Gyroscopic Investing

Curious how this forum votes...

with as many libertarians or libertarian leaning as we seem to have on this forum "other" and "Gary Johnson" should probably be separate choices just to see how many are going in that direction..

Gary Johnson, but only because I live in a state that Obama will carry even if he killed orphans while drunk-driving a hummer. If I lived in Ohio or Florida, I'd probably vote for Romney, if only because I like the federal pool of conservative justices better than the liberal ones, and the next president is likely to have one or more Supreme Court vacancies.

Edit: my other vote is actually a Johnson vote

Edited to add Johnson...

craigr wrote: Edited to add Johnson...

Thanks.
How did you do that? Wait.. You're the one who has been editing my Facebook page!

I'm voting Romney.  He's "less bad" for the US, IMO.  Both candidates have their warts, but Obama has proven he cannot or will not work across the isle to get anything done.

It's fascinating but not surprising that there are more "other" votes than for either of the two main candidates.  That doesn't shock me on this board. Free thinking group here.

Obama... Cause im in swing state of florida. I was overseas during bush's presidency and i saw first hand how damaging his cowboy rhetoric was to our international image. I see a similar disposition to tough guy talk coming out of romney. I also think that Romney is a confusing candidate who is willing to say anything to get elected. Not really sure where he stands on social liberty issues... Very important to me.

Ad Orientem wrote:

+1 for Sleepy Time Cal.

Is a vote for Coolidge a premonition that we are going to be dipping into another great depression?

I call hanging chads! I know for a fact that at least two of those other votes were intended for Johnson!

Anyone want to add some brief color why (possibly avoiding rants)?

I am voting Obama because I feel he more accurately represents America which is especially important to me at the international level. Additionally, I am liberal on social issues and have a very secular mindset; religion creeping into government really bothers me.

When it comes to economics I am probably more conservative than the average democrat, but the previously mentioned issues weigh more heavily for me right now.

Reub wrote: How well are those social issues holding up in Greece and Spain?

Let's try to keep the criticisms of other peoples' opinions to other threads.

Reub,

If you want to talk the economics of default & fiscal crises, melveyr was the wrong youngin' to do so with.  I think he correctly realizes what kind of macro-sh!thole we'd be in right now if we tried to slash spending... even if we had huge tax cuts to "offset" it.

doodle wrote: Is a vote for Coolidge a premonition that we are going to be dipping into another great depression?

Only if we elect a busybody smarty pants former executive like Herbert Hoover. 

Hoover monkeyed around with the economy after the 1929 crash in ways that Sleepy Time Cal never would have done.

It seems to me to be a little early to be considering who to vote for.  After the debates, the candidates' platform positions should become much clearer so the VoteEasy questions that they refuse to answer will be more accurate.

http://votesmart.org/voteeasy/

EDIT: There's also http://electnext.com/

MachineGhost wrote: It seems to me to be a little early to be considering who to vote for.

Really???

I am surprised that anyone who heard Obama speak to Joe the plummer 4 years ago needed to hear any more to see what he was about.  In any case you've had 4 years of track record to judge him by.  If Obama says he is willing to compromise on things will you believe him?

Romney has no track record as president to go by, but one can gather that he's not as fiscally conservative as many would wish but more conservative than Obama who's budget was so far out that I don't think a single democrat voted for it.

I should add that I think anyone who is basing their vote on anything but financial considerations in this election is nuts.

Undecided, leaning towards Romney as of now.

Reub wrote: What we definitely know is that one is a socialist (or leans that way) and one is a capitalist.

I believe that I know which system I prefer.

For a socialist, Obama sure has sure been friendly to Wall Street.

FDR was a socialist.  I don't think that Obama is anywhere near FDR on the socialist-capitalist continuum.

Obama is clearly liberal on a lot of issues, but if he was a socialist I think that there would be a lot more Lloyd Blankfein-types in prison or unemployed right now.

From an average American's perspective, I would suggest that Obama hasn't been nearly socialist enough.  So far, all the socialism seems to have been toward financial institutions and their desire to socialize their losses and let the public pay for their bad decisions and poor risk management.  Obama has gone right along with this program.

Even when it comes to health care reform, single payer is socialism, but forcing everyone to buy an insurance policy is pretty solidly capitalist, I would say.  Some might even say it is a huge gift to the private sector in the form of millions of new customers who are going to be forced to buy their products.

Reub wrote: As far as melvyr is concerned, I have nothing but great respect for him and his work. I am just saying that, as Benko said it, financial and economic concerns are paramount in this election. Social concerns will not matter if we end up financially ruined like Greece or Spain. I believe that 50% of the youth in Spain are unemployed right now, rioting and eating food out of garbage cans. That doesn't make for a great social environment unless you are an anarchist.

Reub, do you agree that it is misguided austerity programs that lead to situations like we are seeing in Greece and Spain right now?

When you take an economy that is already sick and impose austerity, it's the equivalent of the practice of putting leeches on people who already have a serious illness.  It only tends to make it worse, regardless of the intentions behind it.

Reub wrote: Financial and economic concerns are paramount in this election. Social concerns will not matter if we end up financially ruined like Greece or Spain. I believe that 50% of the youth in Spain are unemployed right now, rioting and eating food out of garbage cans. That doesn't make for a great social environment unless you are an anarchist.

You seem to believe that if you care about the economy then that automatically means a vote for Romney. However, I could vote based on economics and still vote for a liberal candidate and be an informed intelligent voter.

Paul Ryan has made his career focused on rhetoric about cutting the budget deficit. I think a balanced budget could very easily push us into a depression. Any PP adherent worth his/her salt knows the constraint of a sovereign nation that issues its own currency, has its debt denominated in its own currency, and has its own central bank purchase its debt (aka not Greece or Spain), is never "running out of money" but inflation. Inflation is below average right now, so there is no strong reasons why we should attempt to stamp it out right now.

I'm not trying to turn it into an MMT thread or anything like that, but there are intelligent counter arguments to the Romney/Ryan proposed agenda for the economy. I don't think you can clearly say that a vote for them is a vote for a strong economy.

MediumTex wrote:

Reub, do you agree that it is misguided austerity programs that lead to situations like we are seeing in Greece and Spain right now?

When you take an economy that is already sick and impose austerity, it's the equivalent of the practice of putting leeches on people who already have a serious illness.  It only tends to make it worse, regardless of the intentions behind it.

Sometimes if you become sick enough, it requires something radical like surgery or chemo in order to survive.  You may take a step or two back, but it's your only choice.

Greece is at a place, where they have two choices:

1. Drop from the Euro and inflate

2. Austerity

Either way, standard of living has to come down.  I think either path ends up in the same place.

There is no other path forward for them unless the can somehow convince the German voters to keep subsidizing their standard of living.

melveyr wrote: Paul Ryan has made his career focused on rhetoric about cutting the budget deficit. I think a balanced budget could very easily push us into a depression. Any PP adherent worth his/her salt knows the constraint of a sovereign nation that issues its own currency, has its debt denominated in its own currency, and has its own central bank purchase its debt (aka not Greece or Spain), is never "running out of money" but inflation. Inflation is below average right now, so there is no strong reasons why we should attempt to stamp it out right now.

I'm not trying to turn it into an MMT thread or anything like that, but there are intelligent counter arguments to the Romney/Ryan proposed agenda for the economy. I don't think you can clearly say that a vote for them is a vote for a strong economy.

Very well put, Ryan.  I heard Ryan on Bloomberg Radio today, and he said that his tax plan would lower the maximum tax rate to 20%, cut the effective tax rate for all Americans, and still reduce the deficit.  He says this is all through eliminating loopholes and tax credits, however, I have yet to hear any specifics.

For someone with such a bold plan, why don't they tell us exactly what they want to cut?  Let intelligent voters decide whether it makes sense.  Don't just tell me you're going to buy $200 worth of groceries with $100, and not tell me how.

TennPaGa wrote: For me, it comes down to a choice between a pro-war white guy beholden to Wall Street and finance capitalism and a pro-war black guy beholden to Wall Street and finance capitalism.

I think I'm voting for Cal.

I pretty much agree with your summary of Obama and Romney.  

I feel like Democratic policy provides too many disincentives for people to work hard and take risk.  They tend to push government as a solution to every problem.  As a small business owner, I see the productivity drain the government becomes when they institute well-intentioned programs, which usually only results in massive red tape.

This makes me feel like the Republicans are often the lesser of the two evils.