I hate to double post, but I want to do some more evaluation here and de-mystification, especially on the subject of economics. I'll disclose that despite studying economics and public policy in college, I don't have a degree, nor am I a professional economist by trade. These are some very basic knowledge-based assumptions and analysis of the candidates' stances:
Taxes and Economic issues:
Romney/Ryan: The Republican ticket looks at taxes as either an across the board or top-down proposition. Their essential economic view is Reaganesque in outlook, that the supply side (whom they've decided to label 'Job creators' this cycle, a qualitative assessment they haven't backed up with facts) regulates the economy and creation of jobs. Therefore they posit that creating better conditions for the supply side (companies, investors, business entities), they will be more willing to take risks (invest, hire, expand, etc) and thus re-engage forward movement on the economic front. Therefore their strategy is to cut taxes on what they deem small business and larger businesses as well as investor, hence the phrase 'trickle-down economics'--that the opportunity for profit, advancement, and growth is top down. If the big-shots are doing well, you will too, because they just might hire you, pay you more, make products cost less, etc. They favor an across the board federal income and capital gains tax cut. The caveat is that many of the middle class and lower already do not pay federal income tax (and in fact, share most of the overall tax burden through the federal PAYROLL tax and sales tax).
Obama/Biden: The Democratic ticket is almost the inverse of this philosophy. They espouse the idea that growth is demand-based, a view I'd wager a majority of economists share. Demand drives the market. When there is greater demand, there is more potential business, and companies can offset the cost of expansion by expected profits. If you meet demand, you will increase profits. The Democratic ticket is asserting that the slow economy is one that lacks consumer demand, because consumer confidence is low (but has been climbing, lately) because real income isn't keeping pace with inflation (thus people are holding onto their money as opposed to spending), and there is apprehension about the future. It is the general populace, the consumer, who is risk-averse in this view, not the companies. Thus the Democratic ticket favors rolling back taxation rates on the top ~97% to Clinton-era levels, while keeping federal income and payroll taxes low on the middle and lower class. The idea is that with their tax burden eased, the populace has more discretionary income to spend on goods and services, therefore increasing demand.
Additionally, the Democratic ticket thinks demand can be stimulated (like in 2009) by occasional payouts, and public works. We'll get to that.
Budgetary concerns:
Romney/Ryan - It's difficult to evaluate the budgetary aims of the Romney-Ryan ticket because they're pretty nebulous with their details. The core assumption is that by reducing the federal deficit, we can also reduce the effective tax burden because the government will not need as much money. This is achieved through restructuring of entitlements such as Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, and other government programs, as well as tax reform. Notably, the Romney-Ryan ticket asserts that they will close taxation loopholes and some exemptions, though at this time they haven't expressed which loopholes. This isn't a partisan point, it's a simple observation. At this point, we just don't know. There is an increase in the budget for the military under Romney-Ryan, and an alteration on the budget based on their expectation to repeal to Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).
A major point of contention is that the Romney-Ryan budget slashes programs for the middle class and poor, which in conjunction with their tax cut that mainly benefits the wealthiest is 'pro-rich'. Many assessors have been unable to figure out how this balances the budget, and the other major sticking point is that the Romney-Ryan budget relies on a concept called 'dynamic scoring', i.e. the idea that the lowered tax revenue (due to their projected tax cuts) will be offset by the supposed growth it will cause in the economy (more money is earned, therefore more is taxed at the same rate). The Congressional Budget Office refuses to accept Dynamic Scoring in its evaluation of budgets.
Obama/Biden - Their projected budget ideas aren't new, but this serves as useful information. Continued restructuring of entitlements such as Medicare through the Affordable Care Act, There is supposed savings in the budget through winding down the two wars (before we pulled out of Iraq, there was a projected fund for said war, and savings are assessed from not paying into that). The CBO also dislikes this, and it is in fact a gimmick. Truthfully, we would be spending less money by having our troops come home, but it isn't actual ledger savings. It's projected savings. Revenue increases are a part of the Democratic agenda, i.e. higher taxation rates on the wealthiest Americans and some tax exemptions removed on the middle class. Effectively, taxes would go up on the middle class no matter who is elected; it's a matter of scale. Programs that benefit the poor and middle class would remain in place, even though they may be re-assessed for their effectiveness.
The major sticking point is that the Republicans assert that the Obama-Biden ticket wants to engage in more deficit spending. Neither party is projected to make a deficit-neutral budget. The big difference is the democrats want to invest in education, infrastructure, public works, and stimulus. There's some valid reasoning here even if it is done through 'printing money' by way of the Federal Reserve Bank. Economists have evaluated that interest rates are about as low was they are going to go, so now is as good a time as ever to engage in deficit spending, which will be required either way, now or later, to rebuild the decayed American infrastructure, which some analysts say is on the verge of crumbling. These, the Democrats say, would increase jobs, pay, and demand. It is the classic New Deal argument made by FDR.
In no way does either party achieve a balanced budget, but the policies they two parties intend to enact with this revenue-negative spending are concretely different.
When people vote for candidates who have no shot at winning, I believe they do it so when shit goes wrong they can say:
"Hey don't blame me, I voted for _______ ________"
By the way, if I really want to agitate, I should add that I feel Scenario 4 isn't just the 'true' scenario, but evaluating based on Scenario 4 and making an honest decision based on that reality is a moral imperative, as opposed to a protest vote.
I loved what he said about him being a devout catholic, but not imposing his views on others
When people vote for candidates who have no shot at winning, I believe they do it so when shit goes wrong they can say:
"Hey don't blame me, I voted for _______ ________"
I think the concept of a third party candidate is wholly, or at least partially irrelevant because of the ruling in Citizens United v. FEC. Why? Unless you are Ross Perot--the last national 3rd party/independent candidate to get anything near a legitimate share of the vote--you will not have the financial resources to break out into the national spotlight. That is, unless you tap an existing party structure. This is not to mention the rules that have changed since that make it harder for third party candidates to get equal access to both airtime, debates, ballots, etc.
It would be nice if Gary Johnson and Jill Stein got onto the debates this year. But it didn't happen. The silver lining is that I've got credible sources talking about how the Citizens United case could be overturned soon, since there is significant disagreements over the overall implications of this money free-for-all. As it stands, any 3rd party candidate will be outspent both in airtime, ground game, and preparation.
I also propose the following thought-experiment in addition to the above information. Suppose Gary Johnson got elected. By some miracle. I'm throwing away all common sense in order to get to this point, but there it is. He's in office. How will he govern? The two parties will have zero incentive to work with someone who is not on their caucus. They aren't going to know if he's got their backs on certain issues, or how his cabinet will be formed. Will it be all Independents and Libertarians? Or will he appoint cabinet secretaries from the two parties? Any effort from a third-party candidate will be blunted by the fact that they wouldn't carry in a wave of third-party legislators large enough to render the two-party majority-minorities into mere pluralities (a coalition government as you see in Parliamentary democracies).
Not. Going. To. Happen. That's the simple truth to it. Not as the rules stand, not as the two parties stand. So, while you might not like my reasoning that voting 3rd party at the national level is immoral because it's essentially non-participatory ego-masturbation, you can't get around the fact that it does nothing in the current environment. Also, don't construe that as me approving of the situation. It just is what it is.
I think the concept of a third party candidate is wholly, or at least partially irrelevant because of the ruling in Citizens United v. FEC. Why? Unless you are Ross Perot--the last national 3rd party/independent candidate to get anything near a legitimate share of the vote--you will not have the financial resources to break out into the national spotlight. That is, unless you tap an existing party structure. This is not to mention the rules that have changed since that make it harder for third party candidates to get equal access to both airtime, debates, ballots, etc.
It would be nice if Gary Johnson and Jill Stein got onto the debates this year. But it didn't happen. The silver lining is that I've got credible sources talking about how the Citizens United case could be overturned soon, since there is significant disagreements over the overall implications of this money free-for-all. As it stands, any 3rd party candidate will be outspent both in airtime, ground game, and preparation.
I also propose the following thought-experiment in addition to the above information. Suppose Gary Johnson got elected. By some miracle. I'm throwing away all common sense in order to get to this point, but there it is. He's in office. How will he govern? The two parties will have zero incentive to work with someone who is not on their caucus. They aren't going to know if he's got their backs on certain issues, or how his cabinet will be formed. Will it be all Independents and Libertarians? Or will he appoint cabinet secretaries from the two parties? Any effort from a third-party candidate will be blunted by the fact that they wouldn't carry in a wave of third-party legislators large enough to render the two-party majority-minorities into mere pluralities (a coalition government as you see in Parliamentary democracies).
Not. Going. To. Happen. That's the simple truth to it. Not as the rules stand, not as the two parties stand. So, while you might not like my reasoning that voting 3rd party at the national level is immoral because it's essentially non-participatory ego-masturbation, you can't get around the fact that it does nothing in the current environment. Also, don't construe that as me approving of the situation. It just is what it is.
I should add that if you don't like this, whining loudly about the two party system isn't going to do all that much about it unless you're intent on getting organized in order to change election rules from the local level upward in order to be more of a level playing field. So have at it. But simply voting for candidates that won't stand a snowball's chance won't change it. In fact, it could even dampen the possibility of success if the two main parties start to notice a seismic shift in popular opinion, going out of their way to make the rules amended to preserve their power base. Then you'd really be effed.
I REALLY didn't want to get into this here, but this comment posted next to all the accusations of Paul Ryan lying sort of grinds my gears. The comments that you are referring to by Joe Biden are also lies. The man said he believes as the church does that life begins at conception. The thing is, logically speaking, if you believe that then you believe abortion is murder. Say what you will about not imposing your views on others, which I agree with actually, to a point. No sane human being can condone murder. So, the simple fact is that Joe Biden is either lying about his beliefs or he's a murderous psychopath. And as little as I like Biden, I am pretty sure he's not the latter. His claims that the Catholic hospitals and other institutions would not be required by Obamacare to support services the Church opposes are also lies, as anyone who has read the legislation knows.
Your reasoning here is very flawed. Someone can have religious and/or moral beliefs and not act on them in terms of governing. Are you sure you're not transposing how YOU would govern given your own beliefs onto Vice President Biden? I think he gave an excellent answer on abortion, and from what I understand of the ACA, your second claim has very little substance to it other than being a GOP talking point.
To be sure, the Democrats are being lenient with religious institutions, who pay no tax, want to legislate from the pulpit, and still whine and moan. I say let's tax 'em down to size and subject them to the same standards as other employers if they want to have a voice in the political and public policy sphere.
Your reasoning here is very flawed. Someone can have religious and/or moral beliefs and not act on them in terms of governing. Are you sure you're not transposing how YOU would govern given your own beliefs onto Vice President Biden? I think he gave an excellent answer on abortion, and from what I understand of the ACA, your second claim has very little substance to it other than being a GOP talking point.
To be sure, the Democrats are being lenient with religious institutions, who pay no tax, want to legislate from the pulpit, and still whine and moan. I say let's tax 'em down to size and subject them to the same standards as other employers if they want to have a voice in the political and public policy sphere.
I'd love to know from where you derive your "understanding" of the ACA.
Also, you honestly expect me to believe that a human being can support an institution that he/she legitimately believes to be responsible for the deaths of millions? Give me a break. Biden has the same beliefs about abortion as anyone else who supports it.
PS: Does me wanting to tax churches oppress your religion, brah?
Holy ass. I didn't realize Gary Johnson wanted to close the Fed.
Back to Candidate Limbo I go.