Ray Jay wrote:Discussions of the deficit are equally depressing. Neither candidate's numbers add up. What would happen if a candidate was honest with the American people? Perhaps that's been tried and those candidates don't make it past the primaries ...

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:Discussions of the deficit are equally depressing. Neither candidate's numbers add up. What would happen if a candidate was honest with the American people? Perhaps that's been tried and those candidates don't make it past the primaries ...

Well the honest truth is that if the US does not want debt, then the people will have to pay it off somehow, and if you want to reduce or eliminate deficits, that's going to take a combination of tax rises, spending cuts and pro-growth policies. These will not all be painless and it certainly won't be quick, so what happens is that politicians will try to appeal to their constituency by promising not to let them get much of the pain.

And tax cuts always sell, even if the numbers don't stack up.

So you end up with two 'bloc' positions. No tax rises, indeed tax cuts if possible with spending cuts (excluding politically sensitive areas like defence) against No/limited spending cuts with tax rises (but not on politically sensitive areas like the working/middle classes). Pretty much what the fiscal debate has been for years, now. Neither currently has the upper hand so you have a kind of stasis, which is not a good solution, because no-one will compromise. If one side does get full control, they will possibly pursue their imbalanced position to the exclusion of compromise and that will also likely turn out badly.

In his new Prediction thread, Sass goes for an Obama win, a narrow Dem hold in the Senate and a Republican win in the House. I think that would not be a bad outcome, but only if the prospect of another four years of divided government prompted both sides to compromise. If they entrench, the n it would be worse than a clear win for one party or the other, which would at least show everyone why having one 'all-or-nothing' approach won't work.

Doctor Fate wrote:When the GDP begins to improve, I think we have to begin looking at ways to gradually increase taxes.

Purple wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:When the GDP begins to improve, I think we have to begin looking at ways to gradually increase taxes.

Then you'd better hope that when that time comes a minority of congressmen have signed Grover Norquist's idiotic pledge.

bbauska wrote:I saw this debate as a draw or perhaps leaning slightly Obama.

I wanted a little more life from Romney, but did not like the attitude given by Obama. It is little impact either way.

All in all the three debates were a win for Romney as evidenced by the polls.

danivon wrote:On the non-Republicrat candidates, Jill Stein tried to 'crash' the debate and was arrested for a protest outside (ahh, that cheirshed 1st Amendment!). She, Johnson and arguably Virgil Goode of the Constitution Party are outsiders but are on the ballot in enough States to be elected (Goode would need a couple of write-ins to reach 270 EC votes, and Rocky Anderson is a long way short). I know that there's a 'third party candidate debate' with all four next week - hosted by Larry King - and between Stein and Johnson tonight, but these are online only, not televised.

It becomes a catch-22 situation. A small party does not 'qualify' for CPD televised debates because it doesn't have the recognition, and will be marginalised generally on the media circuit. But because they are excluded from the unofficial (and sometimes semi-official) two-party state of affairs, they don't get the traction to build up recognition and support that would get them at the top table. Looking at the full set of candidates including write-ins for very minor parties, there is a large range of views: Tea Party, Prohibitionist, White Supremacist, Conservative (America's Party and American Independent), Whig, Objectivist, Reformist, a plethora of socialist parties including my favourites the SPUSA with Stewart Alexander, and the Peace and Freedom Party as well as a bunch of Independents (some of whom are perhaps publicity seekers). Now you can't invite them all to a Presidential debate, it would be ridiculous. But there are lot of views that are just not being heard. Similarly, you get people who have mixed "conservative' and 'liberal' positions who find themselves excluded by both main parties. Socially conservative but economically liberal (eg: Randall Terry) or or vice versa (the Modern Whigs?) face a choice of which to junk in favour of the others.

Not that there's really a lot of difference in the actual positions of Obama and Romney on a lot of issues. Sure, one is more liberal than the other, but neither is in anyway extreme. But democracy seems poorer for not including the views of a lot of other perpectives, and when the clash is less of ideal or substance but more about 'identity' and machine politics.

danivon wrote:It's difficult not to be dismissive of someone who doesn't realise Iran has already got significant access to the oceans, or thinks that 1917 levels of naval tonnage are the benchmark for today.

Guapo wrote:Then how else will we protect the Titanic?