I try and stay away from this page, but...

[Be-the-Vol]

If the "Republicans" believe in cutting spending (which they don't), smaller government (which they don't), and getting entitlement programs under control (which they don't), why would they not let us run off of the fiscal cliff that is cominig?  All of these things would be minimally addressed.  If it is because they fear they will not be reelected, they are no better than the other side.  Short term pain (I would probably lose my job) for long term gain seems the logical path.  Right now we are dealing with what might be considered some short term pain, but no long term gain (as a matter of fact we're getting worse off by the day - fiscally speaking).  I also find it a bit sad that everyone focuses on the $16T debt when the country's long term obligations are well over $100T.

The funniset thing about the entire election crap is that the 47% remark made by Romney was one of the very few candidate statements that was spot on.  When you have half of the population that has almost nothing invested in the running of government, is instead receiving benifits, and the two major parties that will not do anything that would risk re-election, real fixes are all but impossible.

Before jumping on me, let me disclose that I did not vote for either Romney or Obama, nor did I vote for anyone currently in office.  I want real change, not the same old crap. 

(sorry for any mistakes in the post, I did it rather quickly)

[Clockwork Orange]

Before jumping on me, let me disclose that I did not vote for either Romney or Obama, nor did I vote for anyone currently in office.  I want real change, not the same old crap. 

I agree with some of your points and hope that the Republicans feel so much pain from this embarrassing loss (yes . . . very embarrassing . . . to fail to unseat an incumbent in such terrible economic conditions) that they get their ass in gear on a few important issues. I have no faith that this will happen.

But mainly I wanted to ask if you voted for Gary Johnson . . . my household would be counted among his supporters.

[Be-the-Vol]

Yes, I voted for him.  I'm sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo (is that enough "o's"?) sick of the two parties not getting anything done to address the actual problems the nation faces.  Do I think Johnson had a chance to win?  Nope.  Do I think he would have been able to get things done while dealing with the two parties in power?  Nope.  But I could not, in good conscience, vote for either of the two major candidates.  Oh well, I'm moving to the country and waiting for the entire thing to collapse.  I hope it all works out for the best, but I've seen what "hoping" has done to the country for the past 20 years or so.  The end of the country as we've known it is soon to be a thing of the past (I fear we just stepped on the accelerator toward that end last night).  Of course, if the other guy had won, it would have just put off the end for a little while longer. 

[BanditVol]

I thought about voting for Johnson, but did not.

I didn't like either major party candidate, but with Romney, the main problem I had was that he offered to cut taxes 25% across the board and failed to say how he would address spending, entitlements, and the debt.  Because, as you point out, neither side wants to tackle those.

The Republicans want to cut taxes and increase spending anyway, the Democrats want to increase taxes and spend even more.  Either way, you get a burgeoning and unsustainable debt.

I am mildly optimistic that they can compromise somehow on the "fiscal cliff".  Personally I hope they follow the Simpson-Bowles recommendations, and limit entitlement growth coupled with less deductions.  That will make a huge dent in future debt if so.

But I suspect they will keep slinging mud at each other to avoid taking any responsibility for the mess we are in.  I guess we'll find out.

I will push back on the 47% comment a bit though. First, it's not that 47% don't pay taxes, it's just the percentage that don't pay INCOME taxes.  Everyone employed pays payroll - social security and medicare/caid - taxes.   And that's a much larger percent of the population than 53%.  This website states that only 17% pay "no taxes at all".

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505

Second, of the percent that pay no taxes at all, many are retirees who should not be taxed, many of whom have no actual retirement and mostly depend on social security.

So the 47% was way overstated, and IMO reflects a widely held misconception that there are more "slackers" in thie country than there are. 

"Joe the Plummer" was turned into an icon by McCain, who ended up featuring him at rallies in 2008, for asking Obama why he was going to raise his taxes.  Laughably, it turned out that Joe the Plummer was one of the 47%. He only made 38K a year and paid no income taxes.  This  perfect example illustrates exactly what I am talking about.  The perception of slackers feeding at the trough is way overblown.

Having taken a shot at Joe the Plummer, let me make it clear that I totally respect him as a person who works (or did  I think he might be living off his celebrity now) for a living.  So I would say that, using him as an example, there are many people that have a family and make less than 50K who work and pay no income taxes and I don't look down at them for that.

[BanditVol]

New post...this editor gets me every time.   

Back to my point about the 47%.  It shows to me, that Romney was in fact out of touch with most ordinary Americans.  I don't think he or most politicians have any idea what it takes to support a family of four on less than 50K a year, and he insulted these very people.  Who, ironically, were among his biggest supporters!   

It's in line with comments like "I'll bet you 10,000" (did you see the look on Perry's face, lol).  "I know NASCAR owners and I love NASCAR" or, replayed from a March show on Finebaum as I pulled into the voting booth parking lot yesterday, "I know the owner of the Jets, I know the owner of the Dolphins, and they are wonderful people but I prefer for Peyton to go to Denver because I am a New England fan and Robert Krause is one of my best friends". 

The reason Obama was able to exploit the perception that Romney was an out of touch wealthy heir who really didn't have to ever worry about money is because - well, he is.

Having said that, I have no doubt that there is still a rather large percentage (just not 47%) of our population that is dependant on the government and is unwilling for that to end.  And I definitely think that needs addressing.  I just doubt the politicians have the will to do it.  But I will be hopeful for a couple months anyway.  Let's see what happens by January (53 days to the fiscal cliff!     )

[Be-the-Vol]

There is no easy answer to the problems we face, they have been building for over a century, but there will be a day when all the IOUs come due, and I fear that day is coming sooner rather than.  I suspect the two sides will get together and kick the can down the road some more, but the length of the road is getting shoter and shorter. 

You point out that Romney is out of touch with us commoners, and maybe he is.  However, if you think that Obama is any more in-touch, you're as crazy as wanting to keep Dooley around.    (that last part about "crazy" was in jest)

[BanditVol]

You point out that Romney is out of touch with us commoners, and maybe he is.  However, if you think that Obama is any more in-touch, you're as crazy as wanting to keep Dooley around.    (that last part about "crazy" was in jest)

Hm, not sure what you mean.  I am no fan of Obama's but he is likely to be more in touch with common people than Romney. He did come from the middle class.  Of course, it's been awhile since he was middle class, so he probably is out of touch now, but I doubt he has forgotten his roots.

You may mean that Obama surrounds himself with a bubble and feels immune to criticism.  If so, I have no doubt at all that this would be true.  Both Obama and Bush in their first debates as incumbents looked shocked...literally shocked...that anyone would talk to them that way. Because, as the most powerful men on Earth, they are pretty much surrounded by a bunch of butt kissers who have a hard time speaking unpleasant truth to them...or so I suspect.