How's your family voting?

[RJ]

My family is voting 6-2 in Obamas favor. Both Romney votes are from women(mom and sister) and no one is changing parties this time around.

My brother's and his wife's votes don't count as much as mine since they live in Illinois!

[後援会]

Also, Obama's foreign policy still suits me, and some of his domestic agenda does.

I've yet to meet anyone who can seriously tell me that Obama and Romney would have different foreign policies.

[Хahar 🤔]

My parents are voting for Obama, obviously; I don't know of any other US citizens of voting age in my family.

[angus]

...mainly because we only have one shot at overturning the medical insurance bill passed in the last congress.

You consider that a big deal?  Can't imagine why.  

I guess if we're doing extended families here I should hazard a guess that most of those awful racist intolerant people will vote for Romney.

I'm still thinking that a federal debt that is greater than 100% of the GNP is probably our biggest problem.  Well, that and the fact that we're unnecessarily paranoid.  I think the latter is a more systemic problem with a tougher, longer-range solution, but the former, although also a systemic problem, is more easily mastered.  

But I'm not going to argue about it.  I've argued with Beet and others about the medical bill, and we all admit that we really don't yet know its cost.  My gut feeling is that it is bad legislation, passed with secrecy and in ignorance--most legislators openly admitted that they did not read it--and that it will exacerbate the debt problem.  It is a patchwork solution to a terrific and pervasive problem.  If we want to tackle the problem of rising health care costs, we should, but having this bill looming over us inhibits any meaningful efforts.

[opebo]

I'm still thinking that a federal debt that is greater than 100% of the GNP is probably our biggest problem.

That's caused by under-taxation of the wealthy - it has nothing to do with spending.

[Gass3268]

Me: Obama (Obama)
Mom: Obama (Obama)
Dad: Obama in MO (Obama in WI)
Brother: Obama (Too young to vote)
Dad's Girlfriend: Obama in MO (Obama in MO)

Maternal Grandmother: Obama (Obama)
Maternal Grandfather: Obama (Obama)

Maternal Grandfather's Sister: Obama (Obama)
Her Daughter: Obama (Obama)
Her Son-In-Law: Obama (Obama)

Maternal Grandfather's Nephew: Undecided, could vote for either Romney or Obama, doesn't like either, voted for Johnson and Walker in 2010 (Obama)
His wife: Probably Romney, but may fallow her husband (Don't know)
Their oldest Daughter: Romney (McCain)
Her Husband: Romney (McCain)
Their youngest Daughter: Obama (Obama)
Her boyfriend: Obama (Obama)

Paternal Grandmother: Obama (Obama)

Uncle on my Dad's side: Obama (Obama)
His wife my Aunt: Obama (Obama)
Their Daughter my Cousin: Obama (Obama)
Their Son my Cousin: Obama (To young to vote)

Totals

2008 it was: Obama 16-17 (15-16 in Wisconsin, 1 in Missouri) McCain 2-3
2012 it will be: Obama 18-20 (16-18 in Wisconsin, 2 in Missouri) Romney 2-4

[zorkpolitics]

Me    McCain -> Romney
Wife  McCain -> Romney
Older daughter   Obama -> undecided
Younger Daughter   McCain -> Romney
2 sisters   McCain -> Romney
Other sister   Obama -> Obama

[angus]

I'm still thinking that a federal debt that is greater than 100% of the GNP is probably our biggest problem.

That's caused by under-taxation of the wealthy - it has nothing to do with spending.

Precisely the tax policy that Obama has pursued in order to remain popular. 

I would agree that you either need to decrease spending or increase revenues.  (There's some argument that lower taxes increase revenues indirectly, of course, since lowering the tax rates spurs investment, etc.  I guess that's supply-side economics.)  Either way, this bill will only have the affect of increasing both the percent of GDP that we spend on health care, and the number of dollars spent, so it seems less like an amelioration than an exacerbation of the problem. 

Your tacit assumption may also be a right:  with the GOP in control of both branches, the debt crisis may worsen, and it's why I generally prefer divided government.  Our best years were the period from 1994 to 2000.  Growth and surpluses.  Assuming that we ignore the looming mortgage crisis that started with the housing boomlet during that period, and credit crunch that resulted in the following decade, those were good times.  Fine, we can throw the bums out in 2014.  Romney with a Democrat congress would be a good setup.

[opebo]

...Our best years were the period from 1994 to 2000.  Growth and surpluses., those were good times..

Well, lets remember, those were still terrible times compared to previous eras - particularly the '40s-early '70s.

[後援会]

Precisely the tax policy that Obama has pursued in order to remain popular. 

I would agree that you either need to decrease spending or increase revenues.  (There's some argument that lower taxes increase revenues indirectly, of course, since lowering the tax rates spurs investment, etc.  I guess that's supply-side economics.)  Either way, this bill will only have the affect of increasing both the percent of GDP that we spend on health care, and the number of dollars spent, so it seems less like an amelioration than an exacerbation of the problem. 

You know, there are other ways to increase revenue besides raising tax rates. Like for one, having the economy recover faster. And when the majority of businesses list "regulatory uncertainty" as the reason they're not hiring more people and expanding, I perhaps think Obamacare had an influence on our revenues as much as it had on our spending.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Debt making up over 100% of GDP is going to hamper growth more than you can imagine. Granted I do think raising taxes on the upper incomes to the 1990s levels would help, I fear that doing it now in a recession/gentle period like right now would really hurt revenues, as people would look for loopholes and decrease investment spending.

As it stands though, we are looking at a structural deficit even if the economy recovers to its full capacity, so spending much be reeled in or taxes raised significantly. With the government making up 30% of the economy now, cutting spending will lead to a decrease in GDP, so we are screwed either way, but we will have to make hard choices to avoid bankruptcy in the future.

[sparkey]

Myself - Johnson (Barr)
Wife - Obama (did not vote)
Mother - Romney (McCain)
Father - Romney (McCain)
Sister - Obama (Obama)
Mother-in-law - Romney (not Obama)
Father-in-law - not a citizen
Sister's fiance - dunno (dunno)
Wife's brother - not Romney (did not vote)

[後援会]

Debt making up over 100% of GDP is going to hamper growth more than you can imagine. Granted I do think raising taxes on the upper incomes to the 1990s levels would help, I fear that doing it now in a recession/gentle period like right now would really hurt revenues, as people would look for loopholes and decrease investment spending.

As it stands though, we are looking at a structural deficit even if the economy recovers to its full capacity, so spending much be reeled in or taxes raised significantly. With the government making up 30% of the economy now, cutting spending will lead to a decrease in GDP, so we are screwed either way, but we will have to make hard choices to avoid bankruptcy in the future.

I can agree with most of this. Though I am very skeptical of the effect of raising income taxes rates (for the rich) to the 1990's levels. For one, that would generate about $49 billion in tax revenues every year. Or roughly 1/18th of what we need to pay for the ARRA.

Also, nit picking point, government spending actually makes about 41% or so of the GDP. It was 42.5% in 2010 (according to the OECD). We've probably dropped a little from 2010, but we're still probably still around 41%. Of course, only a little over half of that is federal spending, but we know many programs are both partially state and federal. And how large parts of the ARRA were primarily used to shore up state budgets. And that's not counting tax expenditures, which are about another 7% of GDP.

Though I do agree with on that point. Reducing government spending will hurt the economy in the short-term. And deficits also hurt. And raising taxes hurt. Every possible option will hurt. And considering how weak the economy is, I'd oppose both raising tax rates and seriously cutting current spending. At the same time, there are steps we can take to reduce the future debt without harming the current recovery - like tackling future obligations by reforming the entitlements that are really going to send us careening off the fiscal edge. Since that's not money we're spending right now, but rather money that we will spend in the future. So cutting that wouldn't decimate aggregate demand the same way cutting current spending would.

Which is why I find the Democrat/leftist opposition to entitlement reform and frothing hatred of Ryan so astounding. There are tons of things I want the government to do - from providing public education, some degree of public healthcare, a strong social safety net, nutritional aid, building infrastructure, subsidizing childcare, promoting new energy resources, development aid abroad, and others. All expenditures that entitlements will crowd out and expedintures that I used to think Democrats wanted to preserve.

[Reaganfan]

Updated totals:

Romney: 144
Obama: 101

Not including leaners.

[opebo]

Updated totals:

Romney: 144
Obama: 101

Not including leaners.

Many of us didn't give any exact number of family members, Naso.

[Reaganfan]

Updated totals:

Romney: 144
Obama: 101

Not including leaners.

Many of us didn't give any exact number of family members, .

I didn't include that, either. Those numbers are the for sures. My sister, my uncle, ect. I didn't include leaners, possibles or vague guesses.

Do not tamper with NEPOTE Polling Data.

[SPC]

Updated totals:

Romney: 144
Obama: 101

Not including leaners.

Did you adjust for how they voted last election?

[Reaganfan]

Updated totals:

Romney: 144
Obama: 101

Not including leaners.

Did you adjust for how they voted last election?

New voters, and switches were included in NEPOTE™ polling data.

[Sbane]

Me: Obama
Dad: Obama ( I think it's the PPACA that did it for him since he doesn't like higher taxes and Obama's plan would raise it at the margins)
Mom: Obama
Sister: Needs to register first but likely Obama.
Uncle: Haven't asked him but he hates California Democrats so likely Romney.

[Torie]

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

[Link]

Man, reaganfan, you've got a complicated family.

Yes just like the real Reagan.  I guess that's what happens with all those "family values."

Anyway I never really thought about it till this question was asked.  I guess my family has real family values.  I can't think of a single blood relative who would vote for a Republican for president.  All the Republican candidates in my lifetime have been totally against my family's values.

[TNF]

Paternal Grandfather: Unknown
Paternal Grandmother: Not voting (McCain)
Father: Not voting (Didn't vote)
Stepmother: Not voting (Didn't vote)
Half-sister: Too young
Half-sister: Too young

Maternal Grandfather: Obama (Obama)
Maternal Grandmother: Not voting (Didn't vote)
Mother: Not voting (Nader)
Stepfather: Not voting (Barr)
Stepsister: Romney (McCain)
Stepbrother: Obama (McCain)
Me: Obama (Too young)
Stepbrother: Too young
Brother: Too young

Girlfriend: Obama (Too young)

[Indy Texas]

In the immediate family (me and my parents), three votes for Obama (same as last time).

[King]

My grandmother I believe is the only one voting for Romney.  She's the only one that voted for McCain.

My whole family voted for Bush in 2004.  Except maybe an aunt or uncle here and there.

[Beet]

koenkai-

Where do you get the notion that the majority of businesses list regulatory uncertainty as the reason they're not hiring?

Obama doesn't oppose entitlement reform. He was clearly willing to do it in 2011. He's not playing up his willingness to do so now because it's campaign season, but it would be a top item on his agenda along with job creation if he were to win. With Romney I give him credit for picking a VP who has a specific plan. The thing is--Obama has proposed a specific plan too, from 2011.

The Democrats are actually on board with the idea of short-term stimulus and long-term deficit reduction. That's their position.

I actually think it's incomplete. For one thing, government stimulus will always be needed to keep the economy going at an acceptable rate so long as the private sector is in the downswing of the credit cycle. So any budget plan that combines short-term stimulus with long-term deficit reduction needs an estimate of how long the downswing in the private credit cycle will last. Government policy can also be used to perk up the private credit cycle, but there is the question of how much debt the private sector can sustain and at what point goosing up the private credit cycle leaves an economy exhausted. Neither party has, as far as I am concerned, even identified these dynamics, let alone made them clear to the American people. The holy grail, so to speak, would be to return to a pre-1980 dynamic, where a gently increasing private credit cycle in line with (but no faster than) GDP created an acceptable number of jobs.