WorldTraveller

This is true, but for Obama there is a heightened level of intensity and sensitivity for his part.

The media is shamelessly complicit in obamas reelection effort.

This topic is being discussed extensively in another thread (and the band plays on) I pretty much broke it down and debunked this "non partisan study"

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-cites-independent-non-partisan-study-written-former-staffer_649193.html President Obama cited an "independent, non-partisan study" in Mansfield, Ohio earlier today: "And you do not have to take my word for it," said Obama. "Just today, an independent, non-partisan organization ran all the numbers on Governor Romney’s plan. This wasn’t my staff. This wasn’t something we did. Independent group, ran the numbers." The president is right, up to a point: The study was not written by an Obama staffer, but by a former Obama staffer--and a close ally. The study, titled “On The Distributional Effects Of Base-Broadening Income Tax Reform,” was written by Samuel Brown, William Gale, and Adam Looney. As Looney's biography page at the Brookings Institution states, "Looney was the senior economist for public finance and tax policy with the President’s Council of Economic Advisers and has been an economist at the Federal Reserve Board." As for Gale, another coauthor, he's in favor of tax hikes and another stimulus. "As the debate over the so-called fiscal cliff and its potential effects continues in policy and political circles, it just may be the case that the U.S. economy will be set on a better path, says Brookings Institution senior fellow William Gale. … And for good measure, tie in a temporary fiscal stimulus, he says. Enacting a payroll tax cut or government spending on infrastructure will have a stronger impact on the economy than the Bush tax cuts, Gale argues," according to the Washington Post. Likewise, Gale's a close ally of the White House and took part in Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's "Fiscal Responsibility Summit" in 2009, not that he's partisan or dependent, according to President Obama's statement today. While there, at the summit, Gale again pushed for tax hikes. “William Gale said that there needs to be an “exit strategy” for the recession, especially since we got into this by spending and taking on too much debt. He went on to urge policymakers to consider what happens when the government cuts back and, further, what types of taxes are needed in order to have a smooth landing,” according to the White House. So far, "independent, non-partisan" economist William G. Gale has visited the White House 12 times. "This wasn’t my staff," Obama insists.

The term "Moral Hazard" comes to mind

Oh the irony....

Looks like I wasn't the only one to pick up on the absurdity of this poll, except in this article, it uses a different metric that comes to the same conclusion that I did: A worthless new Quinnipiac poll gives Obama a big edge in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. The survey shows Obama up 6 in Ohio and Florida and 11 in Pennsylvania. These are all bigger margins than Obama received when he won all three states in 2008 -- Florida (2.8%), Ohio (4.7%). Pennsylvania(10%). It seems unlikely that Obama would be doing better in these states than he did 4 years ago. If you look at page 9 of the detailed results provided by the pollster (now linked to the New York Times and CBS for these state polls), you get the answer for the odd results: Those surveyed revealed who they voted for in 2008. Here are the results by state (Page 9): Florida: Obama 53%, McCain 40% Ohio: Obama 53%, McCain 38% Pennsylvania: Obama 54%, McCain 40%. In other words, the bias towards Obama voters is 10% in Florida and Ohio, and 4% in Pennsylvania, compared to how people actually voted in these states in 2008. These results are as valuable as the media that sponsored them. It is a shame that Quinnipiac, which was once respected, has thrown in with the propagandists. Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/08/propaganda_poll_shows_obama_ahead.html#ixzz22JjxAuyz

Not sure, but what I can tell you for sure is that the assumptions made by the BROOKINGS INSTITUTE are unfounded, and Romney has never suggested anything of the like. That IS what we do know for SURE.

I just looked at the internals of the polling data, and here you go: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/08/01/us/politics/01quinnipiac-new-york-times-cbs-poll.html Florida: Democrats: 36 Republican: 27 Ohio: Democrats: 35 Republican: 27 Out of Independents: Florida: Lean Republicans: 39 Lean D: 38 Ohio: Lean R: 37 Lean D: 38 2010 Voter Registration figures show Ohio with R +1 In this poll it gives D + 8 2010 Voter Registration figures show D + 5 This poll Gives D + 9 And when you consider that polling has consistently showed that the energy is with the R's, there is only one logical conclusion: Oversampling of D's This poll is bogus

The whole conclusion of the report is absurd, reason being is they derive their findings based on a "revenue neutral" conclusion, so in order for it to be revenue neutral from their perspective is to come through higher taxes from those making under $250K, even though there is nothing in Mitt's plan that suggests higher taxes for those folks. From the article: Romney has not specified how he would compensate for the sweeping tax cuts. But making up for the lost revenue, Brookings analysts said, “necessitates a reduction of roughly 65 percent of available tax expenditures.” “Such a reduction by itself would be unprecedented,” Brookings reported, “and would require deep reductions in many popular tax benefits, ranging from the mortgage interest deduction, the exclusion for employer-provided health insurance, the deduction for charitable contributions, and benefits for low- and middle-income families and children like the [earned income tax credit] and child tax credit.” - Mitts tax plan: Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains Eliminate the Death Tax Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) Romney's plan to raise more revenues are through unspecified closing of certain loopholes. So this report assumes that the only way they can come to a revenue neutral outcome is through elimination of mortgage deductions for those making under 250k. Which has never been proposed, however he did specifically mention: "Mr. Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, said he would eliminate or limit for high-earners the mortgage interest deduction for second homes, and likely would do the same for the state income tax deduction and state property tax deduction." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304432704577346611860756628.html So again, they basically assume that he is going to make the tax cuts 100% revenue neutral and that he will cut the mortgage deductions of those making under $250K, even though he has never mentioned that he would do this and specifically has stated that it would be for upper income earners.

Well, 538's model comes from a left wing hack, so I wouldn't put too much stock into that. However, The Quinnipiac poll wasn't encouraging for Romney. Having said that, there were two polls just released from Florida before the Quinnipiac poll that showed it a 1 point race, So the Quinnipiac Florida Poll most likely is an outlier. The Ohio one is another story, polling has been showing consistently about 2-6 point lead for Obama, and without Ohio, Romney loses.

No, it's not "my policy", there has been unprecedented levels of intervention from both fiscal and monetary policy perspectives that it's nearly impossible to undo all the harm that has been done. We're knee deep in it, and a removal of all these easing policies would be akin to a doctor removing life support from his patient. Best way to do it would be to ease off so the economy doesn't go into remission. There are no short-term solutions to the housing market.

again, sure I can complain, it goes against everything I believe to be sound fiscal and economic policy. I will always feel this way until proven wrong,

You're right! I am using liberal tactics, and it's fun Still doesn't change the fact that you're a bigot. Nothing to get offended by, if America accepted Archie bunker then I'm sure we can accept you too

He doesn't have to win Iowa. He could win new Hampshire, Colorado or Nevada . However Iowa probably gives him his best chance out of the group. Colorado and newhampshire aren't too far off though

The Japanese are the OG's of QE, and where are they 20 years later? So what does Ben bernanke do to "fix" our economy, that parallels to that of the Japanese liquidity trap? More QE Where has this gotten us so far? The point is that interventionist policies usually produce mild short-term gains but more drawn out long-term stagnation. The best thing we can do is not always look for the politically expedient solutions, but give us a cold hard dose of reality, and let the markets determine value. It works, sure there are hiccups, but over the long-term free markets work. Just let us keep more of our money, stop placing such onerous regulations that stifle growth, open up territories for more oil drilling so that we can become completely energy independent, offer more job retraining programs and give us more access to foreign markets.

Why? Sure I complain, I complain because I deeply disagree with the policies enacted from this administration. I don't say this to be bombastic, but I believe that this president is the most ideologically driven, economically incompetent man that has resided at the white house in my life time. He believes that an ideal economy is one crafted from the school of robin hood, where you take money from the rich and productive and redistribute it to the less fortunate, to even out the playing field, and he does this all in the guise of "fairness". Never have I been part of a successful company where you add incentives for those who do less and disparage and penalize those who do more. I can't stand it, I believe it goes against everything that made this country great and I guarantee that his policies will never produce good results.

It's all good, some people are racists and others such as yourself are bigots. No biggie

Yes, the sad reality is that the sooner the market can find its natural bottom, the sooner we can begin a true housing recovery. Gee, what a foreign horrible concept, allowing the free markets to do their thing. You can't intervene and place a bottom in the market, all you are gonna do is delay it, the housing market is way to massive for this to happen. Every housing program this administration has attempted has failed miserably and the one thing they all had in common was that they all had interventionist crafted elements to it. The best thing the government can do is begin to restore the faith from the American public, a good start would be to stop intervening in every aspect of the economy that is weak and be effective stewards of our tax payer money.

You're a bigot

DeMarco said his decision was based on “extensive analysis” of HAMP-PRA, and that he had concluded the program would not improve the rate of foreclosures in the country while at the same time reducing cost to taxpayers. DeMarco has long been a thorn in the side of liberals and his announcement on Tuesday heightened those tensions. Liberal economist Paul Krugman, in a New York Times blog post titled, “Fire Ed DeMarco,” wrote, “Deciding whether debt relief is a good policy for the nation as a whole is not DeMarco’s job. His job — as long as he keeps it, which I hope is a very short period of time — is to run his agency.” Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/79211.html#ixzz22F0jEw2X

You really shouldn't be telling other people to "think" a little more, just sayin'

You mean you saw him as presidential before this comment, even though you wanted to kill him?

Like Krauthammer says, this should be replayed over and over and over till the end of time.