# Presidential Election 2016



## Gregzs (Oct 2, 2012)

Are there any good candidates for the GOP for the next term? NYTimes is already seeing a potential conflict on the Dem side:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/22/n...the-way.html?nl=nyregion&emc=edit_ur_20120922

[h=1]For Ambitious Governor, a Clinton Stands in the Way[/h][h=6]By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ[/h]Since taking office last year, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo has done many things well, positioning himself for a possible presidential run.        

He has challenged ? and outmaneuvered ? Albany?s wily Legislature. He has kept his once-notorious temper from spilling over. He has built a prodigious fund-raising operation and earned poll numbers that are the envy of governors nationwide.        

But now Mr. Cuomo, a man who likes to determine his own destiny, faces a variable beyond his control: Hillary Rodham Clinton.        

Creating frustration for his inner circle, as Mr. Cuomo considers a 2016 campaign for the White House, the eyes of his party are fixed on Mrs. Clinton, whose already sky-high stature among Democratic activists was enhanced by her husband?s crowd-pleasing speech this month at the party?s convention in Charlotte, N.C., and who can count on broad support if she decides to run.        

Mrs. Clinton complicates Mr. Cuomo?s ambitions in several ways. Despite the fact that she hails from Illinois, she is now viewed as a New Yorker and commands deep loyalty from the state?s Democratic establishment. And Mr. Cuomo, 54, reveres her husband, former President Bill Clinton; he views Mr. Clinton as a mentor who helped him begin a career in politics, according to Cuomo friends and associates.        

The focus on Mrs. Clinton among Mr. Cuomo?s advisers was apparent during the Democratic convention. At one point, a key adviser to the governor approached the Rev. Al Sharpton to ask him if he would support Mrs. Clinton were she to run in 2016, according to a prominent New York Democrat with direct knowledge of the conversation.        

?They are totally trying to figure out what she would do,? said the Democrat, who like others interviewed for this article spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid alienating Mr. Cuomo.        

Another Democrat close to Mr. Cuomo said the situation was making the Cuomo camp cranky, in part because the governor, a skilled strategic thinker, did not like to be captive to others? ambitions.        

And a top fund-raiser for Mr. Cuomo put it this way: ?He?s got a former first lady and former New York senator in his sandbox, and that?s a mess for him. He?s got to wait and see what Hillary will do.?        
Mrs. Clinton, 64, served as a senator for eight years before resigning to become President Obama?s secretary of state.        

Neither she nor Mr. Cuomo has signaled any plans for the 2016 election, and the governor says he is focused on his current job. (Mrs. Clinton is not expected to stay in her cabinet post if Mr. Obama wins a second term.) But the potential collision between them is gripping the political world in New York.        

?In terms of the psychodrama of politics, it does not get any better than this,? the Democrat close to Mr. Cuomo said.        
While Mr. Cuomo has deep affection for Mr. Clinton and calls him for advice, his relationship with Mrs. Clinton is less personal.        

What is most vexing to those who want to see Mr. Cuomo run is that Mrs. Clinton, given her popularity in the party, can take her time deciding whether to make another bid for the presidency, essentially freezing the rest of the Democratic field.        

Mr. Cuomo, in private conversations, has often been frank about his own prospective presidential candidacy. ?First, I?ve got to figure out what Hillary is doing,? he says, according to an adviser.        
A Cuomo spokesman denied that Mr. Cuomo had said any such thing and insisted that the governor was not positioning himself for a presidential run.        

In the weeks leading up to the convention, Mr. Cuomo, who served as the nation?s housing secretary under President Clinton, turned down offers from old associates of his father, former Gov. Mario M. Cuomo, and former colleagues from the federal housing department to talk quietly about his presidential prospects, as other prominent Democrats, like Gov. Martin O?Malley of Maryland, began planting the seeds for possible candidacies, according to a close Cuomo adviser.        

Among those yearning for a Cuomo presidential campaign in 2016, a divide has emerged: some suggest that if Mrs. Clinton ran, the governor?s loyalty to Mr. Clinton would prevent him from joining the field.        

But others reject the notion that Mrs. Clinton poses a serious obstacle to Mr. Cuomo, saying she is enjoying a political honeymoon right now but still has many of the weaknesses that plagued her in the past, including a polarizing image.        

By contrast, they say, Mr. Cuomo is a fresh face whom Democratic officials, donors and activists will naturally want to court ? provided that he wins re-election in 2014, when Mrs. Clinton will most likely be out of a job in politics.


----------



## dogsoldier (Oct 2, 2012)

I dunno about Hillary in 2016.  She would 70 years old by then.  By the way she is going down hill as Secretary of State, she may well be a burned out cinder by then.

FWIW, I believe she would have made a better president than Obama.


----------



## Standard Donkey (Oct 2, 2012)

obama will retain power and have his puppet in the white house


----------



## Little Wing (Oct 2, 2012)

i like Hillary. if_ she_ was running against Obama she is smart enough so it might at least be a contest.


----------



## charley (Oct 2, 2012)

,Clinton for sure......and I think a '_SHOE IN'................1st WOMEN PRESIDENT.......2016.._


----------



## Little Wing (Oct 2, 2012)

hillary is level headed. didn't let a little thing like a blow job ruin her marriage. shriver is a shrewd one too. the very day after his term as governor ended she had arnold at a therapists asking if the maid's kid was his.


----------



## Big Pimpin (Oct 3, 2012)

Lets not forget my little democrat friends that it was the Hillary campaign that started the Obama birth certificate issue.


----------



## jay_steel (Oct 3, 2012)

Clint Eastwood 2016


----------



## Big Smoothy (Oct 3, 2012)

Very interesting thread.

This may not matter to other but for me, I am thinking of Hillary's age. She was born in 1947 so in 2016 that would put here near 70.

Powerful, yes.  Smart, yes.

If you all do not mind, I wonder if she would have been the same, worse or better than BO?

Perhaps it does not matter.  They are more similar than different and the _potus_ is surrounded by powerful, entrenched forces.

Cuomo?  I'm curious.  

Is he that good?  Or is it NY and a name?


----------



## Gregzs (Oct 15, 2012)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/n...-appeal.html?nl=nyregion&emc=edit_ur_20121015

[h=1]Republican Candidates Embrace Cuomo?s Appeal[/h][h=6]By THOMAS KAPLAN[/h]As they seek to maintain a power base in Albany, New York?s Republicans have found an unlikely standard-bearer: the state?s Democratic governor, Andrew M. Cuomo.        

Mr. Cuomo is pictured warmly on a postcard sent by Senator Patricia A. Ritchie of the North Country, on the Web site of Senator Carl L. Marcellino of Long Island and even in television advertisements for the second-highest-ranking Republican in Albany, Senator Thomas W. Libous of Binghamton. At least a dozen Senate Republicans seeking re-election are trumpeting their bonds with Mr. Cuomo.        

The Republicans, outnumbered roughly two to one in the state?s electorate, are hoping that promoting their ability to work with the popular Democratic governor will help them hold on to control of the State Senate, which is their last stronghold in New York.        

?All I heard constantly for the last year and a half was people stopping me saying, ?Libous, we like what you?re doing with Cuomo. Keep it up,? ? Mr. Libous said. ?It wasn?t rocket science for me to figure out.?        

Mr. Cuomo, who has forged a productive working relationship with the Senate Republican leadership, has given Republicans plenty to work with. He often praises Republican lawmakers effusively when he visits their districts. And although he has endorsed a few Senate Democrats seeking re-election, he has passed up several opportunities to say that he would like to see his party retake control of the Senate ? a seemingly obvious question, but one that is complicated because the Senate Democrats have been tainted by corruption and chaos in recent years.        

?I?m going to make my decisions basically the way the people of the state make their decisions ? on a case-by-case basis,? Mr. Cuomo said last Monday as he offered his support for the re-election of a Queens Democrat, Senator Joseph P. Addabbo Jr.        

The governor has not objected to Republicans? use of his likeness. ?What I?ve said is, if it?s factually accurate, I don?t have an issue with it,? he told reporters last month. The governor?s top aide, Lawrence S. Schwartz, was more effusive, telling a radio station in Albany on Thursday that ?you see both Democrats and Republicans alike, in a bipartisan fashion, putting the governor?s picture on their mail or running TV ads,? and that ?everybody is jumping on his bandwagon.?        

The governor, who, polls indicate, is extraordinarily popular among both Democrats and Republicans in New York, has advocated some measures sought by Republicans, particularly legislation passed last year to cap the annual growth of property taxes and to partially repeal a payroll tax that had helped finance the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.        

But Mr. Cuomo has also championed ideas opposed by many conservatives: he successfully pressed the Legislature to legalize same-sex marriage and to create a new top tax bracket for the state?s highest earners. And parts of the Democratic agenda have been killed by the Republican-controlled Senate, including a proposal to reduce the impact of the New York Police Department?s stop-and-frisk policy by decriminalizing the open possession of small amounts of marijuana, as well as measures to require the microstamping of guns and to increase the minimum wage.        
Senator Michael N. Gianaris, a Queens Democrat who leads his party?s campaign committee, said the Republican embrace of Mr. Cuomo was misleading.        

?It?s nothing more than a ruse to try to pull the wool over people?s eyes, because by their actions, they are blocking progress on a host of issues that the governor wants achieved,? Mr. Gianaris said. ?No amount of fancy pictures is going to trick people into believing they stand for the things they actively oppose.?        

In one instance ? an Assembly race in the Westchester County district where Mr. Cuomo resides ? the use of the governor?s image has become a campaign issue. The Republican incumbent, Robert J. Castelli, has sent several mailings highlighting his relationship with Mr. Cuomo, including one that made it appear as if he and the governor were running mates: it featured a photograph of the two men, along with the words ?Castelli & Cuomo: Leadership for Westchester County.? The flip side, under the words ?Bipartisan Approach. Real Results,? listed a number of actions supported by both the assemblyman and the governor, like building a replacement for the Tappan Zee Bridge.        

Mr. Castelli?s Democratic opponent, David Buchwald, objected, and Democrats sent their own mailer saying, ?Bob Castelli wants you to believe he?s one of us ... but he tells the Tea Party he?s one of them, too.?        

?I think he?s tried to confuse voters into thinking that the governor?s endorsed him, and that?s not the case,? Mr. Buchwald, a White Plains councilman, said. He added that he wanted Democrats to know ?that they have a candidate on the Democratic line that represents our values.?        

Mr. Castelli made no apology for his use of Mr. Cuomo?s image and name. ?This is not about partisan politics,? he said in an interview. ?When a man is right, we should give him credit for what he?s done right.?        

All of the state?s legislative seats are on the ballot in November, and mailings featuring Mr. Cuomo are appearing across New York, in many instances with no mention of the party affiliations of the candidate or the governor. One piece of constituent mail from a first-term Republican state senator from Long Island, Lee M. Zeldin, began by reminding voters of increases in taxes and state spending in 2009 and 2010 ? ?before Andrew Cuomo became our governor and Lee Zeldin became our senator,? it said.        

Mr. Zeldin said in an interview that Mr. Cuomo had ?far exceeded expectations? since taking office.        

?The governor?s success is our success as New Yorkers, regardless of whether our governor is a member of the same political party as you or a different political party as you,? Mr. Zeldin added. ?We need to root for that man or woman to have as much success as possible. So I want to be able to work with him in order to actually get things done.?        

In upstate New York, Senator Michael H. Ranzenhofer, a Republican from Erie County, began a postcard about economic development by saying that he had ?partnered with Governor Cuomo in a bipartisan fashion,? while Senator James L. Seward, a Republican from Otsego County, wrote that private-sector job creation was improving ?due in large part to a new partnership with Governor Cuomo.?        

?The reason I include the references to the partnership with Governor Cuomo, and the good working relationship, is because I believe in truth in advertising,? Mr. Seward said. ?And that is the truth. I?ve been in the Senate long enough; I?ve seen the good, the bad and the ugly. And things are good right now.?        

Other senators have gone for visual impact. Ms. Ritchie, of the North Country, included a photograph of her standing side by side with Mr. Cuomo along with the declaration: ?Governor Praises Ritchie for Two Years of Progress That Changed Albany.? And Senator Mark J. Grisanti, a Buffalo Republican, recorded a television advertisement that opened with footage of Mr. Cuomo praising the senator at an event ? ?Mark Grisanti, thank you for your leadership,? the governor says ? and concluded with the two men embracing each other.        

Perhaps no advertisement was more Cuomo-centric than a 30-second commercial produced by Mr. Libous, who is the leader of his caucus?s campaign efforts. The spot features three images of Mr. Cuomo and Mr. Libous, who, the narrator says, ?get results? for his Southern Tier constituents.        

?I am a very loyal Republican,? said Mr. Libous, who is also the deputy Senate majority leader. ?I?ve been a good Republican all my life. But I?m also an elected official who has been charged by the people who elected me to get things done, and right now, that?s going pretty well in New York.?


----------



## Gregzs (Nov 8, 2012)

Ryan Emerges From Campaign With Higher Profile, 2016 Options - NationalJournal.com

BOSTON ?Paul Ryan won?t be helping Mitt Romney lead the country in a new direction from the White House. But the congressman from Wisconsin, famous for his small-government budget blueprints, has emerged from his first national race with high visibility and a top spot on any list of 2016 presidential prospects.

Ryan's immediate future lies on Capitol Hill. As chairman of the House Budget Committee, he will be making an abrupt transition from the glare of the campaign trail to the back rooms of Capitol Hill as Congress heads into a lame-duck session and negotiations on how to avoid a ?fiscal cliff? of automatic tax increases and spending cuts.

Ryan did win an election on Tuesday night: the race for his House seat in Wisconsin, where state election law allowed him to run concurrently with his vice presidential bid. Unless he resigns from the House--a fate that longtime aides and close confidantes have a hard time imagining--Hill staffers expect he?ll have no trouble obtaining the necessary waiver on term limits to keep his chairmanship in the next Congress.

?I think at the end of the day, he's committed to advancing these ideas in a political forum, which suggests elected office,? said Matthew Spalding, a vice president at the conservative Heritage Foundation and a longtime Ryan friend.
Ryan issued a statement on Wednesday addressing his short-term plans. ?I look forward to spending some time with my family in the coming days and then continuing my responsibilities as chairman of the House Budget Committee and representative of Wisconsin's First Congressional District,? he said, after saying he was ?immensely proud? of the GOP presidential campaign and grateful to nominee Mitt Romney for putting him on the ticket.

There was a time when Ryan considered quitting Congress: in 2006, after Democrats won both chambers. It was a ?gut-check? moment, as one longtime aide described it, and after much soul-searching the episode led Ryan to write his first ?Road Map for America?s Future.? The document marked Ryan?s head-first jump into the sensitive issue of entitlement reform and made him into a popular target for Democrats. But it also made him the intellectual leader of the House Republicans, a stature that will only be enhanced by his vice presidential run and the debt and spending issues at the top of the national agenda.

?With the fiscal cliff issues and everything that?s looming ? he's going to be center stage in the negotiations and at some level will have claim to be titular heir to the Republican Party,? said Steve Schmidt, a GOP strategist who worked on John McCain?s 2008 presidential bid.

The big question that remains, then, is what the next cycle will hold for Ryan. At the request of many conservatives, he explored the possibility of his own presidential bid this year, but ultimately opted to sit out the cycle due to the pressures on his young family--his children are 10, 9, and 7--and a sense that Congress was the best place to change national policies.

He has had no conversations about 2016 among his closest staff, according to a longtime aide who was granted anonymity to speak more freely. If he decides to run, he will do so from a more advantageous position. Close to 40 percent of people hadn?t heard of him before he was nominated; but, according to CNN/ORC polling, that had dropped to single digits within about 10 days. His favorability has stayed the same.

?He's well respected, and he's done a good job as the VP candidate,? said _Weekly Standard_ Editor Bill Kristol. He predicted that Ryan would start with an edge among the deep bench of Republicans who may consider a run, including New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida. Indeed, Ryan proved to be an effective campaigner who even held audiences captive when he began using a slide show about the rising debt at town halls.

The Romney campaign projected rosy images of Ryan as a legislator in search of bipartisanship, but his appeal at this point is concentrated among conservatives who like his prescriptions, which include steep cuts in taxes and spending, and restructuring Medicare as a voucher program.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, the senior Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said that Ryan is a passionate advocate, not a lawmaker who pursues compromise. Both are necessary to tackle the nation?s deficits and debt, he said. ?Will he continue to be the standard-bearer for the Far Rright of the Republican Party, or will he demonstrate a new willingness to work together in order to meet our budget challenges?? Van Hollen asked of Ryan in an e-mail.
It?s a question that underscores the strengths Ryan would bring to a presidential primary race, and the strategic decisions he?ll have to make with an eye on his future.


----------



## Standard Donkey (Nov 8, 2012)

i predict the american electorate will cast their votes for whichever candidate will get them the most "free" stuff


----------



## dogsoldier (Nov 8, 2012)

Jeezus H. Christ.  The ink isn't even dry on the ballots and those parasites are already posturing for 2016.  Gawd, politicians make me ill.


----------



## Swiper (Nov 8, 2012)

lol at Hillary. after the Libya shit hits the fan she's done.  lying sack of shit. 
she tells the parents of the killed in Libya that they're going to go after and arrest  the man who made the video. not the people who actually did the killing,  the man who made the video.  unreal.


----------



## FUZO (Nov 9, 2012)

Lerts face it,the Benghazi thing is a cover up,the shooting at the Drone doesnt come out until after.less white people voting this time,first president ever to win re-election with less the vote he got the first time.


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 9, 2012)

As long as repubs are pro life, anti women's rights, anti immigration, and anti gay marriage, they'll lose.  Especially as the younger make up more of the voting population.

Even if they're correct on fiscal issues, they're way out of sync on social issues.


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 9, 2012)

They need to face the reality that women, Latinos and young people are a huge voting block.


----------



## jay_steel (Nov 9, 2012)

As long as people are unemployed democrats will win. People vote for what is going to benefit them selves and who cares about creating jobs when we get free pay checks.


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 9, 2012)

That's not true, Obama won the women vote, Latino vote, black vote, gay vote, and liberal vote.
Repubs are so whacked on their social views that they alienate themselves w Christian white heterosexual males, which is a shrinking portion of the electorate.  They need to adapt to the changing views of gays and abortion rights cause their voters are dying off fast.


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 9, 2012)

This is the first time a president has been reelected w such poor unemployment.  It's the social issues and the "cut taxes for the rich" mentality.


----------



## troubador (Nov 9, 2012)

The GOP won't nominate Paul Ryan if they learned anything. My prediction for the 2016 GOP nominee...Paul Ryan.


----------



## exphys88 (Nov 9, 2012)

troubador said:


> The GOP won't nominate Paul Ryan if they learned anything. My prediction for the 2016 GOP nominee...Paul Ryan.



they need to force the christian conservatives out of their party to stand a chance.


----------



## jay_steel (Nov 9, 2012)

both parties are only in it for them selves and not the people. It is turning into a see whose cock is bigger then the other parties then about the people. Obama gives two shits about the American people just as much as Romney does. I voted for Romney based on my hatred for Obama. Only way this country will get turned around is if we get some one that actually knows and respects the constitution.


----------



## maniclion (Nov 9, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> That's not true, Obama won the women vote, Latino vote, black vote, gay vote, and liberal vote.
> Repubs are so whacked on their social views that they alienate themselves w Christian white heterosexual males, which is a shrinking portion of the electorate.  They need to adapt to the changing views of gays and abortion rights cause their voters are dying off fast.



Open a few more heartattack cafes and the Republicans won't have anyone to vote for them....


----------



## Little Wing (Nov 9, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> they need to force the christian conservatives out of their party to stand a chance.



this. no one wants to return to the dark ages. i think Romney is shrewd and might have won if he had been able to really say only what he was thinking and not had to mold it to an archaic agenda.


----------



## Little Wing (Nov 9, 2012)

maniclion said:


> Open a few more heartattack cafes and the Republicans won't have anyone to vote for them....



i don't see how people even want to eat that shit.


----------



## Standard Donkey (Nov 9, 2012)

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largesse out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits, with the result [being] the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."


----------



## jay_steel (Nov 9, 2012)

I am just curious how we are going to create jobs, when we are increasing welfare, defense cuts will just send more people on welfare due to downsizing, gov't health care, and all the other free stuff people are now getting. Where is the funding for creating jobs going to come into play? 

Also I was disgusted the other day, in class there is a guy who gets 1200$ a month because he has tattoos covering his face that were gang affiliated. He gets that money because he is considered unemployable now.


----------



## Zaphod (Nov 9, 2012)

Chris Christie for the republican nomination.  I'd even vote for him.  Didn't like him until Sandy leveled part of New Jersey and he was far more concerned with that than he was with campaigning for a douchebag.  He earned my respect for that.  

Although I'd much rather see a third party candidate win.  Need to get the republicans and democrats back in line.


----------



## hoyle21 (Nov 9, 2012)

Zaphod said:


> Chris Christie for the republican nomination.  I'd even vote for him.  Didn't like him until Sandy leveled part of New Jersey and he was far more concerned with that than he was with campaigning for a douchebag.  He earned my respect for that.
> 
> Although I'd much rather see a third party candidate win.  Need to get the republicans and democrats back in line.



Follow him on Twitter, he has been destroying faux news and his own party lately.


----------



## CG (Nov 9, 2012)

Being a dem from nj this isn't easy to say, if Christie gets the nod in 2016 I'm jumping ship on the dems. Chris Christie is awesome on so many levels


----------



## Zaphod (Nov 9, 2012)

jay_steel said:


> I am just curious how we are going to create jobs, when we are increasing welfare, defense cuts will just send more people on welfare due to downsizing, gov't health care, and all the other free stuff people are now getting. Where is the funding for creating jobs going to come into play?
> 
> Also I was disgusted the other day, in class there is a guy who gets 1200$ a month because he has tattoos covering his face that were gang affiliated. He gets that money because he is considered unemployable now.



The funding for more jobs can come from the cash corporations are sitting on.


----------



## jay_steel (Nov 9, 2012)

i just do not buy that taxing big corps is going to create all these jobs and save America. The biggest problem in America is people have no work ethic. Every one feels they should be given a job, but not earn a job.


----------



## hoyle21 (Nov 9, 2012)

jay_steel said:


> i just do not buy that taxing big corps is going to create all these jobs and save America. The biggest problem in America is people have no work ethic. Every one feels they should be given a job, but not earn a job.



Americans are 3 X's more productive than their Asian counterparts.    Guess again.


----------



## jay_steel (Nov 9, 2012)

did i ever compare Americans to Asia? No... Did I ever say we are less productive then Asia? no i did not. I said the biggest problem we have is our work ethic. Our work ethic sucks compared to what it use to be. If we want to get back to an unstoppable economy that has NO FEAR of another country coming close to us, we have to change in every aspect. The mentality of they owe this to me has to change. No one owes any one shit. Every thing should be a privilege not a right. Financial aid, welfare, unemployment, gov't housing, and ect should be a privileged and if you can not abide by set rules and regulation you are cut off. Same thing goes to big businesses getting gov't funding, it should be a privileged not a right to get it. How does PETA get away with giving money to bail out ALF in court battles and ect using gov't money? Both sides need to be deeply analyzed and dissected to find the underlining issues where our money is going. The gov't needs to account for EVERY cent it gives away.


----------



## Standard Donkey (Nov 9, 2012)

Zaphod said:


> The funding for more jobs can come from the cash corporations are sitting on.


----------



## Standard Donkey (Nov 9, 2012)

that was a good one zaphod.. "we're gunna take money away from companies....to create jobs"


classic liberal "what the fuck?" reasoning


----------



## hoyle21 (Nov 9, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> that was a good one zaphod.. "we're gunna take money away from companies....to create jobs"
> 
> 
> classic liberal "what the fuck?" reasoning



It's about changing the tax structure so the incentive is to create jobs, not hoard money.   I don't think you are intellectually capable of understanding.

It mathematically will work.   Although you could make an argument that interest rate adjustments, not tax policy should be used to fuel growth, but what do you do when interest rates are zero and there is still no growth?


----------



## Standard Donkey (Nov 9, 2012)

hoyle21 said:


> It's about changing the tax structure so the incentive is to create jobs, not hoard money.   I don't think *you are intellectually capable of understanding.
> *
> It mathematically will work.   Although you could make an argument that interest rate adjustments, not tax policy should be used to fuel growth, but what do you do when interest rates are zero and there is still no growth?




hurrrrrrr... so by hoarding money u mean keeping a healthy balance of cash in case they decide to pay off obligations or.......idk maybe finance expansion? r&d? investments?


how could a corporation benefit from "hoarding" cash and not letting it do anything? that's actually pretty irresponsible from a business perspective. Since you're so "smart", want to name 5-10 corporations that are guilty of "hoarding" cash?


----------



## hoyle21 (Nov 9, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> hurrrrrrr... so by hoarding money u mean keeping a healthy balance of cash in case they decide to pay off obligations or.......idk maybe finance expansion? r&d? investments?
> 
> 
> how could a corporation benefit from "hoarding" cash and not letting it do anything? that's actually pretty irresponsible from a business perspective. Since you're so "smart", want to name 5-10 corporations that are guilty of "hoarding" cash?



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903927204576574720017009568.html


----------



## hoyle21 (Nov 9, 2012)

http://m.theatlantic.com/business/a...ard-is-bigger-than-the-gdp-of-germany/260006/


----------



## Standard Donkey (Nov 9, 2012)

hoyle21 said:


> Companies Shun Investment, Hoard Cash - WSJ.com




can you post the article? i should have said in a time like this with enormous tax hikes around the corner thanks to the fuhrer, (especially on capital gains) im not surprised that anyone is shying away from investing.

i honestly thought americans had pulled their heads out of their asses, but apparently the taste of welfare via our tax dollars is just too sweet. I recently bought a nice chunk of change worth of stock antipicating that romney would win and that the company i invested in would continue it's bullish path.

after he lost the market tanked several percent. That should tell you something. 

it's because of the uncertainty that characterizes this day that they are "hoarding" money and pulling it out of investments.


----------



## hoyle21 (Nov 9, 2012)

That article is from 2011.    March I think.   I'm using tapatalk, not at home so I can't post it.


----------



## secdrl (Nov 9, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> can you post the article? i should have said in a time like this with enormous tax hikes around the corner thanks to the fuhrer, (especially on capital gains) im not surprised that anyone is shying away from investing.
> 
> i honestly thought americans had pulled their heads out of their asses, but apparently the taste of welfare via our tax dollars is just too sweet. I recently bought a nice chunk of change worth of stock antipicating that romney would win and that the company i invested in would continue it's bullish path.
> 
> ...




Let's not forget the massive layoffs from Boeing.


----------



## Standard Donkey (Nov 9, 2012)

hoyle21 said:


> That article is from 2011.    March I think.   I'm using tapatalk, not at home so I can't post it.




so the article you were using to support your "point" is over a year and a half old?


----------



## LAM (Nov 9, 2012)

Swiper said:


> lol at Hillary. after the Libya shit hits the fan she's done.  lying sack of shit.
> she tells the parents of the killed in Libya that they're going to go after and arrest  the man who made the video. not the people who actually did the killing,  the man who made the video.  unreal.



sounds like the same kind of people that covered up Pat Tillman's death...


----------



## LAM (Nov 9, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> it's because of the uncertainty that characterizes this day that they are "hoarding" money and pulling it out of investments.



ah yea...that started 30 years ago when it was made legal to steal the wealth of the country and replace it with debt.

and the welfare budget to the people in terms of cash benefits has not changed since 1996, looking at the numbers in the budget works much better than pulling unsubstantiated non-facts out of your ass to suite your ideology.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Nov 10, 2012)

hoyle21 said:


> Follow him on Twitter, he has been destroying faux news and his own party lately.



I would have voted for him anyway, but this sweetens the deal.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Nov 10, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> hurrrrrrr... so by hoarding money u mean keeping a healthy balance of cash in case they decide to pay off obligations or.......idk maybe finance expansion? r&d? investments?
> 
> 
> how could a corporation benefit from "hoarding" cash and not letting it do anything? that's actually pretty irresponsible from a business perspective. Since you're so "smart", want to name 5-10 corporations that are guilty of "hoarding" cash?



If they were using it for expansion, R&D, or investments the job market would be a lot better than it is.  Any expansion they are doing is overseas and not beneficial to us in any way whole most of the money they make is from us.  This is how/why the government steps in, if it doesn't nothing improves and the middle class shrinks because they become poor. If those companies were doing what they are supposed to be doing, i.e. hiring more people as their profits increase we wouldn't be where we are now.  They're not, they're hoarding the cash.  It would be one thing if they needed to hold on to that money but they don't, profits are at an all time high because they fired people and got more production out of the people they kept.  Good for profits, not good for paying for unfunded wars or reducing the deficit because it effectively shrinks the tax base.  You can only increase revenue by increasing the tax base through employment or increasing taxes on businesses and people and we desperately need more revenue.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Nov 10, 2012)

Cgrant said:


> Being a dem from nj this isn't easy to say, if Christie gets the nod in 2016 I'm jumping ship on the dems. Chris Christie is awesome on so many levels



Is Christie considering running in 2016?

Serious considering running?


----------



## Swiper (Nov 10, 2012)

hoyle21 said:


> It's about changing the tax structure so the incentive is to create jobs, not hoard money.   I don't think you are intellectually capable of understanding.
> 
> It mathematically will work.   Although you could make an argument that interest rate adjustments, not tax policy should be used to fuel growth, but what do you do when interest rates are zero and there is still no growth?



Do you think raising taxes will create jobs?


----------



## hoyle21 (Nov 10, 2012)

Swiper said:


> Do you think raising taxes will create jobs?



If done correctly yes it will.   Taxes is a very broad term though.


----------



## hoyle21 (Nov 10, 2012)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/07/17/the-truth-about-the-bush-tax-cuts-and-job-growth/


----------



## Swiper (Nov 10, 2012)

hoyle21 said:


> If done correctly yes it will.   Taxes is a very broad term though.




how so?


----------



## hoyle21 (Nov 10, 2012)

Swiper said:


> how so?



The problem you have in understanding how it could happen is a result of your belief that tax cuts spur job growth.

Tax cuts do not creat jobs.    It's a lie that has been proven to be a lie over and over and over again.

http://www.businessinsider.com/study-tax-cuts-dont-lead-to-growth-2012-9


If you want to create jobs change the incentive of the tax structure.   An increase in capital gains is a good start.


----------



## LAM (Nov 10, 2012)

Swiper said:


> Do you think raising taxes will create jobs?



lowering them certainly does not.  the CRS report shows all it does it grow inequality which makes the economy sluggish and helps to increase the deficit.

Congressional Research Office - Taxes and the Economy: An Economic Analysis of the Top Tax Rates Since 1945


Raising Today?s Low Capital Gains Tax Rates Could Promote Economic Efficiency and Fairness, While Helping Reduce Deficits


----------



## Swiper (Nov 10, 2012)

hoyle21 said:


> The problem you have in understanding how it could happen is a result of your belief that tax cuts spur job growth.
> 
> Tax cuts do not creat jobs.    It's a lie that has been proven to be a lie over and over and over again.
> 
> ...




some economists say it does, some say it does not create jobs when taxes are lowered. so you can pick and choose all you want. 

So how does raising the capital gains tax create jobs?


----------



## Swiper (Nov 10, 2012)

LAM said:


> lowering them certainly does not.  the CRS report shows all it does it grow inequality which makes the economy sluggish and helps to increase the deficit.
> 
> Congressional Research Office - Taxes and the Economy: An Economic Analysis of the Top Tax Rates Since 1945
> 
> ...



 does raising them create jobs?


----------



## LAM (Nov 10, 2012)

Swiper said:


> some economists say it does, some say it does not create jobs when taxes are lowered. so you can pick and choose all you want.
> 
> So how does raising the capital gains tax create jobs?



and the ones that say lowering them does do not write papers that are heavily cited and do not win noble prizes in economics.   

so if you had a choice you would pick the Dr that ranked at the bottom of his class in medical school vs the one that graduated with honors?  I highly doubt it...


----------



## LAM (Nov 10, 2012)

Swiper said:


> does raising them create jobs?



maybe try learning something and ACTUALLY READ THE REPORTS....


----------



## LAM (Nov 10, 2012)

Zaphod said:


> The funding for more jobs can come from the cash corporations are sitting on.



there is also a reported 20-60T sitting in offshore accounts


----------



## Gregzs (Dec 12, 2012)

Why Hillary Clinton Would Be Strong in 2016 (It's Not Her Favorability Ratings) - NYTimes.com

[h=3]Why Hillary Clinton Would Be Strong in 2016 (It?s Not Her Favorability Ratings)[/h]By NATE SILVERLet's start by stating the obvious: Hillary Rodham Clinton would be a formidable presidential candidate in 2016.

Mrs. Clinton's credentials as secretary of state, as a United States senator and as a politically engaged first lady would be hard for any of her Democratic or Republican rivals to match. She would have little trouble raising funds or garnering support from the Democratic officials, and she might even come close to clearing the Democratic field of serious opposition.

Mrs. Clinton made some tactical errors during the 2008 campaign - particularly, in her staff's failure to understand the importance of contesting caucus states. But she improved considerably as a candidate over the course of the long primary, and the experience she gained would undoubtedly help her if she were to run again.

But if Mrs. Clinton runs for president in 2016, one thing is almost certain: she won't be as popular as she is right now. Recent polls show that about 65 percent of Americans take a favorable view of Mrs. Clinton, while only about 30 percent have a negative one. Those are remarkably high numbers for a politician in an era when many public officials are distrusted or disliked.

But part of the reason for Mrs. Clinton's high numbers is that, as secretary of state, she has remained largely above the partisan fray that characterizes elections and fights over domestic policy.
Over the course of her long career, the public's views of Mrs. Clinton have shifted along with her public role. When she has been actively engaged in the hand-to-hand combat that characterizes election campaigns and battles in Congress, her favorability ratings have taken a hit, only to recover later.

Mrs. Clinton might be the most polled about American in history, other than those who have actually become president. Between the PollingReport.com database and other publicly available polling archives, I was able to identify about 500 high-quality telephone surveys that tested her favorability ratings with the public.
In the chart below, I've taken a moving average of Mrs. Clinton's favorable and unfavorable ratings dating back to 1992. (The average is based on the 10 surveys that were conducted closest to the given date). The chart also highlights some of the most important moments of Mrs. Clinton's career.

Mrs. Clinton, like her husband, began the 1992 campaign as a relatively unknown figure, but grew more popular as the campaign wore on. By the time Bill Clinton was inaugurated in January, 1993, about 50 percent of Americans took a favorable view of Mrs. Clinton against 20 percent who had an unfavorable one.

But Mrs. Clinton took a far more active role in seeking to affect public policy than most first ladies. In September 1993, she appeared before Congressional committees in an effort to advance the health care bill that she and Mr. Clinton had helped to design. No longer subject to the deference that first ladies typically receive from politicians and from the news media - and associated with a health care bill that would soon die in Congress - Mrs. Clinton saw her unfavorable ratings rise sharply, increasing to about 35 percent.

Adding to the pressure was the Whitewater investigation. In April 1994, Mrs. Clinton gave an unusual news conference in an effort to respond to her critics. The next two years were among the most difficult periods in Mrs. Clinton's career, with her favorable ratings often barely exceeding her unfavorable ones. During stretches of early 1996, more Americans viewed Mrs. Clinton negatively than positively.

The release of the Senate Whitewater committee's report in June 1996, which largely lacked substantive proof of wrongdoing by Mr. or Mrs. Clinton, seemed to help relieve the strain on her popularity, with Mrs. Clinton's favorability ratings increasing, and her unfavorable ratings declining, throughout 1997.
Another set of accusations, which would become the Monica Lewinsky scandal, would work to Mrs. Clinton's benefit, with her favorability ratings reaching a new high of about 60 percent after the impeachment of Mr. Clinton by the House of Representatives.

But Mrs. Clinton's favorability ratings declined sharply in early 1999, after she declared her interest in running for the United States Senate, again making herself an explicitly political figure. After a brief "bounce"in her favorability ratings following her election to the Senate from New York in November 2000, Mrs. Clinton's image entered into a long period of relative stability, with her favorable ratings averaging just below 50 percent, and her unfavorable ratings just above 40 percent, for most of the next six years.

Mrs. Clinton's popularity would come under further pressure when she pursued her next ambition, announcing her candidacy for the presidency in January 2007. Over much of the next 18 months, as she came under increasing scrutiny from Barack Obama and other Democrats along with Republicans, her favorable and unfavorable ratings ran even with one another at about 45 percent.

Her favorable ratings would rebound in the late stages of the Democratic campaign, climbing to about 50 percent at about the time she withdrew from the race on June 7, 2008. They continued to move upward throughout the rest of 2008.
Then Mrs. Clinton received a further boost after accepting the job as Mr. Obama's secretary of state. Her favorability ratings have been stable - and strong - throughout most of Mr. Obama's first term, with 60 or 65 percent of Americans taking a favorable view of her against 30 percent who have a negative one.
What is the moral of the story - other than that Mrs. Clinton has had a remarkably interesting political career?

The theme is that a politician's favorability ratings are a function, to a large degree, of the extent to which the other political party, and perhaps also the news media, feels as though they have license to criticize her.
During her tenure as first lady, Mrs. Clinton's favorability ratings were lower when she was more actively engaged in policy making, as she was during the negotiations on the health care bill. And her popularity came under more strain during the Whitewater allegations, in which she was implicated, than during the ones involving Ms. Lewinsky and Mr. Clinton.

There was also less benefit of the doubt afforded to Mrs. Clinton after she became a candidate for public office, and then an influential Democratic figure in the Senate. And her popularity especially suffered during the early stages of presidential campaign, when she came under intense scrutiny not only from Republicans, but also from her fellow Democrats.

The surge in Mrs. Clinton's favorability ratings late in the 2008 campaign, although perhaps partly testifying to her steadily improving skills as a campaigner and to her new role as an underdog in the Democratic primary race, may also have reflected the fact that Republicans had less incentive to criticize her. Instead, they were trying to woo her supporters - or bolster her chances to prolong the Democratic nomination process.
Mrs. Clinton has been highly popular as secretary of state, but so were her predecessors during George W. Bush's administration, Colin L. Powell and (to a slightly lesser extent) Condoleezza Rice.

A secretary of state is not necessarily above partisan criticism, but attacking a secretary of state can potentially backfire on the opposition party. As Mitt Romney discovered during the presidential campaign foreign affairs can present an unlevel playing field to the opposition party. The White House and the Department of State have a number of defenses that they can employ to shield themselves from criticism, from claiming that they are protecting the national interest, to accusing their opponents of being unpatriotic, to arguing that their opponents lack knowledge of the situation on the ground. The secretary of state, like the president, also enjoys the symbolic trappings of incumbency when she conducts diplomatic affairs.
Were Mrs. Clinton to run for president again, she would lose most of these advantages. Republicans would begin to criticize her, delicately at first, and then more expressly as the election drew nearer.

None of this is to argue that Mrs. Clinton would not have some unique strengths as a candidate. For all the reasons I mentioned at the top, she seems like Democrats' best bet, perhaps by some margin, to extend their winning streak to three or more terms in the White House. If she ran even a point or two stronger than a "generic" Democrat, the odds would shift meaningfully in her favor, holding other circumstances equal.

But elections in which no incumbent is running are usually fairly close. And in an era of intense partisanship, there is a relatively low ceiling (and perhaps also a relatively high floor) on the favorability ratings that any politician can have in the most active stages of a presidential campaign.

Perhaps Mrs. Clinton's most impressive attribute is her ability to withstand criticism - and often emerge the stronger from it. If she runs for president again, she will surely receive plenty of it.


----------



## bio-chem (Dec 12, 2012)

Little Wing said:


> i like Hillary. if_ she_ was running against Obama she is smart enough so it might at least be a contest.



Like when she was the favorite in the primaries of 2008, but lost to the unknown Obama?


----------



## bio-chem (Dec 12, 2012)

2016 is so wide open. As it should be. Clinton will make another run at it, but i don't think she has the juice at 70 for a legit run. The Dems if smart will be grooming someone in a back room somewhere. Whoever it is will be hit with Obama fatigue just like McCain got hit with Bush fatigue after 8 years. just the way it is. If the economy rebounds in the next 4 years I can see the US swallowing another liberal pussy.

The republicans are in total disarray. Just like the Dems were when Bush won his second term. They've got some good candidates, but they need to become the big tent party again. Not cater to the ultra-right wing. Abortion is a terrible thing, and we should do what we can to reduce instances when a woman feels that is her only option. But don't ever talk about repealing roe v. wade. Talk like that is a nail in the coffin, and repubs need to learn that. hopefully with the bungling of Romney they learn. Governor Romney of Mass would have wiped the floor with Obama. this latest incarnation we saw at the polls was not good enough to inspire the people to change from Obama. more is the pity. Generalizing republicans as anti-immigration, or anti-women is the dumbest thing i've ever heard.  It will be interesting what we get out of the supreme court as they rule on prop 8, and doma. i'm betting prop 8 is upheld and doma is struck down, but both could easily be struck down. that will shape how the candidates treat social issues during 2016.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Dec 13, 2012)

exphys88 said:


> As long as repubs are pro life, anti women's rights, anti immigration, and anti gay marriage, they'll lose.  Especially as the younger make up more of the voting population.
> 
> Even if they're correct on fiscal issues, they're way out of sync on social issues.




I agree with exphys88, here.

Many voters do not base their votes on the abortion, or gay issues - but many do.  I assume (I'll look for data later) that many young folks that are 30 and younger do not relate to these GOP positions on socials, and these social issue positions are there to placate the Evangelicals and the Xtian right.

Yes, the GOP is out of sync.  The GOP needs to adapt or it will be a minority party for the most part with an occasional majority in the House and Senate.


----------



## T K (Dec 13, 2012)

bio-chem said:


> 2016 is so wide open. As it should be. Clinton will make another run at it, but i don't think she has the juice at 70 for a legit run. The Dems if smart will be grooming someone in a back room somewhere. Whoever it is will be hit with Obama fatigue just like McCain got hit with Bush fatigue after 8 years. just the way it is. If the economy rebounds in the next 4 years I can see the US swallowing another *liberal pussy*.
> .



Did you really just use those two words together? Wow, think next time.

I suppose in your warped world only conservative means courageous.


----------



## bio-chem (Dec 13, 2012)

T K said:


> Did you really just use those two words together? Wow, think next time.
> 
> I suppose in your warped world only conservative means courageous.



Damn right I used those two words together. President Obama is a Liberal Pussy. like I said, if the economy rebounds in the next 4 years I can see the US swallowing another Liberal Pussy.


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 14, 2012)

Standard Donkey said:


> that was a good one zaphod.. "we're gunna take money away from companies....to create jobs"
> 
> 
> classic liberal "what the fuck?" reasoning



Apparently you haven't been following what the rich, corporate management and anti-tax types have been saying.  Lower taxes on the job creators so they can create jobs.  Taxes are pretty much the lowest they've been in American history on the rich and on big corporations leading to them sitting on such huge amounts of cash.  

All of which begs the question Where are the jobs?


----------



## FUZO (Dec 15, 2012)

Dumbass Barry got elected by keeping people on welfare keeping people on unemployment .Keeping people on food stamps.Like I said in a previous post take away 10-15% of the african american vote he loses . And I also said when there is a white democrat nominee running for president you wont see 95 % of african americans coming out and voting this time. You can count on that.And Im no racist


----------



## Dale Mabry (Dec 15, 2012)

bio-chem said:


> 2016 is so wide open. As it should be. Clinton will make another run at it, but i don't think she has the juice at 70 for a legit run. The Dems if smart will be grooming someone in a back room somewhere. Whoever it is will be hit with Obama fatigue just like McCain got hit with Bush fatigue after 8 years. just the way it is. If the economy rebounds in the next 4 years I can see the US swallowing another liberal pussy.
> 
> The republicans are in total disarray. Just like the Dems were when Bush won his second term. They've got some good candidates, but they need to become the big tent party again. Not cater to the ultra-right wing. Abortion is a terrible thing, and we should do what we can to reduce instances when a woman feels that is her only option. But don't ever talk about repealing roe v. wade. Talk like that is a nail in the coffin, and repubs need to learn that. hopefully with the bungling of Romney they learn. Governor Romney of Mass would have wiped the floor with Obama. this latest incarnation we saw at the polls was not good enough to inspire the people to change from Obama. more is the pity. Generalizing republicans as anti-immigration, or anti-women is the dumbest thing i've ever heard.  It will be interesting what we get out of the supreme court as they rule on prop 8, and doma. i'm betting prop 8 is upheld and doma is struck down, but both could easily be struck down. that will shape how the candidates treat social issues during 2016.



TO be honest I'd like to see the Republican party die and the libertarian party rise.  From what I gather from most people I think this is the party most indicative of the way the country is.  It'll never happen because both parties are complicit with having a 50/50 chance of winning, but if the GOP takes another drubbing I can see them adopting a paradigm shift.  Whether you are a dem or a republican this would be good, big government isn't good for anybody and what we have now is 2 parties that are both for big government.


----------



## Swiper (Dec 24, 2012)

"He (Mitt Romney) wanted to be president less than anyone I've met in my life. He had no desire... to run," Tagg Romney said.
"If he could have found someone else to take his place... he would have been ecstatic to step aside."

http://www.france24.com/en/20121223-romney-didnt-want-run-president-son-says


LOL at Romney giving the presidency to Obama. Maybe that saying "presidents are selected not elected" is true after all.


----------



## dogsoldier (Dec 25, 2012)

Sorry, you don't go through all that bullshit of you don't want to be the president.  I will not believe that in the entire Republican Party there was not someone smart and talented that would have stepped up. He was owed his shot for stepping out of McCain's way back in '08 and he stepped up because wanted it.


----------



## Swiper (Dec 25, 2012)

McCain threw the election too when he picked plain.  he too most likely didn't want to become president. how else can you explain that VP pick?  he, like Romney didn't have a plan to fix the economy and didn't want to go down in history as one if the worst presidents.


----------



## dogsoldier (Dec 26, 2012)

Swiper said:


> McCain threw the election too when he picked plain.  he too most likely didn't want to become president. how else can you explain that VP pick?  he, like Romney didn't have a plan to fix the economy and didn't want to go down in history as one if the worst presidents.



I respectfully disagree. McCain wanted it. But he didn't know how to go about it.  The pick of Palin was at first really smart on paper. No one expected her to draw so much hate and bile form the left and the right. Of course, when things got tough, she kept digging herself deeper. McCain lost his edge. For some reason the old white Republican establishment are afraid to take it hard to a black guy.  There was enough crap on Obama from his days as the representative from Illinois and his early public life that they should have been able to bury him during the first election. But put simply they didn't have the balls to do it. 

That was also played out in the last election.  Obama's presidency is mediocre at best and to many a complete disaster.  The Republicans need a house cleaning from top to bottom to get rid of the dried up old ways of thinking.  Obama was vulnerable on the economy, foreign policy and internal ethics of his administration.  No one wanted to throw this stuff in his face in front of the American people.  The old guy Republicans are afraid to be a "racist" or "bigot" if they did.  Romney should have realized he could not nice guy his way into the big job. During that debate when the question of Benghazi came up and Candy Crowley had to run to Obama's rescue, Romney had the election handed to him on a silver platter.  He back off.  All he had to do was challenge Crowley to read the quote. He would have buried Crowley and Obama with Obama's own words. He should have gone for the kill shot on Obama and Crowley. But he didn't. The president has to have the ability to be a real SOB in all areas and the Republicans just keep sending out pussy's.


----------

