With Romney Already In Decline Again, Will The Veep Debate Help or Hurt President Obama?
Days before the October 3rd debate Romney was already surging. The debate win put him over the top. Now hours before the Vice Presidential debate we see a similar situation in reverse. Romney has been in decline for two days in the polls and President Obama is now on the rise again today.
There has been a whole lot of talk about how the debate helped Romney but little attention has been paid to the fact that in the days prior to the debate Romney had gone from 44.6% to 46% in the RCP average. In the week since the debate the win pushed him up another 2 points to 48%.
Over that same span Obama went from a high of 49.3% to a low of 46.1%. He's since increased slightly to 46.3% while Romney has declined more so to 47.4%. That's where we stand currently before the debate.
AP reporting hasn't quite caught on yet that Romney is already in decline:
Democrat Joe Biden and Republican Paul Ryan pull up a couple of chairs for a vice presidential debate that has mushroomed in importance since Mitt Romney's strong showing in the first presidential faceoff. This time, it's the Obama team looking to put the brakes on the other guy's momentum.
The brakes might not be on for Romney yet but he's definitely slowing down this week. The debate, if it changes anything, will either propel Obama forward or halt Romney's slide. You have to expect it will matter, though. The media wants it to matter. They will make it matter.
I agree with one sentiment from the quote though. The first debate and the spin that followed has created a renewed interest in the VP debate. Last time out in the VP debate Americans were getting their first chance to see Sarah Palin in action. This time without the previous debate this one might have not drawn nearly as much interest.
I know personally I'm more invested in the debates now than before because of the outcome of the first one. I'd love to see Biden with a clear advantage but we'll just have to see.
I think the right underestimates Biden in a big way but I doubt the Ryan team took any chances. Ryan is probably more prepared to debate than at any time in his life. The same is true for Biden I'm sure who has no excuses. He's not exactly a busy man as Vice President. Soon we'll get to see if Ryan on the ticket helps Romney as much as his people thought it would.
Posted by Adam Ducker at October 11, 2012 12:58 PMRyan’s going to have to turn on the bamboozlement even more than Romney. If Biden’s smart, he’s going to take the opportunity to hang Ryan’s budget around the man’s neck at every point.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 11, 2012 1:53 PMThe first debate showed that lieing pays. Advantage Ryan. I expect the key battle to be for the last word in each segment. Romney dominated this and was rewarded - don’t know if the Obama camp has figured it out.
Posted by: Schwamp at October 11, 2012 1:57 PMJust a few hours since I wrote this post we see more polls come in with Romney’s lead fading to just 0.7% or 47.1% to 46.4%. Rasmussen’s number today is actually +1 for Obama with most polls this week being +1 for Romney now.
Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 11, 2012 3:14 PMRyan’s going to have to turn on the bamboozlement even more than Romney. If Biden’s smart, he’s going to take the opportunity to hang Ryan’s budget around the man’s neck at every point.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 11, 2012
Ya think? Show me the last budget passed by obama and the dems. Is it just possible Ryan may ask about this?
Posted by: Royal Flush at October 11, 2012 3:16 PMI just finished listening to the 2008 debate in my spare time this afternoon. Biden largely tried to hang the Bush years around the neck of McCain and Palin while Palin tried to emphasize the outsider, “Maverick” nature of their campaign with a side of accusations of tax and spend liberalism for the Obama and “Obiden” campaign.
It was interesting to note how un-combative Palin was and that may have been a larger trend in the McCain campaign itself. It will be interesting to see Biden debate tonight and whether it gets heated and testy.
Ryan will have the last four years to hang around Biden’s neck and Biden will try to let viewers know that they did pretty good all things considered and try and hang Bush around the neck of Ryan and Romney again.
Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 11, 2012 3:36 PMThere are two aspects to tonight’s debate that interest me. First, will Biden take the offensive, and generate some passion? I expect he will. The content of his comments is almost irrelevant. He needs to attack, attack, attack. The second interesting aspect will be the influence this debate has on Paul Ryan’s political future. On one hand, he cannot afford to be too aggressive or lie too much; he used up his media goodwill with his convention speech, and that left a bad taste in the mouth’s of the people convering him, because no one likes being the stenographer and writing down statements they know to be untrue. On the other hand, Ryan cannot be mild and defensive; that would spell the end of his political ambitions just as surely as an Obama landslide in November. Ryan needs to concentrate his criticisms on Obama, and, as much as possible, ignore the existence of Joe Biden standing next to him.
It should be the most entertaining debate of this campaign season.
Posted by: phx8 at October 11, 2012 4:02 PMHilarious video out hitting Ryan for his lies before the debate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge1lWvgdG1I
Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 11, 2012 4:03 PMPhx8: “…because no one likes being the stenographer and writing down statements they know to be untrue.”
Other than Sean Hannity I guess?
Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 11, 2012 4:05 PMI have always like Biden. He is funny.
Ryan is the smartest guy in the race, even a little smarter than Romney, IMO. But Biden can be amiable. He will certainly make many misstatements, but he will be forgiven because he is Biden.
IMO - Ryan will “win” this debate. It won’t be in the way that Romney slapped around Obama. Rather the debate will give Ryan the chance to show that he is a nice guy, not the kind of guy portrayed by the liberal attack dogs. All Ryan needs do to win is be himself, a slightly nerdy ordinary guy.
Posted by: C&J at October 11, 2012 6:26 PMJack, many voters know little or nothing about Biden. Most of what they know comes from the late night talk shows and usually they spin his gaffs. Amiable is fine if it is combined with street smarts and good ideas.
My hunch is that Biden will be wound up like an eight day clock and his mainspring will break throwing gears and springs all over the place. Biden can be very mean spirited and if that persona appears he is a dead duck. He is also very loose with profanity. Should he slip on that account most Americans will not be amused.
Posted by: Royal Flush at October 11, 2012 6:39 PMQuit over reacting, Mr. Ducker. The polls all have a margin of error that you might want to consider before you start jumping up and down over fractions of a point. It’s nerdy.
Sit back and watch what unfolds. You’re not going to change anyone’s mind at this point on this blog site. Everyone here has made up their mind.
Posted by: John Johnson at October 11, 2012 6:47 PM
When my wife was attending University of Delaware we got the opportunity to see Biden speak on campus in the weeks before the 2008 election. He’s a funny guy. I didn’t want him to be VP but I suppose he’s been fine. He’s qualified to be president but he’ll probably never win a national election so it seems a bit of a waste in that area for the future of the Democratic Party.
Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 11, 2012 6:53 PMI agree Adam…Biden can be very funny and has given me some great laughs. Actually, I like the guy and would love to enjoy a beer with him. I shudder however, when I think about him being only a heartbeat from the presidency.
Posted by: Royal Flush at October 11, 2012 7:12 PMI just learned that Biden has not been allowed to do Press Q&A since his blabbermouth went into overtime on Obama’s latest flip on gay marriage. Biden will blow it; he’s the example of trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. He will try to overpower Ryan, but Ryan will outflank him with knowledge. The leftist have a lot riding on the bumbling old fool.
“Quit over reacting, Mr. Ducker. The polls all have a margin of error that you might want to consider before you start jumping up and down over fractions of a point. It’s nerdy.
Sit back and watch what unfolds. You’re not going to change anyone’s mind at this point on this blog site. Everyone here has made up their mind.”
Posted by: John Johnson at October 11, 2012 6:47 PM
I agree completely JJ; Mr. Ducker considers himself somewhat of a polling expert and he’s trying to impress us with his calls of minute by minute movement in the polls, down to the .01% change, LOL
It’s nerdy, because he and SD are both nerds. My image is of 2 little boys who were bullied on the playground; but when they got a computer, they were able to hide behind the PC screen and make BOLD statements to the unwashed masses of uncircumcised philistines in cyber land.
Posted by: Frank at October 11, 2012 7:21 PMFrank writes; “The leftist have a lot riding on the bumbling old fool.
I respectfully have to disagree with that assessment Frank. Sixty-nine is not old, and he is no fool. Bumbling on occasion, Yes…but very capable of holding his own in a debate.
Posted by: Royal Flush at October 11, 2012 7:28 PMRoyal, I stand corrected, since I am older than Biden, I have to agree with the “Old”.
LATEST NEWS FLASH!!!!!
RCP HAS OBAMA DOWN 20 ELECTORIAL VOTES.
Is this a new pattern, will Romney continue to climb in the electorial college, and will he be able to hold this gain through the rest of the night?
Inquiring polling experts want to know….
Posted by: Frank at October 11, 2012 7:44 PMJohn Johnson:
I respectfully ask you not to comment on my posts if your only response is to tell me not to post on a subject interesting to me. There are other posts, even other sites where you can go.
Frank:
I think it’s time that you and I stopped talking as well. You add nothing of value to the conversation and what’s worse is you lower the quality of dialog on the site. I think even folks like C&J will agree with me on this one.
Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 11, 2012 7:50 PMDA, then I suggest you leave. Take your toys and leave the playground.
Posted by: Frank at October 11, 2012 8:25 PMIf Biden loses the debate I’ll start picturing him like Uncle Leo on Seinfeld: “I’m an old man! I’m confused!”
Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 11, 2012 9:06 PMBill Maher on Facebook: “Somebody call 911, there’s an old man beating a child on TV!” Too funny!
Posted by: Tom at October 11, 2012 10:10 PMIt was said that Obama had a scowl on his face during the presidential debate and didn’t smile enough; now we have Biden looking like the Cheshire Cat.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82313.html
Great BIF, read some of the tweets, hilarious.
Posted by: TomT at October 11, 2012 10:30 PMNow the factcheck of grinning Biden off the cuff comments begin.
Posted by: Frank at October 11, 2012 10:51 PMIMO I would not give either of them a win. Biden, IMO, was condesending with his constant laughing and smirking. Ryan didn’t show enough forcefulness in his answers, except for pointing out to Biden about the saying something stupid remark. Biden with the Obama talking points and Ryan much like what Obama was like duyring the first debate.
Posted by: KAP at October 11, 2012 11:03 PMThis was definitely not the 2008 VP debate, that’s for sure.
Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 11, 2012 11:08 PMWow. Biden kicked Ryan’s butt. Well done. I am pleased.
Posted by: phx8 at October 11, 2012 11:10 PMThe main message of the night so far from the right: Biden was too rude and he laughed a lot! That’s how you know Paul Ryan lost this debate.
Ryan tried to stay on their strongest attack which is that Obama has failed to restore the economy but Biden kept hammering the Romney team for having plans full of bad math that will help the rich and hurt the middle class.
My favorite part was when Ryan ripped the stimulus only to have Biden point out how Ryan asked for money from it. Ryan joins a long line of Republican ARRA hypocrites.
Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 11, 2012 11:18 PMI thought both men were basically equal, which was not really surprising, but in the end, it won’t really mean much in the Presidential election.
Posted by: Kathy at October 11, 2012 11:29 PMKathy,
Someone said that this debate came with a warning: “For entertainment purposes only.” Ryan did well enough to ensure some sort of political future for himself, short of suffering an Obama landslide. Biden did exactly what he should have done: attack, be the aggressor, and make the administration’s case, especially on social issues.
Frank-
You got some balls telling Adam Ducker to leave the discussion of his own blog entry. You’re a guest. If we’ve let you run wild, and get wild ideas about what kind of status you have in this forum, I’m sorry. Maybe we need to be little more clear what the responsibilities of the commenters are. We’ve allowed things to run a little looser, because obviously politics ain’t beanbag, but when the commenter starts thinking he can order the contributing editor off the site, then maybe the editor is not the person who needs to go.
Yes, I am a nerd. I was born with an autism spectrum condition, so I was never going to be normal. It means that I have very strong focus, which when applied properly means that I get to the bottom of things when most people would give up out of exhaustion. It means I remember all kinds of things that other people forget. It means that my visualization abilities are fairly strong.
It also means that on many social fronts, I simply don’t give a ****. I don’t care about feelings. From my perspective, people’s feelings wash one way and then the other. I don’t care about conjectures, because plenty of what we imagine proves false, or unworkable. Reality acts as a strong filter on what we think will work, or in other words, the words of the old adage, “Man proposes, God Disposes.”
During the Bush Administration, I could have lived with a bit of rhetorical runaround, if it meant that Bush was rationalizing changing his policy to make it easier for us to win that war, or to get help to people to people during Katrina, or to deal with the economy and Wall Street on a more helpful basis. I can take people lying me to a little, so they can do the right thing with some political cover.
What I can’t stand is folks who lie just to avoid consequences, who still leave a gaping problem, and do absolutely nothing about it, and what I’ve seen out of the Republicans is a doubling down of that emphasis of politics over policy, of trying to shape some ideological utopia which is hoped will resolve all the outstanding problem, over actually dealing with problem here and now, as they complicate in real time.
I’ve had a long history, because of my condition, where I’ve had to confront the difference between the world as I idealize it, and the world as it actually unfolds, and as I’ve dug deeper into learning how to write dramatic stories, I’ve learned how the human mind is vulnerable to being caught up in its own narratives.
I mean, I believe that it serves the purpose of giving us a more rich, complex way of communicating rich complex truths that plain communication doesn’t have the capacity to handle.
At the same time, compelling ideas can be wrong, compelling stories can be misleading.
I think the Republican Party has bought into a story that however compelling, is wrong. They see themselves as the saviors of the country, where the rest of the country sees them as folks who just won’t learn from their mistakes, and who are getting more radical, more out there, as the consequences of being so out of touch wreak their havoc on party fortunes.
The balancing factor is how relentlessly negative the Republicans have become about their opponents. Trouble is, if you don’t do much for people, if folk’s lives are not improved by your policies, that negativity will be seen as misanthropy on your part, and less any kind of negative quality on their part.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 11, 2012 11:38 PMStephen, this is DA to JJ:
“There are other posts, even other sites where you can go.”
Stephen’s comment:
“You got some balls telling Adam Ducker to leave the discussion of his own blog entry.”
Yes I do, and I wonder if you feel the same way about DA’s comment to JJ?
I think the only condition you have is the BS condition.
“It also means that on many social fronts, I simply don’t give a ****. I don’t care about feelings. From my perspective, people’s feelings wash one way and then the other. I don’t care about conjectures, because plenty of what we imagine proves false, or unworkable.”
Your lying Stephen…you care…or you wouldn’t be giving us more info about yourself than we need to know, and you would be coming to the defense of DA.
So the rest or your rhetoric simply says, because you have this “special condition”, you have the mystical ability to understand things that mortal men cannot grasp. Sure…
“They see themselves as the saviors of the country, where the rest of the country sees them as folks who just won’t learn from their mistakes”
Stephen, are we still talking about the Republicans or have we moved to the Democrats.
CNN polls say that Ryan won the debate, but it is within the margin or error. As a conservative, I thought Ryan did better, but evidently liberals think Biden won. Clearly, there was no ass kicking like the one Romney gave to Obama. Both sides live to fight another day.
Posted by: C&J at October 12, 2012 12:04 AMThe focus group results are coming out; they think Biden was rude, interrupting, and arrogant. I predict another up tick for Romney/Ryan in the polls.
Posted by: Billinflorida at October 12, 2012 12:07 AMStephen Daugherty:
I like Frank a lot. I’ve enjoyed arguing with him. He has kept things interesting around here and he brings a unique perspective. It’s a shame he lacks the intellectual capacity to rise above the childish personal attacks he’s become known for around here.
Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 12, 2012 12:16 AMCNN polls say that Ryan won the debate, but it is within the margin or error.
I never put my trust in those CNN Flash polls. Those are all call polls that use landline numbers. Most of the people who still keep landline telephones are old, and those oldsters often trend conservative.
Adam
We have a little community here. We all have a fair idea about the personalities. People reveal themselves through their words.
I have learned a great deal from all this. I think most of us are more unreasonable here than we would be in person. It would not be much fun if we all tried to find common ground. That is not the purpose of this forum.
We also can talk freely because we don’t have to come to any agreement.
Another thing that I find interesting here is the crap that some people seem really to believe. I am not talking about opinions, but I am distressed by the innumeracy so often displayed and the lack of due diligence in checking out source material. There is a lot of linking instead of thinking. I am afraid that this is the wave of the future. Internet gives us wonderful access to information but seems to have a corrupting influence on thinking and analysis.
I don’t think many minds are changed among the contributors. We come to talk, not to listen. I suppose some readers might actually pay attention. I have sometimes found some useful facts even among the opposition.
I wouldn’t kick many people off the site. Way back when Watchblog was young, we had some clown who called himself Aldous who I thought was a useless idiot and there were a few more whose names I don’t recall who were retarded, but others contribute. The good man is the example for the bad and the bad is a lesson for the good.
Adrienne
I understand that your information comes from revelation, but us ordinary mortals have to get ours from sources like CNN.
It is true, however, that the only poll that counts will be done on November 6. (Democrats should show up on November 7)
Posted by: C&J at October 12, 2012 12:41 AMI understand that your information comes from revelation, but us ordinary mortals have to get ours from sources like CNN.
Info from Revelation? You must be confusing me with all the religious creationists around here.
What I said is true. CNN’s Flash Poll has always used landlines — and this does happen to make them lean conservative. And overall, I’ve never put too much stock in flash polls from ANY source.
Adrienne
Not trying to be polemical - Do they indeed always use landlines? Are we certain that people with landlines trend Republican? Does CNN not try to manage its polling to take into account possible no contacts? If you have a source for this information, I would be interested in reading it. I like to know these sorts of thing.
Polling is always full of errors. We put too much stock in it. But we have to be consistent in our use. On the other side, Frank suggested that we declare our degree of confidence in particular polls before we know the results.
You are right to be skeptical. So if you declare that you have little confidence in flash polls or CNN polls when Republicans do well, we assume the same when Democrats seem to be winning.
In any case, the only poll that counts is on election day.
Re my comment on revelation - information must be sourced somewhere. If someone seems to know something with near certainty w/o having an earthy source, the only other possibility is revelation.
Once every 4 years, the majority of American voters seem to wake up, pull their heads out of the sand, and jump on the band wagon that promises miracles. Instead, let’s change the system so we have better choices in the future! https://www.facebook.com/FixAmericanPolitics
Posted by: Michael at October 12, 2012 11:10 AMFrank-
The “balls” comment wasn’t meant as a compliment. You are a prime example of arrogance and a sense of political entitlement. You think no matter how badly your party screws up, it still deserves to lead.
As for my social fronts comment, I choose my words carefully. I said many, not all. I do care somewhat, in fact intensely what people think of me, but it’s not always easy for me to guess how people are reacting to me, so I reserve my more delicate social sensibilities for times when it’s worth the effort.
So, I’m not lying. I do care about my reputation, but I also, if you haven’t noticed, built in a lot of out-front bluntness and willingness to be more confrontational. That’s not an accident. Given that I’m not the world’s best judge of whether I’ve offended people, it helps me not to raise expectations of delicacy and diplomacy too high. I also typically try to keep my arguments to the facts.
As for my “special condition?” It’s more like having an engined tuned differently. Others have less intense concentration, but as a bonus, they don’t get wrapped up in distraction. Others have less visualization ability, but on the plus side, they’re better with more abstract, less literal things. I remember a lot of things, but attention, and where I have it focused can mean the difference between whether I remember something, or whether I forget it.
Still, I’m big on making full use of my abilities, not mourning my disadvantages.
Adrienne-
Another key difference is that CNN polled all voters, while CBS polled undecideds. With undecideds, Ryan was simply spanked, with only a small minority thinking Ryan had won.
C&J-
There has been a correlation between relying on mobile lines and youth, and the young are more liberal.
As far as analysis goes, the internet is like an island. You only got what you take there. I do sources and quotation largely because I started blogging almost straight out of college, and I like demonstrating things conclusively. Frank? Frank brings Rush Limbaugh. I bet you could track what opinions he offers almost directly to what Limbaugh or some other host was saying recently.
Now, I think the biggest hazard of the internet is that you tend to reinforce what opinions you already have. The challenge is to find the weaknesses in your opinion before somebody else does.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 12, 2012 12:12 PMStephen, I don’t have to listen to Rush Limbaugh to have my own conservative thoughts. Conservative are like minded in their thinking of smaller government and less taxes.
You should be able understand this because the left does not have to be told by Obama to worship him and belief it is the 2nd coming; liberals do that without ever being told. The left does not have to be told by Obama that America is evil, that Capitalism is evil, or to preach division and racism in America. You guys are like minded and do all these things by nature.
Posted by: Frank at October 12, 2012 1:15 PMJack, let me repeat:
I’m skeptical of ALL flash polling — regardless of who they claim wins those polls. Because they always raise more questions than they answer and most of them use much larger percentages of landlines — because that’s far cheaper to do than cell phones.
Stephen,
This is what CNN had to say about the flash poll that only polled a total of 381 people, and more Republicans, on it’s website:
A CNN/ORC International post-debate poll shows that 48% of likely voters think Paul Ryan won the vice-presidential debate, while 44% think Joe Biden won. SPECIAL NOTE OF CAUTION #1: This poll does not and cannot reflect the views of all Americans. It only represents the views of people who watched the debate. SPECIAL NOTE OF CAUTION #2: The sample of debate-watchers in this poll were 31% Democratic and 33% Republican. That indicates that the sample of debate watchers is about eight points more Republican than an average CNN poll of all Americans, so the respondents were more Republican than the general public.
If the methodology wasn’t so questionable, they wouldn’t have needed to add these special notes of caution. The margin of sampling error for results based on the total sample is plus or minus 5 percentage points — and they make no mention of whether the incredibly small sample size of 381 respondents were ‘likely’ or even ‘registered voters.’ Or even if they were adults, for that matter!
CNN should be ashamed — and no one should take their flash poll seriously.
Btw, the methodology of CNN’s polling is being questioned quite a lot these days. Their polling for the presidential debate was something that many found laughable:
Oh, Great! CNN’s “Debate Polling” Only Tracks Old White Southerners
Adrienne, I believe you have exceeded your level of expertise. We need to bring Adam Ducker into this decision; DA is the resident expert on polls and he would be able to tell us if CNN’s polls are questionable.
Posted by: Frank at October 12, 2012 2:49 PMMr. Daugherty writes; “Given that I’m not the world’s best judge of whether I’ve offended people…”
I understand autism a little better than others perhaps do on this site as our youngest son (age 35) suffers from it. I will relate a funny incident that happened that might help others understand the condition a little better.
We had finished eating a meal at a restaurant and had decided to have an ice cream desert at another place. The waitress came to the table to clear the dishes and asked…”Will you be having dessert?”
Our son answered…”Yes, but not here.”
As for the debate last night, I was upset by the way Biden kept interrupting Ryan. It reminded me of some talk show hosts who talk over their guests. It is rude, irritating, and makes it impossible to follow the conversation.
I really wanted to hear what both Biden and Ryan said. And, many times I couldn’t hear what Ryan was saying because Biden was talking out of turn.
Should Biden ever have to step into the shoes of the president I wonder how in the world he could ever consult with others and understand what they were saying. He seemed so impressed with his own thoughts and ideas that he was incapable of listening. This unfortunate trait of Biden’s could be devastating to us in times of peril.
I also found it unnatural for anyone to be grinning all the while serious topics were being discussed. There is nothing funny about the possibility of Iran developing nuclear weapons. There is nothing funny about our ambassador and others being murdered. There is nothing funny about the sad state of affairs of our Social Security and Medicare programs.
Posted by: Royal Flush at October 12, 2012 2:53 PMExactly Royal Flush, Biden should have just sat there and let Ryan take potshots at him, his boss and the current administration. Here’s a good rule of thumb, whether you be a dem or a repub, dont take advice from you opponents in an election.
Posted by: Paul at October 12, 2012 2:59 PMPaul…do we want a debate…or a monologue?
Posted by: Royal Flush at October 12, 2012 3:03 PMApparently you want a monologue.. in debates people get interuppted, it gets heated and there are arguements. other wise you are just watching 2 guys sit at a desk together giving speeches.
Posted by: Paul at October 12, 2012 3:13 PMPaul, so what you are saying is, just throw the rule book in the garbage and talk as loud as you can. The guy with the biggest mouth wins….great.
Posted by: Frank at October 12, 2012 3:24 PMIf this is true, why are the only people who are happy with Biden’s actions the Obamaites. Most polls and surveys show Biden was rude and crude.
Posted by: Frank at October 12, 2012 3:27 PMPaul…you have obviously never participated in an officiated debate. What you describe is nothing but an exercise in bullying.
“Bullying exists because of a lack of adult intervention.” Stuart Green
Posted by: Royal Flush at October 12, 2012 3:40 PMCry me a river boys, i’ve seen enough debates to know that other then the occasional interuptions there was nothing out of the ordinary in this one. You’re just bitter that Biden never once gave in on any point. And if he did look rude and crude so be it. If he had behaved otherwise you would all be calling himout as a wimp who can’t lead.
Posted by: Paul at October 12, 2012 3:51 PMPaul…”And if he did look rude and crude so be it. If he had behaved otherwise you would all be calling himout as a wimp who can’t lead.”
Nope…he would have looked like a sitting Vice President, not a grinning bully.
Posted by: Royal Flush at October 12, 2012 4:05 PMLOL…someone wrote that Biden looked like Jack Nicholson in the movie, “The Shining”.
Posted by: Royal Flush at October 12, 2012 4:13 PMHahaha! It’s hilariously funny how all the rightwingers are so upset over the fact that Joe Biden interrupted Ryan during his streams of lies and twisting of the facts.
It’s like they didn’t notice how often Romney rudely and aggressively interrupted and talked right over the president and Jim Lehrer in the presidential debate just last week. It’s like they’ve never seen rightwing pundits in the media rudely interrupt and talk over any person on the left, no matter who they are, from the very moment they open their mouth and begin to speak on any subject.
But oh! Joe Biden was interrupting!!! He was smiling over Ryan’s lies and long-winded stump speech talking points! The fact is, rightwingers are so frequently outrageously rude and disrespectful and nasty that all this whining is ABSURD.
Posted by: Adrienne at October 12, 2012 4:51 PMI am surprised that Adrienne doesn’t know that even elected members of her own party call Biden…”Crazy old Joe”. Biden talks and doesn’t listen. Adrienne writes and doesn’t read.
Posted by: Royal Flush at October 12, 2012 5:05 PMIt’s ok Royal Flush, you can’t win them all. You never have or will support Obama or any other democrat. I’ve been a reader on this site for a long time and you responses are pretty predictable. “he’s rude and crude” now his smIle is a problem too. I’d trust joe Biden and his shining smile to put real people’s problems before politics then I would trust Paul Ryan. “what were seeing here is the Obama foreign policy unwinding” what a joke. Obama has way more credibility internationally then dodge drafter “no one asked for my birth certificate” Romney.
Posted by: paul at October 12, 2012 5:17 PMAdrienne calling someone outrageously rude and disrespectful, maybe she needs to reread some of her own comments. Talk about OUTRAGEOUSLY RUDE!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: KAP at October 12, 2012 5:17 PMWe now know why Big Gulps are forbidden in NYC. Biden had a massive “sugar high” and was almost debating himself.
Posted by: Royal Flush at October 12, 2012 5:18 PMRoyal, KAP,
The baby-whining is funny! Everyone knows that what the right is really upset about is that Joe Biden won the debate and did a good job taking on Ryan’s lies.
Posted by: Adrienne at October 12, 2012 5:25 PMPaul apparently doesn’t read well…”for a long time”. I have a number of times written of my voting democrat. And, I have not written one word about anyone “winning” in this debate. I have written about the bullying, and disgusting actions of a sitting Vice President.
I suspect that voters who tuned in to watch or listen to the debate expected to hear both candidates speak without the eighty some interruptions by biden and the moderator.
Posted by: Royal Flush at October 12, 2012 5:26 PMGenerally re Biden - evidently the Obama insiders treat Biden like crap, much like the Kennedy folks dissed LBJ. It must have been fun for Biden to know that “crazy old Joe” beat “smart young Obama”
I think that the reason we have such a strong difference of opinion about the debate is in our assumptions. Biden acted like an old brat. He laughed and made faces. Liberals assume that is how they should treat conservatives. They like to see this. Conservatives and probably independents, see this as rude and childish.
Adrienne
The poll explained. Relatively more Republicans watch the debates than Democrats. Maybe that is because Democrats are low info types. The poll measured people who watched the debates. There is no way they could conduct a valid poll of this group that would have had a larger number of Democrats. The poll was valid for what it did.
This is the nature of samples. It is interesting but in this case not dishonest or invalid.
The question we might ask is why Republicans are more engaged than Democrats and what does that mean?
Posted by: C&J at October 12, 2012 5:30 PMCan either Paul or Adrienne tell us why they believe biden found a discussion of Iran possibly producing a nuclear weapon, the murder of an American ambassador and others, and our huge national debt so funny?
Posted by: Royal Flush at October 12, 2012 5:33 PMJoe Biden schooling Ryan at last nights vice presidential debate:
Ryan: “You can cut tax rates by 20 percent and still preserve important preferences for middle-income taxpayers.”
Biden: “Not mathematically possible.”
Ryan: “It is mathematically possible. It’s been done before. It’s precisely what Republicans are saying …”
Biden: “It has never been done before.”
Ryan: “It’s been done a couple of times.”
Biden: “It has never been done before.”
Romney talking about his tax plan at last weeks presidential debate:
“Let’s look at history. My plan is not like anything that’s been tried before.”
LOL!!!
Posted by: Adrienne at October 12, 2012 5:38 PMCan either Paul or Adrienne tell us why they believe biden found a discussion of Iran possibly producing a nuclear weapon, the murder of an American ambassador and others, and our huge national debt so funny?
I think Biden was laughing at Ryan’s many lies. I know I often find it funny when people blatantly lie.
Posted by: Adrienne at October 12, 2012 5:40 PMWith obama dropping in the national polls, and in the “toss-up” states, I can understand why dems and libs must grasp for anything they believe might halt this decline.
Hang on to biden folks…your reading of his performance as a win is about the only good news likely to come your way before November.
Posted by: Royal Flush at October 12, 2012 5:42 PMCan either Paul or Adrienne tell us why they believe biden found a discussion of Iran possibly producing a nuclear weapon, the murder of an American ambassador and others, and our huge national debt so funny?
I think Biden was laughing at Ryan’s many lies. I know I often find it funny when people blatantly lie.
Posted by: Adrienne at October 12, 2012 5:40 PM
Which, of the three examples I gave, was a lie that biden was laughing at?
Posted by: Royal Flush at October 12, 2012 5:47 PMThe poll explained. Relatively more Republicans watch the debates than Democrats.
Yeah. At least on CNN — which has been trying very hard to become The New Fox News!!!
Maybe that is because Democrats are low info types.
Dems watch way more MSNBC. Also, many Democrats no longer trust CNN — because of such stuff as their focusing their debate polling on Old White Southerners.
“Dems watch way more MSNBC” (than CNN)
Did you come to that conclusion from the tea leaves in your cup?
Posted by: Royal Flush at October 12, 2012 5:55 PMWhich, of the three examples I gave, was a lie that biden was laughing at?
Oh Ryan had lies and GOP talking points for every topic that was discussed. To me it looked like Biden was laughing at each of those lies/talking points after Ryan said them.
Just my opinion.
Go watch the debate again if you want to see what I mean.
Posted by: Adrienne at October 12, 2012 5:57 PMWell Adrienne…I guess no answer means you are stumped. None of these three topics were funny…except for you and biden. But, as one who laughs at others religious beliefs, I have an understanding of what tickles your funny-bone. That doesn’t explain biden however.
Posted by: Royal Flush at October 12, 2012 6:11 PM“Dems watch way more MSNBC” (than CNN)Did you come to that conclusion from the tea leaves in your cup?
No, I used my evolutionarily developed brain.
I also read blogs so I know that a whole lot people have been discussing CNN’s move to cater to the far right for a while now. In fact, there’s been
Sorry to say it, but I was at a fundraiser for a local conservative candidate where he paid for a bigscreen to watch the debate, and to everyone in the room, Biden won.
The best analogy I’ve heard is that it was like a Captain arguing with an Admiral. Both stayed on point and there weren’t any gaffes by either side, but Biden simply had more gravitas.
And understand, I don’t want any part of what Biden/Obama are selling, but calling him a bully in the debate is like calling the winner of a boxing match the bully. You’re supposed to win. Not whine.
Biden came out swinging, and a lot of what he said came across very convincing - it’s being dissected post debate - but he delivered his “punches” with authority. I was expecting Ryan to lay into him, but the number of times Ryan could even remotely be called on the “offensive” was a very small number. Ryan had a real chance to make the debate about Obama and his policies, and instead, Biden made the debate about Romney and numbers - and Ryan looked pretty bad to me when grilled about the details of his budget saving plan.
Biden won. Virtually everyone (50+ people) in the room I was with, and I was the youngest there - said some form of the same thing “Could’ve been better… can’t win em’ all… at least he held his own.”
I doubt it will make much difference, we’ll see of Nov 6th, but that’s the truth as seen from the North.
Cheers,
Posted by: Yukon Jake at October 12, 2012 6:22 PMOpps, my link didn’t go through. That last sentence should read:
In fact, there’s been a CNN boycott going on for several weeks following the Democratic Convention
Well Adrienne…I guess no answer means you are stumped.
I did answer. You just chose to ignore my answer because the real purpose of it was to attack Biden.
Posted by: Adrienne at October 12, 2012 6:34 PMThe link provided by Adrienne does not substantiate her viewership claim.
“No, I used my evolutionarily developed brain.”
Sadly, unfavorable mutations occur.
Posted by: Royal Flush at October 12, 2012 6:42 PMYukon…thanks for your observations. It doesn’t sync with other viewers in the lower 48 and that’s OK.
Posted by: Royal Flush at October 12, 2012 6:46 PMRoyal & Adrienne
Adrienne is right about MSNBC. I have seen lots of reports about that. It is probably the reason MSNBC is the weakest of the major cable news.
It is interesting that Adrienne thinks CNN is right wing. It goes to show how ever shrinking the liberal world is getting.
Adrienne
Biden laughed inappropriately. Even if he thought Ryan was lying, it doesn’t make sense to laugh at such a serious topic. If someone lied to you about the murder of one of your friends, would you react by laughing?
Biden went in with the assignment to roll his eyes, laugh and sigh. It shores up the base. People like you love it when your side is bullying and rude. You think it is your right. It worked for the purpose intended.
Posted by: C&J at October 12, 2012 6:48 PMPaul said:
“It’s ok Royal Flush, you can’t win them all. You never have or will support Obama or any other democrat”
Speaking of democrat; Biden goal was to simply feed red meat to the left. The people agreeing with Biden will never vote for anyone but Obama and the socialist.
“No, I used my evolutionarily developed brain.” Adrienne
Caught in the missing link time warp, right Adrienne?
Yukon Jack; I would be curious to know if those who thought Biden won were a majority women or men. The Obama people have touted their support from women; but from everything I have seen, women seem to be offended by the way Biden acted. This could come back to bite O&B is the butt if women were offended. The idea that the aggressiveness of Biden and the rudeness is part of the debate may work with men, but may be offensive to women. Just a thought; but I’m sure we will be seeing polls on the subject.
One can hope that biden will school his weak boss in debate etiquette and high public official demeanor. Then, we could look forward to obama laughing at Iran’s nuclear weapon ambitions, the murder of Americans in Libya, and our national debt.
Posted by: Royal Flush at October 12, 2012 6:53 PMJack, can you point me to the website showing MSNBC with greater viewership by dems than that of CNN? I know CNN is in trouble, but I didn’t realize it could be that bad. Is CNN’s loss MSNBC’s gain? Or, has FOX siphoned off some of those lost CNN viewers?
Posted by: Royal Flush at October 12, 2012 7:01 PMAdrienne is right about MSNBC. I have seen lots of reports about that. It is probably the reason MSNBC is the weakest of the major cable news.
Yeah, and those ratings are about as accurate as using old people and their landline telephones to try to obtain accurate political polling! Old-school television ratings don’t track DVR or online television viewing at all — yet that’s how younger people watch everything. So, the ratings do not reflect what’s actually being watched.
It is interesting that Adrienne thinks CNN is right wing.
CNN has indeed gone right wing and has been losing credibility. It’s become very obvious that they are now competing with Fox for the cable TV viewership of old people.
It goes to show how ever shrinking the liberal world is getting.
I’m sure you’d love to believe that, but in fact the opposite is true.
Posted by: Adrienne at October 12, 2012 7:40 PM“I’m sure you’d love to believe that, but in fact the opposite is true.” Adrienne
Actually this is not true; liberalism is failing in America. Only 19% of Americans are liberal. They have had the support of moderates, who make up about 38% of Americans, but the support of moderates is falling. The Tea Party has allowed Conservatives (41%) to realize they have a voice and they have been awakened. All elections in the future will be highly affected by Conservatives.
Posted by: TomT at October 12, 2012 7:55 PMAdrienne
If you believe the ratings are in error, you have a great opportunity, since advertising rates are based on them. You can become the prophet of ratings. You should become a consultant.
Re the ever shrinking liberal world - you are the one who keeps on telling us that so many people, networks and organizations are moving to the right or are there already. If we have that rightward movement, it implies that there are fewer on the left.
You keep on mentioning old people and not in a very good way. You know that as the old population swells as a % of the population,the young will need to pay higher taxes to support them. When I was young, five of us paid for each old guy. Soon it will be just two of you paying for me. I have said that I am willing to work longer and/or take a little less in benefits. Your liberal friends think this is a bad idea. What do you think?
Posted by: C&J at October 12, 2012 8:01 PMTomT — what a nice fantasy world you must have. I bet Obama and Biden lost the last election there, didn’t they?
If you believe the ratings are in error, you have a great opportunity, since advertising rates are based on them.
I have a friend who works in television and they’re already well aware that this is a huge problem. Advertisers also know it, too. No one quite knows what to do about it. Until they can start tracking online and DVR ratings, they really aren’t going to be able to know what the actual ratings are.
There’s a problem too over the fact that younger people have come to despise being forced to watch commercial advertising — and always fast forward right through them whenever they can. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but this is one reason why advertisers have now started to show commercials before movies at movie theaters. They’ve found this to be one way to force young people who have been going out of their way to avoid commercials entirely to watch.
If we have that rightward movement, it implies that there are fewer on the left.
No, there are not fewer people on the left. What’s happening is that things are changing fast, and old school radio and TV simply can’t keep up with the transformation that is taking place due to new technology and the internet.
They are pandering to the right on TV and radio now because older people still watch and listen and don’t rely on DVR and the internet as much. Younger people DVR what they want to watch at their convienience, and increasingly watch television via the internet, and they listen to internet radio at home, and download music and podcasts which they listen to on their portable media devices while on the road.
So, to me it makes perfect sense that CNN has now decided to try to compete with Fox for their viewership — they want the older people because that is who they and their advertisers know are still watching and listening.
For instance, last nights debate? Many older folks probably watched it via a television station, while I was watching it off of a livestream on the internet.
Re: your question
What do you think?
I’m with Obama/Biden on Taxes and Social Security because I think they’ve got the right ideas. I know you probably aren’t going to agree, yet you should still at least take look at what they have to say on these issues.
Posted by: Adrienne at October 12, 2012 9:08 PMAdrienne
Obama can claim to make health care more efficient. I don’t believe him, but it is plausible.
The problem with Social Security is different. It is demography. The large generation of the baby boom was followed by much smaller generations. These generation, of which you are part, must support a large and growing number of seniors with a smaller number of earners. The government cannot save in the way we can, since it is the source of money. It can only have what it borrows and taxes in the current generation.
So if old people like me are going to keep on getting the benefits we gave to our parents, we will have to tax young people like you at a much higher rate. That is simply because of numbers.
A generation ago, five of us carried each retiree. A few years from now there will be only two of you to pay carry the same load that five of us used to carry.
There is no way around this math. The people involved have already been born. No additional people will be born in 1975 and live expectancy among those born in 1955 are rising.
YOu may be willing to pay more so that people like me can have more. But the truth is that many of us don’t need it. I am entitled by current law to the highest possible payout of SS. I like money and will be happy to get it, but I need it less than a majority of the young people who will be paying the taxes to give it to me. Beyond that, our health is better. We can work a bit longer.
When FDR thought up SS, life expectancy was 63. Many people were expected never to get SS. In fact, you could expect to collect for -2 years. Today it is nearly 80 and rising. People like me could be collecting SS for 20 or 30 years. If modern medicine gets any better, we could be collecting more years than we worked.
I don’t think it is fair for the younger generations, who had no part in running up the debts we have today and enjoyed no benefits, to be stuck paying for the results of demography.
It was easy for us boomers. We enjoyed the dividends of demography as workers. Do you really think it right for us to continue to demand privileges at the expense of the younger generations?
Posted by: C&J at October 12, 2012 10:15 PMSorry for this late retort, Mr. Ducker. I have been concentrating on constructive pursuits the last 24 hrs.
Your reading comprehension has failed you. I did not tell you to “quit” anything. I just suggested that your calling someone a winner by fractions of a point in an unscientific, random poll is goofy.
Posted by: John Johnson at October 13, 2012 1:11 AMThe problem with Social Security is different. It is demography. The large generation of the baby boom was followed by much smaller generations.
No, that’s not the problem. You’ve got it all wrong.
Republicans always like to talk about demography, and what people should be willing to give up, but that’s bunk.
The fact is, Social Security was actuarialy stable after it was overhauled in the 80s — this is a fact that is not up for debate. In 1983, the 15% increase in the FICA tax was meant to provide for the boomer generation to assure Social Security coverage through 2040 when the SS Trust Fund was supposed to be re-examined and adjusted if that was necessary. The amount of money that that poured into SS from all the American workers created a surplus — leaving plenty left over every month to invest.
But then it wasn’t invested. Instead, it became part of the government’s overall operational budget so that all the money that poured in every day from SS began being spent every day. We’re talking about $500,000,000 each day being added to overall government spending and used as a way to hide deficit spending. This started under Reagan/Bush.
Republicans have always wanted to get rid of Social Security
so they tried to ruin it — but in reality none of this is the fault of the American worker. It’s the fault of politicians.
Add to that the fact that a radical upward shift in income toward the top 1% began — which has meant more income above the payroll tax cap threshold. This reduced revenue for Social Security (and much of Medicare) from a projected 90% of national income to a figure around 83 percent. And then on to of that, the financial crisis brought on by the reckless and under-regulated Wall Street banksters who crashed our economy meant millions of Americans have become jobless and/or saw their wages stagnate. This further depleted SS revenues.
Blaming demography and attempting to put the burden on the people is absolutely dead wrong. Instead, we must blame politicians for putting the people into this position on Social Security.
Rather than hurt people we need to impose a financial transactions tax on Wall Street and use it to make up for the Social Security shortfall. And if that doesn’t quite cut it, we should also cut the salaries of all those in Congress, and the even the president. Let’s fact it, those people can afford it — they’re practically all millionaires.
Posted by: Adrienne at October 13, 2012 2:01 AMOne more thing. You wrote:
It was easy for us boomers. We enjoyed the dividends of demography as workers.
This was the case for the majority boomers, but not for late boomers or for GenXer’s like myself. In fact, all you early boomers made things much, much harder and hellish for us. You didn’t leave your jobs or retire early and we were always stuck behind you waiting for career advances and wage increases that were, and often still are, a long, long time in coming our way. This has meant we’ve always been far poorer than most of you are, and a huge number of us haven’t been able to save much if anything for retirement.
That’s what’s so incredibly ironic and horrific about Romney/Ryan talking about moving towards a voucher program for Social Security starting for those 55 and under! This is sure to severely hurt those in my own age demographic who well understand that we have always been screwed over simply by having the rotten luck of being born behind all of the boomers. The fact is, the late boomer and GenX demographic is chock full of people who are truly going to need Social Security to be there for us in our old age. Yet if the Republicans win it won’t be. Instead, we’ll be sure to be faced with as many hard struggles in our senior years as we have struggled through during our entire working lives.
People as wealthy as Romney/Ryan don’t seem to care at all about this particular demographic problem.
Posted by: Adrienne at October 13, 2012 3:13 AMCorrection:
That’s what’s so incredibly ironic and horrific about Romney/Ryan talking about moving towards a voucher program for Social Security _Medicare_ starting for those 55 and under!
Adrienne, you are addressing me in Comment #354518; I believe you meant to address C&J. If you are addressing me, I am in total confusion as to what you are talking about.
Posted by: TomT at October 13, 2012 8:43 AMJohn Johnson: “Your reading comprehension has failed you. I did not tell you to ‘quit’ anything.”
That’s strange. The first time I read your comment I thought you told me to “quit over reacting.” I’m simply reminding you that if your first thought is to be critical of the validity of the topic then it’s best you just skip to another thread. I don’t mind.
And by the way, I am a nerd. I like it. It earns me a ton of cash. Why else would my two primary topics on this site be the economy and polling if I weren’t incredibly nerdy in my real life? Space is another topic of interest but I don’t write about it.
“I just suggested that your calling someone a winner by fractions of a point in an unscientific, random poll is goofy.”
What’s with this word unscientific? Who’s unscientific in their polls?
Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 13, 2012 9:18 AMAdrienne
I understand the accounting ideas of SS. But these are just that - accounting. The government has borrowed money from itself. It is like you writing checks to yourself in order to save money. When it comes time to pay, you still have to have real money at that time.
I don’t believe that understanding demography is a conservative thing. I sure hope not. It is simple logic that five people can carry a load, physical or financial, than two people can. This change in the working population is they key to lots of success or failure.
So that you don’t need to be partisan, I suggest you read something about Japan or Europe. More than anything else, demographics is destiny.
When countries go through a demographic transition of lower birthrates, they get a demographic dividend in that dependency ratios are lower (fewer kid and still not so many old people). We enjoyed the peak of this during the 1990s. But as the population ages, this lower cost rises.
You actually understand more than you know when you write “But then it wasn’t invested. Instead, it became part of the government’s overall operational budget so that all the money that poured in every day from SS began being spent every day.”
So now draw the right conclusion. No matter what the reason, we do not have that money today. How will the promises made be kept? There is only one way. The working population in the next generation will have to pay more.
I think you are younger than I am, and I am grateful that you want to give your hard earned money to support my comfortable lifestyle, but I am telling you that - as the recipient of this largess - that I don’t think it is fair. Many of us old people in waiting can afford to take more responsibility for our own upkeep and let you keep more of your own money.
Re boomers - I am a middle boomer and Chrissy is at the very end of the baby boom. The early boomers made life more challenging for us too. This is another effect of demography. We live in the shadow of the previous generations. Some cast bigger shadows. Given your obvious attitudes, I am surprised at your enthusiasm to keep paying for us.
Re the GenX need for SS. If we keep along the current trajectory, you will not have it when you need it. The boomers will have sucked up all the resources before you arrive. Politicians can promise and you can demand benefits, but the money needs to come from somewhere and the math doesn’t add up, because of the demography.
I know this looks “conservative” to you, but all that I am doing is matching resources to priorities. I see all the time people talking about needs and making demands. The needs and demands always exceed the resources you can find to satisfy them.
Posted by: C&J at October 13, 2012 9:43 AM“Quit over reacting, Mr. Ducker. The polls all have a margin of error that you might want to consider before you start jumping up and down over fractions of a point. It’s nerdy.” JJ
” I respectfully ask you not to comment on my posts if your only response is to tell me not to post on a subject interesting to me. There are other posts, even other sites where you can go.” AD
Where did I suggest you not post?
In response to “unscientific”….let’s say you call me as a pollster and I tell you I am a registered voter, but not; that I am a Dem, but not; that I am voting for O, but not? What don’t you understand about this?
John Johnson: “Where did I suggest you not post?”
If you say that it’s not implied you think I should not write about polls you consider too close or too unscientific because it makes me seem like a nerd and I’m not changing minds anyway, then we can just agree to disagree and move on. I wasn’t trying to make a big deal out of it.
“What don’t you understand about this?”
That you can lie doesn’t make the poll unscientific. The methodologies involved make it scientific or not such as random sampling, randomization of the order of questions asked, etc. But for example re-weighting a scientific poll to match the way one assumes it should be weighted instead is completely unscientific.
Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 13, 2012 11:24 AM“But then it (SS surplus) wasn’t invested. Instead, it became part of the government’s overall operational budget so that all the money that poured in every day from SS began being spent every day.”
Adrienne,
I beg to differ with you. The surplus was indeed invested. It was invested in US treasuries as required by law. Since the inception of SS, by law, income to the trust funds must be invested, on a daily basis, in securities guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the Federal government.
The SS trust fund bonds are just as real as treasury bonds held by private pension funds and other investors world wide. I might note that treasuries are a major portion of any private conservative pension or investment fund.
The allegation that the SS funds were simply used for general government obligations is untrue. SS funds may have been a source for deficit financing through bonds but they were never simply transferred to the general government for use.
The famous debt clock that is frequently used contains the SS bonds as part of the overall debt of the US. The deficits of past years and the basic debt of the US accounts for surplus SS funds.
The Trust funds have the same claim on the US for payment as any other holder of US treasuries.
The problem of course, is redemption of those bonds. The simple solution is to roll over those bonds to publicly issued treasuries. That would not be a problem today but might be in the future if interest rates rise significantly and there is a crowding out of the market.
Whether it was a wise strategy to finance general obligations through SS bonds rather than raise the money on the public bond market or raise taxes during the SS surplus years is an open question.
The basic point is that no President or Congress stole any money from the SS revenues. SS was one of many investors in deficit financing of government obligations.
Rich
It doesn’t matter. Indeed we have a legal right to get “our” money. But that money will come from higher taxes on young people. The government borrowed money from itself.
So this is what we have. We made a deal among ourselves and the older generation of our time. We agreed that we would pay for our parents and we decided that when we were old we would get the same or greater benefits. Not part of this conversation were the young people, many not yet even born. We promised in their names to pay ourselves. We were legally able to do this. The current generation can make promises that bind future ones.
My argument is NOT that it is not legal or that we cannot compel them to pay. I am simply saying that it is not fair, since their burden will be much greater than ours given the changes in demography.
I am more than a little disappointed at the base selfishness and hypocrisy of my liberal friends here. You guys always talk about helping the less fortunate and everybody doing their part for the good of the community. But it seems that only us conservatives are REALLY willing to give up something of ours to help others. You guys want to rip off others for your own comfort and cloak it in the robes of justice. It is not justice. It is not fair and it is not generous.
Posted by: C&J at October 13, 2012 8:15 PMC&J,
As I have said in the past, it is an absurd position to take that those who taxed themselves an excess amount for decades in order to save and invest for their SS retirement should now feel “selfish” or hypocritical. The baby boomers saw a problem and prudently prepared for it.
Normally, you would think that conservatives would applaud such foresight and acceptance of responsibility. So, what’s the problem?
“The government borrowed money from itself.”
C&J,
It borrowed money from the SS Trust Funds that it would have had to borrow on the public markets. The differences between the “special” treasury SS bonds and generally treasury bond obligations and debt are a distinction without a difference. The only real difference is in the type of investor in US treasury bonds.
Posted by: Rich at October 13, 2012 10:03 PMNerdy b.s. Fractions of a point conducted in an unprecise, unscientific manner make results a guess. Arbitrary adjustments with some sort of convoluted footnote don’t make them any better.
Posted by: John Johnson at October 13, 2012 10:28 PMC&J,
At the risk of belaboring this issue, why should repaying SS held treasury bonds be any different than repaying US treasury bonds held by any other party? Why single out SS? Why not ask private pension funds, investment banks, sovereign funds, etc, holding treasuries to forgo some or all of the principal and interest? What’s the difference?
Posted by: Rich at October 13, 2012 10:32 PMRich
Because the money is not there. It must be taken from the young people to be given to us. We preserved SS for our parents and should take pride in that.
But the money we “saved” will need to be paid back by somebody.
“why should repaying SS held treasury bonds be any different than repaying US treasury bonds held by any other party?” Because of the size of the generations. It is just a much bigger problem. Beyond that, SS laws can be changed. You and I are not entitled to a specific amount of money.
I just think we should give the kids a brake. Indeed, I say again, we are entitled and can legally take the money, but maybe we should be more generous and ask not so much what our country can do for us but ask what we can do for our country.
The fixes are simple. People like me, who were smart & lucky enough to save and invest, would get a little less. This is not “fair” to us. We did the right things and now will pay twice. We will still let the people who did not save as much have what they need. I don’t like to reward poor choices, but this is also something we cannot avoid. Our choice is to take greater responsibility again, or grab money from others. We might also choose to work a little longer, given the greater health we will likely enjoy due to modern medicine. Is this too much to ask of us?
Once again, I would appeal to those, like me, how did the right things, not to take all we can from the system. I understand that my liberal friends are less accustomed to charity, but maybe we should help others a bit more instead of demanding that all the giving come from others.
Posted by: C&J at October 13, 2012 11:39 PMRich:
Why single out SS? Why not ask private pension funds, investment banks, sovereign funds, etc, holding treasuries to forgo some or all of the principal and interest? What’s the difference?
Exactly. There is no difference, but politicians and people like Jack always claim that “the money is not there.” That is absolute utter nonsense. The people already payed out 15% more in FICA taxes to cover the boomer shortfall. It is not the fault of the people that the government totally mismanaged everything. And it is not now up to those who mismanaged the surplus and used that money to cover their deficits to now say they have to cut SS or make younger generations pay out for what we all know we already paid for following the overhaul of SS in 1983.
So again, I’ll repeat:
Rather than hurt the people, we could easily impose a financial transactions tax on Wall Street and use it to make up for the Social Security shortfall. And also cut the salaries of all those in Congress (who allowed the mismanagement of SS to happen), and the even the president’s salary. All of these people can afford this — they’re practically all millionaires, and all of them benefited from the raiding of the people’s Social Security trust fund.
Clearly something like this is what needs to happen.
Republicans want to act like Social Security was always a bad idea, and that government theft is somehow our fault. It is ridiculous.
Jack:
Indeed, I say again, we are entitled and can legally take the money, but maybe we should be more generous and ask not so much what our country can do for us but ask what we can do for our country.As usual you get things all backwards. You know we have already paid an enormous amount of money due to make up the shortfall, and you know our country is now attempting to screw us over. That “generosity” crap simply does not fly. This too does not fly: “I am more than a little disappointed at the base selfishness and hypocrisy of my liberal friends here.” The fact is Jack, the people have already done what needed to be done for our country, and it is now time to ask what our country intends to do for us after they believed they had the right to take unfair advantage of our Social Security money. Posted by: Adrienne at October 14, 2012 11:46 AM
In many ways the funding of union pensions is not unlike the funding of SS beneficiary payments. And, we find many union pension funds in the same financial straits as SS.
Posted by: Royal Flush at October 14, 2012 11:49 AMI would never have believed that the following quote would come from Adrienne. “It is not the fault of the people that the government totally mismanaged everything.”
THE people vote for THE government we have. As C&J often write, we need government to perform certain things that we can not do for ourselves as efficiently. Over time, we have asked government to do more and more of those things that we should be doing for ourselves. Now that we have seen the downside of some of those things, many of the advocates for big government are whining about big government.
Rather than advocate for government to do less, and individuals to do more, many continue to ask government to continue to do even more of what they have not done well.
That sounds like a description of insanity…to me.
Posted by: Royal Flush at October 14, 2012 12:10 PM
THE people vote for THE government we have.
NO ONE voted for the government to use our Social Security money. NO ONE. This is not a partisan issue. Every working American has paid into the SS program. None of us had an option not to pay the 15% extra in FICA taxes. The government cannot be allowed to renege on their obligation.
Rather than advocate for government to do less,
Translation:
Allow the government to act as though they didn’t steal from the Social Security fund.
This is simply not acceptable.
and individuals to do more,
Translation: Ignore the fact that individuals have already paid for the SS boomer shortfall, and accept the fact that what we paid in has been stolen from us.
This is simply not acceptable.
many continue to ask government to continue to do even more of what they have not done well.
No. Make the government rectify the problem they caused. Force them to do what needs to be done to do right by the people. Anything else is simply not acceptable.
That sounds like a description of insanity…to me.
No, what is insane is letting thieves off the hook. What’s insane is allowing thieves to steal from you without putting up a fight. What’s insane is allowing this nation’s old people to suffer in poverty and privation without any help in their old age while this nation’s leaders continue to collect their lifetime pensions and enjoy their lifetime tax payer funded healthcare while callously turning a blind eye to the fact that all of the people’s suffering has been caused by them.
Posted by: Adrienne at October 14, 2012 12:53 PMWhat part of, “Of the people, by the people, and for the people”, don’t Adrienne understand?
I would like to know how many times the Democrats have tried to stop the Federal Government from spending SS funds as part of the general fund? In fact, everytime a Republican has proposed protecting SS funds, the Democrats have attacked them as trying to steal old people’s safety net and throw them over the cliff.
Posted by: Frank at October 14, 2012 1:05 PMAdrienne
What we have done is admirable. We have supported our parents in their old age. It was relatively easy for us, since there were literally twice as many of us supporting each of our parents as there will be our children supporting us.
Generosity is not one of the characteristics you guys understand. The left understands better anger and entitlement. I ask you to join me in taking less than we can and you respond that you are entitled. So am I. Probably more so. But I see that the needs of others may be greater than my own and I am willing to do more than complain that they are being cheated.
“And also cut the salaries of all those in Congress (who allowed the mismanagement of SS to happen), and the even the president’s salary.” You cannot do this, since it happened in the past.
Adrienne - you can keep your money if you need it. I am advocating that people like me get less. We have done things right and can make it w/o our full SS benefits. I am not a millionaire, but I can afford it. If you cannot, I am not asking you to do give up anything. Although I would ask you to work a few more years, if your health allows.
I don’t understand your objection. I am saying that people like me (i.e. the richer 20% of the country)should take less. I am not saying that this is “fair”. We paid in and we planned ahead. But because of our prudence and luck we CAN afford to take less. I am specifically NOT asking the poor to suffer. If you do not have sufficient resources to survive w/o SS, I am proposing that you get to have the additional help.
It is strange. Somebody offers to take less so that you and others can have more and it seems to piss you off. Is it because we want to help and before being forced by government power?
Posted by: C&J at October 14, 2012 1:07 PMAll this talk about Social Security and not one of you mentions why it was forced into being in the first place.
How many of our elderly…those who worked in sweatshops, began work as children, worked seventy to eighty hours per week, had no/poor health care throughout their lives…died in squaler and destitution?
If Social Security falls into the hands of civilian investers/insurance corporations, or is completely disolved, as conservatives wish, how long will it take to ‘return to those good old days’?
Posted by: Marysdude at October 14, 2012 9:27 PMMarysdude
Indeed, we could discuss history from 1933. Most of it is no longer applicable, since the types of jobs people did back then largely no longer exist. Back in 1933 the average life expectancy was 63, so the average SS recipient might expect to collect for -2 years. Only a few who signed up for SS back in 1935, when it first came out, are still alive today, but maybe you prefer to talk about these things.
IF you are interested in the subject, perhaps we can discuss how as part of the stimulus, the Obama Administration cut the Social Security payroll tax and financed benefit payments from the general fund (i.e. borrowed from the Chinese among others.) This ended FDR’s vision that SS be self-financing. It happened w/o much notice. In fact, I bet this is the first time most of you have thought about it. But we do indeed need to thing about the http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/TheEndofSocialSecuritySelfFinancing_Blahous_v1-1_0.pdf ">implications of the change .
I don’t know of any serious person who wants to dissolve SS. I personally would like to give people more choices.
But what bothers you liberals is that your own greed and selfishness preclude solutions that might help the young people of tomorrow cope with the demographic challenges.
I suppose you want to talk about conditions in 1933 because you want to avoid talking about the future. As I wrote above. I don’t understand your objection. I am saying that people like me (i.e. the richer 20% of the country)should take less. I am not saying that this is “fair”. We paid in and we planned ahead. But because of our prudence and luck we CAN afford to take less. I am specifically NOT asking the poor to suffer. If you do not have sufficient resources to survive w/o SS, I am proposing that you get to have the additional help.
Posted by: C&J at October 14, 2012 9:44 PMNobody looted SS surplus funds. The SS Trusts purchased government treasuries in order to earn interest on the money. If the general government had been swimming in surplus revenue, the SS Trusts would still have purchased the treasuries and the government would have taken the money and issued the bonds. That has been the law since the inception of SS. It is a basic conservative investment scheme to protect the principal, earn some interest on the money and provide for future anticipated outlays.
The general government indeed used the money obtained for the bonds to finance its deficits. But, SS was and is no different than any other investor who has purchased treasuries for safety in preservation of principal and modest return of interest on the principal.
There is absolutely no legitimate reason to single out SS for some sort of soft default on the bonds or to reduce benefits to relieve pressure on the requirement of the general government to roll over the bonds in the public market.
Who, by the way, cut taxes while increasing the national deficits and debt? Conservatives under Reagan. Who ran two wars off the books while cutting taxes? Conservatives under Bush.
Now, those very same people have the audacity to suggest that it is SS that is the cause of our deficit/debt problems. Nonsense! The entitlements have been self supporting from their own dedicated tax source and have not added a penny to the deficit or debt. In fact, the entitlements are in surplus.
I understand that there are funding issues in the long term for the entitlements. But lets be clear about the current deficits and debt. It hasn’t been caused by the entitlements.
Rich
There is a simple truth that abides no matter what we say about other thing. Current USG obligations can be paid only by the current generation or my borrowing from future ones. The USG cannot “save” in the way you can because it makes the money. In any case, it did not save but borrowed.
In the future, your and my SS will be paid by the young people of that time. There will be fewer of them supporting each of us than there were of us to support our parents. We also will live longer.
My contention is that we should give the kids a brake and not take so much of their money.
You guys think you are entitled and don’t much care that that the young people will be paying much more. You seem to think because Reagan and Bush were bad (in your opinion) kids not even born during those times should give more of their money to you. It doesn’t make sense.
The bottom line is that I am asking you to be more generous and patriotic and you guys hate the idea. Simple. No matter how much you cloak this in rhetoric, you get more and they get less.
Posted by: C&J at October 15, 2012 6:51 AMThis SS discussion would make one’s head explode.
The folks that signed off on a huge FICA tax increase for SS in 1983 while simultaneously cutting federal income taxes and increasing deficits and the national debt, now want SS beneficiaries to forgo the fruits of their effort.
It seems that much of those tax cuts and resulting deficits were financed through lending by SS. Wars are not a problem. Just keep them off the books.
No mea culpas from the right on the consequences of their credit card approach to fiscal management. The cut taxes mantra continues. Romney promises a 20% across the board tax cut. Sure, it will be revenue neutral when those high income tax loopholes are closed. Dream on! Well, actually it is a nightmare.
Posted by: Rich at October 15, 2012 10:20 AMRich
“The folks that signed off on a huge FICA tax increase for SS in 1983 while simultaneously cutting federal income taxes and increasing deficits and the national debt, now want SS beneficiaries to forgo the fruits of their effort.”
Who would these people who signed off be? The people who did this in 1983 are virtually all retired or dead, or certainly will be one or the other within a few years.
Most of the people who will be paying for this are those who were not of working age or not even born in 1983.
The wars, btw, were NOT kept off the books. They were included in the defense budget but not specifically broken out in separate categories.
Anyway, your argument is that the boomer generation that benefited from the tax cuts is now supposed to benefit again at the expense of the younger generation.
There is no way around this one. You are being selfish and exploitative of the younger generation and you justify it as some sort of retaliation against leaders in the 1980s. Of course, those are the same people who will be GETTING that money.
Posted by: C&J at October 15, 2012 6:49 PMNew heading…With Obama still losing ground the after V.P. debate, will he slit his throat or stand up like a man and face defeat?
Posted by: Eyeswideopen at October 16, 2012 2:44 PMEyeswideopen:
Obama has gained ground since the VP debate so I’m not sure what you’re getting at. He’ll need a good performance tonight though if he wants a chance at re-claiming the lead.
Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 16, 2012 2:54 PMHe trusted them completely and they did not let him down, They made a very good team, They’ve continued to visit him, given good north face denali jacket sale hot sale him presents and sent cards, even personally thanked him so I’m sure he must have been a good employer, He often liked and made friends of the people he worked for and he enjoyed the work, both physical and otherwise. He trusted them completely and they did not let him down, They made a very good team, They’ve continued to visit him, given him presents and sent cards, even personally the best quality with northface on sale good for use thanked him so I’m sure he must have been a good employer, He often liked and made friends of the people he worked for and he enjoyed the work, both physical and otherwise.
Posted by: north face denali jacket sale at October 29, 2012 2:49 AMGrazie per aver condiviso questo aiuta a liberare, è molto interessante leggere la pena, mi piace il tuo stile di scrittura, romperlo. Mantenere il rilascio di queste informazioni.
Posted by: www.monclermilano.net at November 6, 2012 4:12 AMthe world famous museums, He will be the industrial design technology is applied to casual clothing, he creates a unique clothing series of characteristic is implicit sewing
Posted by: Beats By Dre Cheap at November 27, 2012 10:52 PMwww.aggsonsaleus.com establishment of a national ugg outlet store defence industryReal UGG Boots Cheap Sale Online
US Origin UGG Boots For Sale
100% Real UGG Boots Cheap Sale, Free Shipping.
Australia UGG Boots Outlet Store, Official UGG Boots for Cheap Online.
Discount UGG Boots Outlet Store Sale Online.
Authentic UGG Boots Outlet Store, Save 50% Off For worldwide.
Cheap UGG Boots Hot Sale, 100% Australia Sheepskin.
Buy UGG Boots Outlet Online
Authentic UGG Boots On Sale
Every year, thousands of women will complain about the pains of wearing stilettos and other Christian Louboutin bianca pumps high-heeled shoes. If you are fond of wearing high heels, then you have also experienced shoes Christian Louboutin pain starting from the sole of the foot to the tops of the legs from their prolonged use. Christian Louboutin pigalle patent leather pumps You may even complain of arthritis, of twisted ankles and of damaged egos from tripping over yourself in these shoes.
Posted by: Christian Louboutin bianca pumps at December 2, 2012 9:39 PMThe summer of 2003 is quite representative of the NBA nike air max 95 uk in the last decade madness “arms race”.Lakers, Timberwolves, Spurs prepare for war, big strength after laugh “like a woman’s wardrobe is always at nike air max 90 cheap least a piece of clothing,” like Mark - Mark Cuban, also re-instigated transaction from the Celtics provokeWalker.
A team of high-level (especially General Manager) lambasted frequently appeared in north face jackets sale the NBA, in recent years, but through a deal to turn over the phenomenon.Danny - Angelina and Mitch - Kupchak deeply understands that, in discount north face jackets 2007 and 2008, the two were emancipated through the introduction of Kevin - Kevin Garnett and Paul - Gasol.
in addition to him, no one thought she was beautiful. they said, she was just a baby, almost like a child, I’ve never seen her But to listen to the maid Leah spoken
Posted by: Beats By Dre at December 4, 2012 9:28 PMkept it for two months inthis awkward position. After this drastic penance, he forgave himself.Such is the young man of eighteen, but weak in appearance
Posted by: Baltimore ravens jersey at January 25, 2013 10:31 PMseo , | ar condicionado automotivo, http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php ar,ar condicionado automotivo, http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php,-,ar condicionado automotivo,- ar condicionado automotivo, carro ar http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php, de ar bomb ar condicionado automotivo | | | http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php | http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php ! ! ! seo fuck http://google.com.br | http://google.com.br http://google.com.br ar condicionado automotivo, de ar condicionado automotivo ar,ar condicionado automotivo, ar condicionado automotivo,-,ar condicionado automotivo,- ar condicionado automotivo, carro ar ar de carro, de ar bomb ar condicionado automotivo | | | | | | | , , , , http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php , , - ar condicionado automotivo, de ar condicionado automotivo ar,ar condicionado automotivo, ar condicionado automotivo,-,ar condicionado automotivo,- ar condicionado automotivo, carro ar ar de carro, de ar bomb ar condicionado automotivo | | | | | | | ! ! ! ! | ! ! ar condicionado automotivo, de ar condicionado automotivo ar,ar condicionado automotivo, seo fuck ar condicionado automotivo,-,ar condicionado automotivo,- ar condicionado automotivo, carro ar http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php, de ar bomb http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php | | | http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php | | | , , , , , ,seo fuck ,
HTML Formatting Tips:
<strong>bold text</strong>
<em>italicize text</em>
<u>underline text</u>
<strike>strike text</strike>
<a href="http://domain.com/link">link text</a>
<blockquote>quote text</blockquote>
By clicking the "Post" button you agree to abide by the Rules For Participation. Please report abuse and inappropriate behavior to editor@watchblog.com.
