New Developments III

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19319
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: New Developments III

Post by Big Magilla »

The dicitonary describes rich as having wealth or great possessions; abundantly supplied with resources, means, or funds; wealthy: a rich man; a rich nation. Under hat deifintion anyone running for President is rich.

While one who earns $200,000 a year with a large family and/or large expenses may not be rich, it's difficult to comprehend why anyone would not think someone with a net worth of $6.7 million and an annual income in excess of $500,000 whose perfectly coifed wife buys her baubles at Tiffany's wouldn't be considered rich by anyone.

However, I can't find fault with Gingirch's answer to the question posed him. As the saying goes, "ask a silly quesiton, get a silly answer".
criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2874
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Re: New Developments III

Post by criddic3 »

Sonic Youth wrote:Yeah, Gingrich. Really, sincere.
When Gingrich was campaigning in Laconia on Wednesday, a fellow came up to the former House speaker and asked, “Won’t you buy a home in the Lakes Region if elected president?” This was a reference to Mitt Romney’s house in New Hampshire.

Gingrich replied, “No, I can’t afford things like that. I’m not rich.”

And his wife Callista quickly added, “We have one home.”

Not rich? This past summer, Gingrich had to file the financial-disclosure form required of presidential candidates. It revealed that he has a net worth of at least $6.7 million and that his income was at least $2.6 million in 2010. That’s about 65 times the income of the average family of four in the United States. That puts him well into the top 1 percent (about $520,000 a year or more) and close to the top 0.1 percent. He, of course, had that $500,000-plus tab at Tiffany’s, and weeks ago was boasting that he pulled in $60,000 a speech. These are the sort of actions that tend to be associated with richness.
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/01/new ... m-not-rich
If that story is true, it's simple to explain. "Rich" is in the eye of the beholder. Obama thinks it's anyone earning $200,000 or more. I don't think Gingrich is insincere in this instance. Perhaps you or I would consider ourselves rich with that money, but certainly if you have one house you may not feel the need to buy another one just to win someone's vote.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: New Developments III

Post by Sabin »

Sonic Youth wrote
But Sabin, remortgaging the house is worth it if it means outlawing contraceptives and gay marriage.
I look at the pile that Obama has tried to get done, I look at the pile that he hasn't, and I look at the pile where his hand was either forced or it belonged to an owner I didn't know as well as I thought, and, I'll grant you, it doesn't add up. It doesn't begin to. A month ago, I said to myself that regardless of the fact that nobody on the right could sway me over, I could not remain ideologically consist and vote for Barack Obama. The fact that I live in California means I have the luxury of voting for whatever third party I like with the assurance that I won't wake up and find that Romney took California.

The way I see it, if a President puts something into motion that directly affects you like President Obama has with me, it takes some degree of precedence over everything else. Let's say for the sake of arguing that Obama legalized gay marriage but he did a series of other things that were pretty horrible. Like, unforgivable. But you can marry whomever you want, forge a future for yourself and your chosen loved one regardless of sex. Then I can try to tell you why the person you're voting for is except for that one thing a very bad President, but it's probably not going to work and it shouldn't because that President has done something to directly earn your vote. That's what he's done for me. My reason for voting for President Obama again doesn't have to work for you and if Health Care Reform hasn't directly affected you then it shouldn't. I don't want people to blindly follow him or any President. But personally, I can't not vote for the guy. I've never had a President's actions directly - again, DIRECTLY - affect my life for the better as President Obama's has. Unless John McCain was going to do everything that Obama did with Health Care and better, if Barack Obama isn't the President, then my family is in a very bad place.
"How's the despair?"
Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Re: New Developments III

Post by Damien »

Thanks for sharing your story, Sabin. I'm still on the fence about voting for Obama in 2012 or being true to myself and going progressive or lunatic fringe. Well, actually, I'm not on the fence, I'm almost always on with the right side of the fence (your story, Hilary Clinton pushing for gay rights as human rights in other countries) or the left side of the fence (Guantanamo Bay, The National Defense Authorization Act, no single payer plan in his health care). But for today, your account of your uncle pushed me over to the right side.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
User avatar
Sonic Youth
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8003
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Re: New Developments III

Post by Sonic Youth »

But Sabin, remortgaging the house is worth it if it means outlawing contraceptives and gay marriage.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
User avatar
Sonic Youth
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8003
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Re: New Developments III

Post by Sonic Youth »

Yeah, Gingrich. Really, sincere.
When Gingrich was campaigning in Laconia on Wednesday, a fellow came up to the former House speaker and asked, “Won’t you buy a home in the Lakes Region if elected president?” This was a reference to Mitt Romney’s house in New Hampshire.

Gingrich replied, “No, I can’t afford things like that. I’m not rich.”

And his wife Callista quickly added, “We have one home.”

Not rich? This past summer, Gingrich had to file the financial-disclosure form required of presidential candidates. It revealedthat he has a net worth of at least $6.7 million and that his income was at least $2.6 million in 2010. That’s about 65 times the income of the average family of four in the United States. That puts him well into the top 1 percent (about $520,000 a year or more) and close to the top 0.1 percent. He, of course, had that $500,000-plus tab at Tiffany’s, and weeks ago was boasting that he pulled in $60,000 a speech. These are the sort of actions that tend to be associated with richness.
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/01/new ... m-not-rich
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: New Developments III

Post by Sabin »

I've largely stayed out of these discussions for a bit now...

I didn't have much intention of voting for Obama because I didn't feel like gilding a series of his decisions I don't like in the image what I had hoped he would be. I'm not very happy with his administration. But then this happened...

My Uncle Mike got a blood transfusion when he was ten or so. This must have been the early 60s. Anyway, he got hepatitis. He's been living with it for years, through an legendary-within-the-family run of bad luck that now sees him in his late 50s, twice divorced, with a small appliance repair business that is doing horribly. And now he needs a new liver. Two years ago, he was dropped from his insurance plan for making too much money basically. I don't know the specifics, but something had been shuffled w/r/t whether he belonged in one bracket or another. Anyway, no insurance group would take him. Obviously. He needs a new liver. Bad business. So recently the discussion began as to whether or not my father would have to remortgage our house to pay for his liver transplant, which is something no sixty-one year old man wants to think about after working like a horse for the past thirty-five years and nearing retirement. But what can you do? Can't let your sister's brother die.

The word Obamacare is interesting to me because it's clearly a name given by the Right. They mean it as an insult. For the past couple of months and onward through this year, the word is going to change in meaning for a lot of people. It won't be enough for the country to move away from viewing it as this mysterious, money-wasting, socialist plot and as something that is flawed, that needs to be changed for the better, but probably where we need to be headed, but there are many Americans that are going to start feeling its effects in a profound way. At the end of last year, I had no intention of voting for Obama. Because of his efforts and those of Nancy Pelosi, my father doesn't have to remortgage our house and my Uncle is going to be covered. And it's not going to be enough to sway everybody or even close but a lot of people are going to feel this kind of personal connection to a President's actions, and they have friends and family who might be. I doubt it will be enough, but it will be something.

Outside of the War in Iraq where admittedly I didn't lose anybody I know and this horrible recession, I have never in my life directly felt the impact of a presidency before. Positive impact, I should say. My family has directly felt the impact of Barack Obama's Presidency. He's far, far from perfect, but he made an incredible impact on my life.
Last edited by Sabin on Sun Jan 08, 2012 8:49 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"How's the despair?"
criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2874
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Re: New Developments III

Post by criddic3 »

Mister Tee wrote:
criddic3 wrote:Even if there's a slight uptick in the economic news, it is still a volatile situation where almost anything can happen. Most likely, there will not be a booming return like Reagan had during his re-election bid. But I concede that if the unemployment comes under 7% and it isn't because everyone who is unemployed gave up on looking, then he'll win comfortably.
An otherwise nicely rational post, but you spoiled it at the end by setting that absurdly high bar. Unemployment doesn't have to go below 7%. When Reagan ran in '94, it was 7.5%, and that was good for a 49-state wipeout --because it was heded the right direction. Just continue along the lines of today's report for the next 6-8 months, and Barack will be untouchable
When Ronald Reagan ran in 1984 the economic upturn was fierce and strongly felt by the electorate. The uptick we see happening now has been very slow and will continue to feel that way. In 1992, when George H.W. Bush was running for re-election, the smaller recession was over and the economy was slowly coming back, but the people didn't feel it. He lost.
So crddic, which candidate are you supporting?
Newt. I can't say I agree with everything he's ever said, but Romney strikes me as very insincere. The others are either too fanatical or too weak at this point.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: New Developments III

Post by Mister Tee »

criddic3 wrote:Even if there's a slight uptick in the economic news, it is still a volatile situation where almost anything can happen. Most likely, there will not be a booming return like Reagan had during his re-election bid. But I concede that if the unemployment comes under 7% and it isn't because everyone who is unemployed gave up on looking, then he'll win comfortably.
An otherwise nicely rational post, but you spoiled it at the end by setting that absurdly high bar. Unemployment doesn't have to go below 7%. When Reagan ran in '94, it was 7.5%, and that was good for a 49-state wipeout --because it was heded the right direction. Just continue along the lines of today's report for the next 6-8 months, and Barack will be untouchable
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19319
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: New Developments III

Post by Big Magilla »

I find it amusing the way registered Republicans are scrambling to find someone they actually like this year.

Both in my active adult (read old age) community and my brother's where I attended a New Year's party, the 80-somethings have basically come to the realization that whoever is nominated and wins (the only thing they agree on is that Obama must go) is that nothing will chnage. For all the politicians' bravado they feel none of them are for the people, they're all for themselves. They like Christie and would vote for him in a heartbeat but between the current choices they lean toward Ron Paul and Michelle Bachman. I just smile.
Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Re: New Developments III

Post by Damien »

So crddic, which candidate are you supporting?
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
User avatar
Sonic Youth
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8003
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Re: New Developments III

Post by Sonic Youth »

criddic3 wrote:
I'm sure it's unconstitutional, but I'd support a ban on any campaigning until three months before the general election, and no primary campaigning or elections until after Memorial Day.
A lot of people feel this way. Even back in '08, the two years of campaigning --endless ads, news stories, polls, pundits opining about how things will turn out -- seemed outrageous. It is interesting for people who like to watch this all unfold, as I do, but the drawn-out contest makes it wearying at times. The fact that this time it's only happening on one side probably doesn't help for most people.
Underpopulated central Pennsylvania has many beautiful, hilly roads with open spaces and mountains towering above them. But during election season it has something else... lots and lots of campaign yard signs on the side of the road. These are strewn all over, and are far more noticeable than in regular cities or suburbs, probably because these signs can't be kept on sidewalks. They are ugly, especially in excess, and they mar all the spectacular views with "Vote for Him! Vote for Her!" messages in red, white & blue. And then when election day is over, not all of them are picked up. So, they're left as roadside litter. It's really disgusting.

At the end of it all, Barack'll be waiting
Let's not jump the gun here. Even if there's a slight uptick in the economic news, it is still a volatile situation where almost anything can happen. Most likely, there will not be a booming return like Reagan had during his re-election bid. But I concede that if the unemployment comes under 7% and it isn't because everyone who is unemployed gave up on looking, then he'll win comfortably.
[/quote]

There's no way unemployment is going down so low. I think we're in for year-long stagflation, and that won't help Obama. But I also think people focus on economic fundamentals way too much, and in doing so underestimate his chances. There are other factors still in his favor, no matter what the shape of the economy is. Obama's still the incumbent, for example. And if Romney's the opposing candidate, he's also far more charismatic.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2874
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Re: New Developments III

Post by criddic3 »

I'm sure it's unconstitutional, but I'd support a ban on any campaigning until three months before the general election, and no primary campaigning or elections until after Memorial Day.
A lot of people feel this way. Even back in '08, the two years of campaigning --endless ads, news stories, polls, pundits opining about how things will turn out -- seemed outrageous. It is interesting for people who like to watch this all unfold, as I do, but the drawn-out contest makes it wearying at times. The fact that this time it's only happening on one side probably doesn't help for most people.
All sorts of possibilities lie ahead.
Romney has to win New Hampshire, and probably will. Huntsman may actually come into a second or third place finish, but anything other than that would lead to him dropping out. What will be interesting is seeing how Santorum and Gingrich do. It's much different than Iowa. This is a primary. More people will likely participate and the voting process is nowhere near the same. If Gingrich can make inroads against Romney, he's got a shot at a comeback (and don't forget, the largest newspaper in the state endorsed him). Too bad Perry stayed in. I liked him a lot when he joined the race, but his showing in Iowa was a good excuse to pull out. It also may have helped Gingrich, especially if Perry had endorsed him (though I could see the Texas Gov. endorsing Santorum, too, if he hadn't made a big deal out of Santorum's earmarks.)

Then comes South Carolina, where Gingrich actually has a shot if he can stay above 15% in New Hampshire. This is where Perry hopes to make his last stand.

At least the field is slowly narrowing now that Michele Bachmann is out, and Paul has nowhere to go after a third place finish in Iowa. If he had won or placed a close second instead of Santorum, he could make an argument that he could win. As it is he can't. What's fascinating is all the talk of a 3rd party run, even while his own son says he thinks that would be a bad idea.
At the end of it all, Barack'll be waiting
Let's not jump the gun here. Even if there's a slight uptick in the economic news, it is still a volatile situation where almost anything can happen. Most likely, there will not be a booming return like Reagan had during his re-election bid. But I concede that if the unemployment comes under 7% and it isn't because everyone who is unemployed gave up on looking, then he'll win comfortably.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: New Developments III

Post by Mister Tee »

Well, THAT was entertaining. A wire-to-wire horse race, albeit not between Affirmed/Alydar level opponents (for those who remember the 1978 Triple Crown), but two plugs about ready to be turned to glue.

Going into this year's (finally for real) primary, there were two schools of pundit-thought -- one saying "Republicans always go with the next in line, Romney's the only faintly plausible candidate," and the other believing a candidate who after all this time couldn't crack a 25% polling margin against a pack of clowns -- whose opposition time after time found someone besides him to support -- could find a way to lose despite his institutional/financial support. Typically, each of these sides thought last night's result vindicated their view.

Romney had for almost the entire year stayed away from actively contesting Iowa, knowing it was not his turf. In the last weeks, though, having seen Bachman/Perry/Cain sequentially self-destruct, he and his team made the decision that all they had to do was destroy Gingrich with a carpet-bombing TV campaign, and they'd triumph last man standing-style. Combined with his guaranteed win in NH, it would make Romney such an out-in-front candidate that stragglers would grudgingly fall in line, and the contest woiuld be over in a flash (as it was for Kerry in 2004).

Gingrich did collapse as expected, but the Romney team underestimated the fact that there was still an unused right-wing alternative in Santorum. And, as with the previous collapsed opposition bubbles, the support Gingrich lost went almost overnight to him without even a glance at Romney. Romney did manage to numerically win, but his ludicrously small margin and the fact that he actually got fewer votes than he did in '08, plus the "surprise" factor surrounding Santorum (finishing better than pundits expect always gets candidates good coverage) made it rather a pyrrhic victory.

I don't know what lies ahead. It's possible the Romney Inevitable caucus is correct, that Santorum has too little money and too narrow an appeal to win upcoming contests (past NH, which everyone concedes to Mitt). But it's also possible that that widely split righty vote will finally decide to coalesce, and Santorum will be their guy. (Bachman is already gone, and, though Perry is stll in for the moment, the voters may view him as dead man walking and drop him from consideration) The fact that McCain is endorsing Romney today strikes me as actually poor timing. Those far-righters who hated McCain in '08 might well be reminded they let themselves stay divided last time and allowed McCain to rack up delegates in winner-take-all primaries, and decide they won't make that mistake again.

Maybe the most interesting development is the full release of Gingrich's rage. He's clearly furious at what Mitt's SuperPAC's did to him on the IA airwaves, and is ready to unleash holy hell on Mitt in retaliation. Mitt hasn't really had to deal with negative attention during this period when the not-Mitt candidates were struggling to become the one prime alternative to him. Now, he'll have to deal with a period of Gingrich, Santorum & Huntsman all concentrating fire on him at once. We haven't seen yet if Mitt can take a punch, he way Hillary did four years ago, or if he's got a glass jaw. (By the way, I think it's worth noting that Romney left his opponents in '08 bitter in much the same way he's left Gingrich this year. By all accounts, personally, Romney is something of a dick. That can mean something further down the road, when rapprochement is desired)

All sorts of possibilities lie ahead. Romney will have to win NH big-time; even a slight softening of his lead will be viewed as voter queasiness. SC and FL are key primaries, and they could go all sorts of ways. The continued presence of Ron Paul -- who'll never win over the GOP field, but could accumulate a significant number of delegates -- even opens the possibility no one gets enough votes to clinch the nomination, and the poli sci wet dream of a brokered convention comes into view.

At the end of it all, Barack'll be waiting, with a far stronger hand than the GOP and media assume. Even now, the Keys system predicts an easy re-election for the president. If the economy continues its recent revival (one an amazing number of people seem to be trying to ignore), you'll have an incumbent hitting stride against a party with no likable candidate and uninspired voters (last night's caucus turnout was about equal to the '08 GOP crowd, but solely because Ron Paul brought in a bunch of young indies or Democrats; these people will be the equivalent of the Dem Wallace voters of '72 -- they'll either stay home, or vote for the other party in the general). I'm feeling plenty good about what's ahead.
User avatar
Sonic Youth
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8003
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Re: New Developments III

Post by Sonic Youth »

At last! The first primary. We're only ten short months away from putting an end to this nonsense. Time just flies... I'm sure it's unconstitutional, but I'd support a ban on any campaigning until three months before the general election, and no primary campaigning or elections until after Memorial Day.

Anyway, prediction for tonight: Romney FTW.

As long as I'm making predictions because it's newly 2012, I'm predicting Obama FTW as well. This isn't an assured prediction, but more like a Rotten Tomatoes "Yes" or "No" call, meaning "gun to my head, if I had to pick one..." I'd say he has not as good a chance of winning as Democrats think he does, but a better chance than Republicans think. (And please don't play the schoolmarm (you know who you are) and lecture to me all the reasons why Obama may not win. Trust me, I've heard every reason 20 times already, not only in this presidential election but past elections as well. I know the reasons, and I also know the counter-arguements and the reasons why he may win. I've taken everything into consideration and weighed everything in my mind.)

And the Democrats will retain senate majority (if Obama wins. If he loses, that's another story, of course.)
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Post Reply

Return to “Current Events”