New Developments III

[Sonic Youth]

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudoun_County,_Virginia

"Loudoun County ( /ˈlaʊdən/ lowd-ən) is a county located in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and is part of the Washington Metropolitan Area.... As of 2007, Loudoun County has the highest median household income of any county in the United States ($107,207), beating neighboring Fairfax County, Virginia ($105,241). The two counties have been trading places as the highest-income county in the United States in recent years."

In other words, even if you live in the wealthiest county in the U.S., if your household makes $200,000 per year, you're earning much more than most other people who live there. So please stop BS-ing by saying $200,000 isn't rich. That income level is very much in the "rich" category, even if you live in the poshest area in the country.

[criddic3]

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".

lol. True enough.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[Sonic Youth]

But Sabin, remortgaging the house is worth it if it means outlawing contraceptives and gay marriage.

[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

[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.

[criddic3]

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.

[Mister Tee]

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]

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]

So crddic, which candidate are you supporting?

[Sonic Youth]

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.

[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.