How's your family voting?

[後援会]

Well, for one, we have seen that centrally planned institutions are often quite bad at instituting stimulus. Yes, in a perfect world, we would have perfectly counter-cyclical spending. And more often than perfectly calibrated stimuli, we see overreactions to not-so-serious problems (see: how stimulus worked out in China) that tend to create problems down the road. And it's fairly obvious why. Imperfect information, the fatal conceit, etc. etc. etc.

The reason why short-term stimulus is acceptable in this case, or at least why short-term spending cuts would not be desirable, is because we took such an awful dip, it's quite obvious that we're in a situation that can responded to without going over the top. I don't believe that we can plan for economic dips deep enough so that they cannot be handled by automatic stabilizers. They don't happen very often. We're probably looking at the Great Depression and Now.

And at least if we have a good, detailed timetable for how we're going to reform entitlements, people are acting with the knowledge of how much we're greasing the wheels. Those should already be priced in. We wouldn't spark a downward animal-spirits spiral.

Obama promised entitlement reform. He had a debt commission - which he frankly ignored. Half of his campaign is predicated around attacking entitlement reform. Every powerful interest group in the Democratic Party is lined up against entitlement reform. The base has rallied against it. It's ludicrous to suggest that either Obama or the Democratic Party would be capable of seriously pushing any kind of entitlement reform. As opposed to the GOP, which has actually voted on the Ryan Plan (in the House). The Democrats aren't in favor of short-term stimulus and long-term entitlement reform. They're in favor of short-term stimulus and long-term "lol we have no clue what we're doing". And If anything else, we're much more likely to flal off the fiscal cliff with Obama. The only candidate who any investor believes could deliver short-term stimulus and long-term entitlement reform is Mitt Romney.

[King]

You're contradicting yourself, sir.  You're saying it's great to have timetables and then attacking Obama because timetables like the debt ceiling, debt commission, etc., etc., etc. were ultimately worthless.

The Ryan plan was voted on because they knew it would be defeated.  I absolutely guarantee that Romney would not sign that bill nor would it get passed nor even make it out of committee in a 2 GOP Congress.  It was pure politics.  Ryan himself has spoken against many of the proposals within it earlier in this century. 

The Republicans plan for America is to win the election and then go from there. 

[後援会]

You're contradicting yourself, sir.  You're saying it's great to have timetables and then attacking Obama because timetables like the debt ceiling, debt commission, etc., etc., etc. were ultimately worthless.

The Ryan plan was voted on because they knew it would be defeated.  I absolutely guarantee that Romney would not sign that bill nor would it get passed nor even make it out of committee in a 2 GOP Congress.  It was pure politics.  Ryan himself has spoken against many of the proposals within it earlier in this century. 

The Republicans plan for America is to win the election and then go from there. 

That's hardly a contradiction. A budget plan that changes how medicare/social security works sets a pretty accurate timetable for how future expenses will look. Which is what the Ryan Plan does. Obama's debt commission did nothing because there was no binding timetable. It was just, "I'll get some people to make a plan, then I'll ignore it." No actual policy.

Yes, in politics, sometimes bills are changed before they are passed, largely because other people get to have input. Will the Ryan plan pass in its current form? Of course not. That's not how politics works. After all, we saw Obamacare change many times before it actually passed. But will Mitt Romney try to sign some kind of entitlement reform based on the Ryan plan? Absolutely.

It's again this double-standard. The sausage factory of politics is only wrong when Mitt Romney engages in it. Personal animus again.

[Beet]

Obama promised entitlement reform. He had a debt commission - which he frankly ignored. Half of his campaign is predicated around attacking entitlement reform. Every powerful interest group in the Democratic Party is lined up against entitlement reform. The base has rallied against it.

Which is mostly silly election year politicking. The fact is, Obama released a $3.6 trillion deficit reduction plan last September, and he agreed to a $4 trillion plan including entitlement reform last summer. This is all public knowledge. $4 trillion long term deficit reduction is in his 2013 budget.

At the end of the day, I'm skeptical of all of these plans. In 1995, the goal of balancing the budget by 2002 was considered a reach. And indeed, the 2002 budget failed to be balanced-- but the 1998-2000 budgets were. In 2001, it was thought that the debt would be paid off by 2010. And so on. These things aren't as predictable as fiscal planners think.

But to say Obama hasn't put something on the table is false. Yes, Democrats want to protect the social safety net relative to Republicans, so they're willing to go slightly higher taxes for the rich and would vote slightly smaller entitlement cuts. Yes, they're making a lot out of these differences in the campaign. But despite all the partisan bickering the actual differences in what the parties are willing to vote for at the end of the day, in terms of numbers, are not all that great.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It seems as if you're trying to convince yourself of this just be repeating it.

[後援会]

Which is mostly silly election year politicking. The fact is, Obama released a $3.6 trillion deficit reduction plan last September, and he agreed to a $4 trillion plan including entitlement reform last summer. This is all public knowledge. $4 trillion long term deficit reduction is in his 2013 budget.

At the end of the day, I'm skeptical of all of these plans. In 1995, the goal of balancing the budget by 2002 was considered a reach. And indeed, the 2002 budget failed to be balanced-- but the 1998-2000 budgets were. In 2001, it was thought that the debt would be paid off by 2010. And so on. These things aren't as predictable as fiscal planners think.

But to say Obama hasn't put something on the table is false. Yes, Democrats want to protect the social safety net relative to Republicans, so they're willing to go slightly higher taxes for the rich and would vote slightly smaller entitlement cuts. Yes, they're making a lot out of these differences in the campaign. But despite all the partisan bickering the actual differences in what the parties are willing to vote for at the end of the day, in terms of numbers, are not all that great.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It seems as if you're trying to convince yourself of this just be repeating it.

That abortion of a deficit plan? The plan that included $1 trillion in savings for not being in Iraq (aka something not entitlement reform that already happened) and then $1.2 trillion that the "super committee" would naturally create. And then $1.5 trillion in tax hikes (a non-starter). And then almost no changes at all to how Medicare/Social Security work? Oh yeah, that "entitlement reform" plan? I can't believe you're even trying to spin that as a real plan.

I have also literally never met a nonpartisan investor or businessman who could say with a straight face that Obama would be better for the economy. Of course, Obama winning wouldn't be an excuse to instantly flee from the stock market, but it'll certainly be disappointing.

[CultureKing]

Hmm:

Immediate family:
Me: Obama
Brother: Obama
Dad: Obama
Mom: Obama

Mom's side:
Aunt: Obama
Uncle: (probably Obama?)
Cousin 1: Obama
Cousin 2: Obama

Dad's side:
Aunt: Romney (though I have a feeling that she may vote for Obama on the DL, she hates a lot of politics and only supports Republicans for economic reasons)
Uncle 1: Romney
Uncle 2: Romney
Uncles 3/4: don't vote (but would be Romney voters if they did)
Cousins (roughly 8 of them): Don't vote but would be solid Romney voters (even-though they heavily depend on social services like Medicaid)

[CatoMinor]

Me: Johnson

Mom: Romney
Stepdad: maybe Johnson
Dad: Either Romney or Johnson
Sister: Romney
Brother: Obama (I am working to get him to vote for Stein)

[Spamage]

Father-Romney
Mother-Romney
Brother-Romney

Mom's Side

Maternal Grandmother- Not voting (says she always chooses a bad candidate was Obama in 08 but Bush before that)

Aunt 1- Obama

Aunt 2-Romney
Uncle 2- Romney
    Cousin 1 Obama
    Cousin 2 Not Voting

Aunt 3-Obama
Uncle 3 Obama
    Cousins 3-6 Obama

Aunt 4- Romney
Uncle 4- Romney
    Cousin 7 Obama
    Cousin 8 Romney
    Cousin 9 Romney

Dads Side

Maternal Grandmother- Romney

Aunt 1- Obama
Uncle 1-Obama

Aunt 2- Romney

Aunt 3- Obama
Uncle 3- Obama
     Cousins 1-6 Obama

Aunt 4-Obama
Uncle 4 Obama
     Cousin 7 Obama

Aunt 5 Romney

Aunt 6-Romney
Uncle 6 Romney

Aunt 7- Romney
Uncle 7 Romney

Uncle Romney

Total
Romney 17
Obama 20

[King]

You're contradicting yourself, sir.  You're saying it's great to have timetables and then attacking Obama because timetables like the debt ceiling, debt commission, etc., etc., etc. were ultimately worthless.

The Ryan plan was voted on because they knew it would be defeated.  I absolutely guarantee that Romney would not sign that bill nor would it get passed nor even make it out of committee in a 2 GOP Congress.  It was pure politics.  Ryan himself has spoken against many of the proposals within it earlier in this century. 

The Republicans plan for America is to win the election and then go from there. 

That's hardly a contradiction. A budget plan that changes how medicare/social security works sets a pretty accurate timetable for how future expenses will look. Which is what the Ryan Plan does. Obama's debt commission did nothing because there was no binding timetable. It was just, "I'll get some people to make a plan, then I'll ignore it." No actual policy.

Yes, in politics, sometimes bills are changed before they are passed, largely because other people get to have input. Will the Ryan plan pass in its current form? Of course not. That's not how politics works. After all, we saw Obamacare change many times before it actually passed. But will Mitt Romney try to sign some kind of entitlement reform based on the Ryan plan? Absolutely.

It's again this double-standard. The sausage factory of politics is only wrong when Mitt Romney engages in it. Personal animus again.

It's wrong when both sides participate it.  I don't understand how that gives Romney the right to win.

[後援会]

It's wrong when both sides participate it.  I don't understand how that gives Romney the right to win.

Because one person should not be immediately disqualified on the basis for participating in politics (just like the other guy), especially when we have much more pertinent things to consider - such as who would be better for the country. I mean, you're free to disagree with neoclassical economic theory and back Obama, because naturally he'd be the better candidate in that case. But this? This is not reasonable.

[King]

It's wrong when both sides participate it.  I don't understand how that gives Romney the right to win.

Because one person should not be immediately disqualified on the basis for participating in politics (just like the other guy), especially when we have much more pertinent things to consider - such as who would be better for the country. I mean, you're free to disagree with neoclassical economic theory and back Obama, because naturally he'd be the better candidate in that case. But this? This is not reasonable.

He should be disqualified if there's nothing else to him.  Romney is a total zero of a candidate.  I can't emphasize this enough.  Romney has nothing to do with neoclassical economic theory because there is nothing to suggest he has any real affiliations to any theory of anything.  You're projecting your beliefs onto Mitt Romney.

Romney's vague proposals are either nonsense that don't subscribe to any theory or so similar to Obama they are pointless.  Beet has given you plenty of examples where Romney's beliefs are not different from Obama yet you dismiss Barack as political theater.  You've got it wrong.  Romney is the panderer here.

[後援会]

Romney's vague proposals are either nonsense that don't subscribe to any theory or so similar to Obama they are pointless.  Beet has given you plenty of examples where Romney's beliefs are not different from Obama yet you dismiss Barack as political theater.  You've got it wrong.  Romney is the panderer here.

Except they aren't at all the same. On important issues like the fiscal cliff and entitlement reform, the two candidates take very different approaches. The only major approach on which they both claim to share the same stance was corporate tax reform, an issue where Obama declined to lead.

[opebo]

I am a lone Pub island in a sea of Dems.

You don't belong.  You should move to Arizona, or at least the Inland Empire.  Or get better taste.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Mother - probably SPD
Father - No idea, either SPD or CDU though.
Maternal grandmother/stepgrandfather - probably NPD
Maternal grandfather - I'd guess CDU
Maternal stepgrandmother - Not sure if she'll be able to go out and vote next year. Seems to be moderate CDU.

Uncle - probably Labour

[Sbane]

I am a lone Pub island in a sea of Dems.

You don't belong.  You should move to Arizona, or at least the Inland Empire.  Or get better taste.

I think he was talking about his family. His neighborhood is plenty Republican. So he isn't that alone, until he moves to Silver Lake of course.

[Reaganfan]

Updated totals:

Romney: 168
Obama: 139

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Mother: Johnson
Father: Romney
Me (If I could): Johnson

Mothers Mother: Romney
Fathers Mother: Romney

Mothers Sister: Obama
Uncle 1: Obama
Mothers Brother: Obama
Aunt 1: Obama

Fathers Sister: Obama
Uncle 1: Very, very quiet about his own politcs. I would guess Romney this time around, but I have no idea.

Great Aunt 1: Romney
Great Aunt 2: Romney
Great Aunt 3: Romney
Great Aunt 4: Romney

[Supersonic]

Not to interrupt, but how does everyone know who their family voted for so well?

No one in my family ever says who they vote for. Ever. Apparently its 'private'.

I don't know if it's a British thing or not..

[後援会]

Not to interrupt, but how does everyone know who their family voted for so well?

No one in my family ever says who they vote for. Ever. Apparently its 'private'.

I don't know if it's a British thing or not..

No, no, I think that's pretty normal. America is different. Our partisan politics have distinctively lined up with social and cultural cleavages. So you can pretty accurately predict someone's voting pattern without actually talking to them about politics.

There's a very good book out there called The Big Sort (by Bill Bishop), which the Economist gives a one-page summary of here, describing this phenomenon.

That being said, it's probably responsible for why the rhetoric from some of the leftists here can be very shrill. Because the some of them probably don't actually interact with anyone right-of-center in their daily lives. Of course, that can go both ways (as the book shows), but the user demographics of the internet differ from the demographics of the rest of the world.

[opebo]

I am a lone Pub island in a sea of Dems.

You don't belong.  You should move to Arizona, or at least the Inland Empire.  Or get better taste.

I think he was talking about his family. His neighborhood is plenty Republican. So he isn't that alone, until he moves to Silver Lake of course.

.

Oh I see.  Yes I always forget about the existence of Republicans in California.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Mrs. M - Romney.  Daughter - Probably Obama.  The rest - (insert Gary Coleman death point pic here)

[CultureKing]

Not to interrupt, but how does everyone know who their family voted for so well?

No one in my family ever says who they vote for. Ever. Apparently its 'private'.

I don't know if it's a British thing or not..

In my family everyone who votes is pretty adamant about their positions.. We don't follow the 'avoid politics' at the dinner table thing very well (meanwhile religion is a non-issue because only one person is religious in my family).

[Niemeyerite]

Not to interrupt, but how does everyone know who their family voted for so well?

No one in my family ever says who they vote for. Ever. Apparently its 'private'.

I don't know if it's a British thing or not..

I know how my entire family votes, I even know how my neighbours vote . Id's say everyine in my family (in Spain) votes PSOE, with some voting IU, but only 2 or 3. In Brazil, almost everyone votes PSDB/DEM/PP/whoever is the right candidate, with my cousin and one of my aunts voting Green/PSOL.
My neighborhood is full of IU voters, with some socialists and 2 couples voting PP.

[Maxwell]

If Gary Johnson is not on the ballot, here is my family:

Mom: Barack Obama
Dad: Mitt Romney
Me: Undecided

IF he is,

Mom: Barack Obama
Dad: Gary Johnson
Me: Gary Johnson

[Yelnoc]

R