Who ya voting for?

[Pointedstick]

Perhaps I should admit at this point that I used to be a Marxist. That's why I've read a lot of his stuff. Trust me, you don't want to stay a Marxist. You end up hating your fellow man for failing to live up to the lofty ideals you imagine they should be capable of. It's a lonely place.

[MediumTex]

Perhaps I should admit at this point that I used to be a Marxist. That's why I've read a lot of his stuff. Trust me, you don't want to stay a Marxist. You end up hating your fellow man for failing to live up to the lofty ideals you imagine they should be capable of. It's a lonely place.

That must have sucked.

At least it wore off.

[MachineGhost]

That's the thing, PS. I don't think Marx advocated for state control. I'm trying to research this now. In any event, just because he might have been mistaken on one issue doesn't mean the entirety of his work is invalidated. His insights into how the capitalist system functions are worth understanding.

Oh please.  Just read The Communist Manifesto.  All of it is about state control.  You cannot promote "positive rights" -- if you want to call Marx's vision that -- without using coercion.

Bakunin was 100% right.  The Marxian nightmare he foreshadowed came about.  The only difference between the Soviet Union and the USA is the former was more successful at expropriation than the latter.

[Greg]

I realize back on the OP that Gary Johnson is at least a candidate that is running for Libertarians. I also realize voting third party right now doesn't always do anything but you vote your conscious. If that's the case, if you were once a Ron Paul fan but he dropped out, do you vote for Paul which is totally wasting the vote or for Johnson and only "semi" throw your vote away? Just wondering what your thoughts are forum people.

[MachineGhost]

I realize back on the OP that Gary Johnson is at least a candidate that is running for Libertarians. I also realize voting third party right now doesn't always do anything but you vote your conscious. If that's the case, if you were once a Ron Paul fan but he dropped out, do you vote for Paul which is totally wasting the vote or for Johnson and only "semi" throw your vote away? Just wondering what your thoughts are forum people.

Ron Paul is a state's rights Republican.

Gary Johnson is a true Libertarian.

In a swing state, I wouldn't be cavalier about throwing the vote away on either one, even though the odds of a single vote making a difference in a popular vote as backup to the electoral college is so nil you have better odds at winning a lotto.

[Greg]

I realize back on the OP that Gary Johnson is at least a candidate that is running for Libertarians. I also realize voting third party right now doesn't always do anything but you vote your conscious. If that's the case, if you were once a Ron Paul fan but he dropped out, do you vote for Paul which is totally wasting the vote or for Johnson and only "semi" throw your vote away? Just wondering what your thoughts are forum people.

Ron Paul is a state's rights Republican.

Gary Johnson is a true Libertarian.

In a swing state, I wouldn't be cavalier about throwing the vote away on either one, even though the odds of a single vote making a difference in a popular vote as backup to the electoral college is so nil you have better odds at winning a lotto.

I guess I read up on Ron Paul's stuff for a long time and he dropped out. I've slowly started looking into Gary Johnson but at the same time I still have the George Carlin jaded feeling of "does it matter which non-majority candidate I would go for"?

I'm in Pennsylvania which is leaning Democratic so it's looking like it's not a swing state but more swing state-y than California, etc.

[MachineGhost]

Mitt Romney’s speech at VMI on foreign policy has been widely condemned as vague and lacking in substance, sort of like the man who gave it. But the speech is also full of suggestions and criticisms of the Obama administration that are simply not realistic. The speech is Romney’s “Mission Impossible,”? only without the cool theme music and also without a prayer of being actually achievable short of launching a series of 5 wars. I’ve decided that my initial assumption that a businessman of Romney’s experience must know something about the world was dead wrong. Apparently it is possible to sit in cushy big offices in companies like Bain, and to remain completely ignorant of foreign affairs. Romney’s speeches are all just a replaying for us of the prejudices of CEOs when they play golf together and complain vaguely about the Chinese, Russians, Arabs, and so forth. Or, maybe Romney has gotten so many campaign contributions from arms manufacturers that he can’t help see foreign affairs through the lens of new wars he wants to fight.

http://www.juancole.com/2012/10/romneys-five-wars.html

[Ad Orientem]

My comment from another thread...

Where possible I try to observe the rule that with politicians one should pay attention to what they do and not what they say.

Based on that rule, Romney's track record would suggest he is more pro-abortion than Obama (rhetoric notwithstanding) that he will appoint left leaning justices, that he will continue the Republican policy of massive expansion of the welfare/warfare state while cutting taxes (mainly for the very wealthy) and financing it through more debt. In foreign affairs we have only his campaign rhetoric to go on since he has never held a national office and so I am inclined to take it with a very large grain of salt. That said, based solely on his statements, especially during the GOP debates when everyone was tripping over each other in a mad effort to be the most hawkish man on the stage, I think it is better than even odds he will have us at war with Iran within the first six months of taking office.

So here is the bottom line. Given that there is no philosophical difference that I can detect between Obama and Romney, and further that Romney seems even more hyperaggressive in his foreign policy than Obama...

If someone put a gun to my head and said vote for one of these two clowns, I would probably hold my nose and pull the lever for Zero.

[Greg]

The idealist in me would vote for Johnson.
The realist in me would vote for Romney.

Of the two I'm not sure who is winning. (pun intended)

[MachineGhost]

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2 ... university

That is my new favorite model.  It is a heck of a lot better than the simple linear regression model I posted.

[Bean]

Rueb, thank you for the link! I heard about it one morning driving to work, but couldn't remember who made the model. It seems like the most logic way to model an outcome for an election.

Makes you wonder if you can translate the success of this model into money on intrade.

[Ad Orientem]

My comment from another thread....

A very accurate Presidential race predictor has Romney with 330 electoral votes to Obama's 208.

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2 ... university

"The state-by-state economic data used in their model have been available since 1980. When these data were applied retroactively to each election year, the model correctly classifies all presidential election winners, including the two years when independent candidates ran strongly: 1980 and 1992. It also correctly estimates the outcome in 2000, when Al Gore won the popular vote but George W. Bush won the election through the Electoral College."

That's a fascinating approach to prognosticating elections. I look forward to seeing how close they come to the final results. As an aside I noted today that every major poll taken since the debate has Romney either ahead or tied. Real Clear Politics is showing Romney slightly ahead by averaging the major polls.

[MachineGhost]

CEO to Workers: I May Fire You if Obama Wins

Now, the economy is falling apart and people like me who made all the right decisions and invested in themselves are being forced to bail out all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed 42 years of my life for. Yes, business ownership has its benefits, but the price I've paid is steep and not without wounds. Unfortunately, the costs of running a business have gotten out of control, and let me tell you why: We are being taxed to death and the government thinks we don't pay enough. We pay state taxes, federal taxes, property taxes, sales and use taxes, payroll taxes, workers compensation taxes and unemployment taxes. I even have to hire an entire department to manage all these taxes. The question I have is this: Who is really stimulating the economy? Is it the Government that wants to take money from those who have earned it and give it to those who have not, or is it people like me who built a company out of his garage and directly employs over 7000 people and hosts over 3 million people per year with a great vacation?

...

You see, I can no longer support a system that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, so will your opportunities. If that happens, you can find me in the Caribbean sitting on the beach, under a palm tree, retired, and with no employees to worry about.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ceo-worke ... 40914.html

[moda0306]

I get sick of the arrogant "I'll go Galt on you, I swear" attitude of some business owners who live in the most opportunistic country in the world with the lowest taxes we've had for most of the last century.

Yes, they add a lot of value to the economy, but there's two sides to every economic transaction... the producer, and the consumer.  If it wasn't for all the people going into debt in the good years and all the "demand stability" produced by a counter-cyclical fiscal arrangement (safety nets expanding and taxes falling during recessions) this guys resorts wouldn't have made him a fraction of the money they did.  Heck, the time shares he probably sold like hot-cakes in 2005 were the poster-child for the excess of the post-2000 debt-boom.  Now he's just pissed because his business decisions aren't paying off the way he'd hoped. 

[Ad Orientem]

CEO to Workers: I May Fire You if Obama Wins

Just think about this - most of you arrive at work in the morning and leave that afternoon and the rest of your time is yours to do as you please. But not me- there is no "off" button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have that freedom. I eat, live, and breathe this company every minute of the day, every day of the week. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. I know many of you work hard and do a great job, but I'm the one who has to sign every check, pay every expense, and make sure that this company continues to succeed. Unfortunately, what most people see is the nice house and the lavish lifestyle. What the press certainly does not want you to see, is the true story of the hard work and sacrifices I've made.

What a dick (sorry for the technical language).

No need to apologize for writing what any sane and moral person would be thinking.

[Storm]

wasn't this letter a chain mail http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/valuedemployees.asp

if he just copied it and sent it to his employees he is an even bigger dumb **s..

Wow, great catch Simon.  Because nothing says "I'm a terrible boss and willing to alienate 50% of my workforce" like a boss that copy/pastes an Internet chain letter from 2008 and sends it to his employees.

If you're going to go all feigned John Galt on us...  "wah, wah!  I built this business and now I'm going to take my toys and go home!" you can at least write an original letter explaining the reasons why.  Instead, you're just a douche that copied a poorly written chain letter from 2008 which turned out to be AstroTurf from GOP supporters.

I'd actually like to know if there is a single tax on bussiness that has increased during the Obama presidency.  Is there one?  All I know is that payroll tax decreased for employees, which is probably a net win for employers because they could pay a lower wage and people still have the same take home pay.

[Pointedstick]

Obamacare has increased several taxes and added a few new ones. I'm not sure many/any of them have taken effect yet though.

http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... he-economy

[MediumTex]

Obamacare has increased several taxes and added a few new ones. I'm not sure many/any of them have taken effect yet though.

http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... he-economy

The Medicare tax increase kicks in next year.  That's going to be a noticeable tax increase for high earners.

I ran across this interesting chart of the Obamacare tax increases compared with other tax increases in recent decades:

[MachineGhost]

Obamacare has increased several taxes and added a few new ones. I'm not sure many/any of them have taken effect yet though.

Despite the new taxes, I predict there will be a net economic gain to employers as they drop group coverage and let employees get their health insurance in the individual marketplace.

[Pointedstick]

Obamacare has increased several taxes and added a few new ones. I'm not sure many/any of them have taken effect yet though.

Despite the new taxes, I predict there will be a net economic gain to employers as they drop group coverage and let employees get their health insurance in the individual marketplace.

I agree. In a roundabout, entirely unintentional way, maybe Obamacare will wind up being a good idea  after all! 

[MachineGhost]

[flyingpylon]

Wonder how they factored in the fact that some states don't have football and/or baseball teams. Or the fact that there are far more baseball games than football games?

[Ad Orientem]

A funny/cynical thing I read today:

Cut out the middle-man: Write in Goldman-Sachs!

Cynicism is often rooted in uncomfortable truths.

[MachineGhost]

For candidate background information and statements on all those nonpartisan local offices on the ballot, I've found http://www.smartvoter.org/ to be the only source with the data.  I suspect if most voters had access to information like that, then incumbents wouldn't keep being continously re-elected.

[Ad Orientem]

For Reub.