrote:
The margin of Obama beating him, according to polls, is growing.

Maybe you want to take a second look at what PollingReport.com has to say about this. Both leading Republicans have been gaining on Obama all through August. The latest poll (ABC/Washington Post) has Perry beating Obama 47:46. Romney's margin is even greater, at 49:45. I think you're overoptimistic about the sign of the outcome, never mind the margin.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Thu 15 Sep, 2011 04:48 pm
@hawkeye10,
This is not about a "maid." It's about American voters. I wouldn't bet any $$$ on my opinion about Perry not having a chance because of his stance on social security, because I doubt anyone really understands where they (the voters) are "coming from." It's only MHO.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  2  
Reply Thu 15 Sep, 2011 04:53 pm
@Thomas,
This is the one I was going by:

Quote:
Obama leads Romney by 4, Perry by 11 nationally

Raleigh, N.C. – President Obama’s jobs speech last Thursday night might have given him a boost in his bid for re-election. After tying his perpetually strongest potential challenger Mitt Romney last month, Obama again leads him, but still by a smaller margin than he beat John McCain in the national popular vote three years ago. Everyone else far underperforms McCain, who lost to the president in a near landslide.

Obama tops Romney, 49-45, up from a 45-all tie in PPP’s August national poll. He leads Rick Perry, 52-41 (49-43 in August); Newt Gingrich, 53-41; and Michele Bachmann, 53- 39 (50-42). Were voters given the choice to reconsider the 2008 election, they would still elect Obama, but by only five points (51-46), when he actually won by seven, indicating some voters have changed their minds, but that not just any GOP nominee will do.

The president’s more solid standing in the Perry and Romney horseraces comes from consolidating his party support. He was losing 13% of Democrats to each candidate in August, but only 11% to Romney and 9% to Perry now. Obama has meanwhile upped his own crossover support, from 5% to 9% of Republicans versus Romney and 10% to 11% against Perry.


http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_US_0913925.pdf

This one is as recent as the ABC/Washington Post poll (September 8th through 11th).

However, yes, I was going by one poll, and that's not a good idea.
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Sep, 2011 04:57 pm
@sozobe,
Polls are pretty meaningless at this point I would have thought. The idea a year out is lot different to the impending reality as you walk to the polling booth.
sozobe
 
  2  
Reply Thu 15 Sep, 2011 04:59 pm
@hingehead,
Yeah. They give some indication of how a candidate is wearing early on. But yes, it's still too early for them to be really useful.

For the general election anyway -- the Republican nomination process will start as early as December of this year (still not decided last I knew). For sure by January.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Sep, 2011 04:59 pm
@sozobe,
I see. Well, I sure hope you're right.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Sep, 2011 05:56 pm
Here's quote from Wiki on Public Policy Polling Inc;
Quote:
Public Policy Polling (PPP) is an American Democratic Party-affiliated polling firm based in Raleigh, North Carolina.[1][2][3] PPP was founded in 2001 by businessman and Democratic pollster Dean Debnam, the firm's current president and chief executive officer.[1][4] The company's surveys use Interactive Voice Response (IVR), an automated questionnaire used by other polling firms such as SurveyUSA and Rasmussen Reports.[5]


The article goes on to note their generally accurate forecasts in the 2008 election. Their web site describes their low cost & efficient data collection methods and the weighting factors they use to get the desired stratification of their samples after the data is collected. I'm always a bit skeptical of the data manipulation methods commonly used in these statistical analyses, but they are very widely used. In any event they appear to be the Democrat equivalent of Rasmussen reports.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Sep, 2011 06:12 pm
Perry on foreign policy

Quote:
Perry made extensive remarks on foreign policy Aug. 29 before the VFW National Convention. There, he spoke out against multilateralism.

"We cannot concede the moral authority of our nation to multi-lateral debating societies," he said. "And when our interests are threatened, American soldiers should be led by American commanders."

But yesterday, Perry seemed to suggest the opposite when he talking about engaging allies.

"Our response cannot be to isolate ourselves within our borders," he said, "but to engage our allies and the quest to build these enduring allies around the world for freedom."

In his VFW speech, He also has seemed to be for muscular interventionism -- "We must renew our commitment to taking the fight to the enemy wherever they are, before they strike at home."

But then in the very next sentence, he seemed to be against it -- "I do not believe that America should fall subject to a foreign policy of military adventurism. We should only risk shedding American blood and spending American treasure when our vital interests are threatened." More
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Thu 15 Sep, 2011 06:34 pm
@JPB,
These simpleton messages that make sane, rational people gag are just what the Repugs need and want. They hammer it home time after time in order to appeal to the Gobs, the Finns, the H20mans, the Foofies.

Inherent contradictions matter not at all to these folk.
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Sep, 2011 06:51 pm
@JPB,
Is it a strategy to offer two contradictory opinions in the hope that you will garner support from people who hold either opinion? i.e. hear what they want to hear?
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Sep, 2011 06:59 pm
@hingehead,
I don't see the first two as contradictory. He's saying we're in charge and our allies need to follow our lead. You know.... Same ole, same ole bs.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Sep, 2011 07:06 pm
"We cannot concede the moral authority of our nation to multi-lateral debating societies," he said. "And when our interests are threatened, American soldiers should be led by American commanders. That way we can continue our long standing tradition of committing atrocities with little fear of being detected."
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Sep, 2011 10:53 am
A few months ago I thought that the possibility of a race between a Dem and a Repub - absent anyone else of significance - was a given.
I am not so sure anymore. I would appreciate your thoughts.
Ron Paul: This is likely to be his last go-round on the national stage. He comes in along with the rest of the pack of Republicans at around 5% but his long held economic beliefs resonate with a larger audience. The tea party movement has tried to keep a narrow focus but it is becoming clear that other issues - including social issues - are being introduced into the debate.
I am inclined to believe that Paul will try to keep his objectives from being marginalized.
Michael Bloomberg: He is rich and smart. He says he will not enter unless he thinks he can win. His comment a couple of days ago caught my ear. He said that, unless the unemployment issue was addressed seriously, there could be rioting. I read that as a dig against a president and congress that doesn't appreciate how fragile the economy is.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Sep, 2011 12:31 pm
@realjohnboy,
rjb, Nobody needs to be "told or reminded" that our economy stinks, and that wages and benefits have not kept up with inflation for most workers. The very fact that the poverty levels are increasing shows the imbalance between the rich and others. It's not rocket science.

On the other hand, I see so many contradictions in our economic environment, it would take some effort to learn why so many are able to pay $500+ for hotel rooms, and frequent the most expensive restaurants that seems overflowing at the seams. Credit card debt are on the decrease.

I just wonder where that divide is between the have's and have not's.

All while the retirement savings rates are insufficient for the majority now working.

Any ideas?
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Sep, 2011 01:48 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Credit card debt are on the decrease.
But total consumer debt is down only 4% from its peak, and has been going up since Q3 2010. Claims the the Americans have sworn off debt and are determined to live with-in our means are greatly exaggerated. A lot of that spending you are noticing is not sustainable, as disposable income has greatly shrunk over the last three years, and given the vast run-up of our public sector debt we know that we have tax increases coming down the pike no matter how strongly we try to resist them.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/Releases/g19/Current/
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Sep, 2011 02:33 pm
@hawkeye10,
Revolving credit (credit card) debt is down, while long-term credit (mostly car and home buyers) have increased.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 11/24/2024 at 07:58:42