GOP Failure Watch Part III

Sure he is. Trump makes up for not being a good businessman by pretending to be a good businessman and selling his name and image when he goes bankrupt. And he was smart enough to recognize the opportunity in the Apprentice when many others dismissed it, and if you remember, his latest run for president coincided with the show's season finale. It's not Trump's fault Obama timed the Bin Laden raid with the finale.

 

The Donald seems bright enough to me. Wharton grad, sure Daddy probably helped with admissions but still that's a decent sign of intelligence. The man is a great marketer. The Trump brand makes big $$$ from the rubes. They'll pay up to purchase a condo if the building carries a Trump name, even if The Donald quite did nothing but sell his name to the building's owners.

Cynical, immoral, clownish, and classless, sure. But I'll concede smart.

 

Two things happened today to make me chuckle at Mitten's and the GOP's bleak prospects for winning 1600 Pennsylvania Ave this November.

The first was this WSJ piece (Sub Req) - which more or less states that Romney is losing the Tax messaging battle because he is not aggressively selling his message that "tax breaks are good for the economy"

The second piece was the release of a study that affirms what everyt other thinking mammal already knew... Tax Cuts For The Rich Do Not Spur Economic Growth: Study

 

Is that what this is?

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2012/09/a-reply-from-martin-feldstein.html

It seems to me that he's answering assumptions with assumptions, but I'm not really expert enough to say. I'd be grateful for some insight from you, ratdog or superdave.

 

I don't know econ well enough. All I'll note is that Mankiw uses $100K instead of $250K. I don't know if that's significant or not.

 

I won't be able to look at this more closely until tonight.

For now, all I can say is that Paul Ryan's budget wasn't "mathematically impossible" either. All it needed was 2.8% unemployment by 2021. The point being that "mathematically possible" does not equal "realistic". If it did, Cubs fans would rejoice that a World Series title is still mathematically possible and therefore totally realistic and Romney and Ryan's economics are as realistic as a Cubs World Series victory this year.

 

Basically yes. He assumes the elimination of some deductions that will never happen (the employer health insurance one, for instance) and argues that anyone who makes over 100K isn't middle class.

 

Thanks, guys.

 

1. As long as he was using legal methods, I don't have an issue with him, except that his proposed reform of the tax code makes it less fair, not more.
2. We actually can only assume that he's using legal methods because we only have one (incomplete) tax return to go by. He steadfastly refuses to release more.
3. I take all available deductions. There are a lot for a homeowner with student loan debt and significant charitable deductions such as myself. Still higher than Mitt.

 

This is a fair point but that's also a business decision (quantity over quality). I would argue that it's possible to maintain good profit margins with a focus on quality. I think you and I agree that Wal-Mart doesn't always do that (which is why I tend not to shop there).

It doesn't necessarily have to be that way. Best Buy is a big box just like Circuit City was. They beat Circuit City because they didn't race to the bottom and offered better customer service etc. Unfortunately when Circuit City went away (and they faced increasing competition from online retailers for example) they kind of lost the mission and customer service, which got them to the top, really suffered, which is why I think they are struggling now. Here in south Florida HH Gregg saw an opening and opened big box stores, so far with exemplary customer service (though admittedly with less selection on smaller items like DVDs and games). With Best Buy struggling will be interesting to see how that evolves.

Couple of points here:
1. It depends on what you mean by low density. For example, there was significant infrastructure build-up here in south Florida when Ikea opened a store on the outskirts of town. It's very near a pretty high-density residential population. Ikea could have decided to open their store closer to downtown Fort Lauderdale and I can tell you it would have been a nightmare (and this is a community where if you don't have a car you can't do anything - our public transportation is awful). So in this instance, it's not really low density because it's ten minutes from downtown.
2. Ikea may not be the perfect example because they do give a one-stop destination (including a cafeteria) but other businesses in the area certainly benefit from the increased traffic (including those who don't feel like eating swedish meatballs for lunch).
3. I find this argument analogous to the arguments surrounding public baseball stadiums, to give an example. Public spending frequently won't help with the surrounding neighborhood, but if done properly it can. I was just in San Francisco and it's inarguable that the baseball stadium there, and the infrastructure built around it, built an area of that city to a great extent.

 

Not to mention that his plan, as we know it (because it's pretty lacking in specifics), rigs the system further in favor of the "haves."

 

Exactly. They absolutely LOVED Bill Clinton when he was in power.

 

This is demonstrably false. Since you have given no sources, neither will I.

 

Anybody else read the low-density, high-density stuff and start nerdgasming that SimCity 5 is coming out soon?

 

If I were going to blame Obama for anything (and I will) it's that he has been far too willing to try to compromise with a Congress* that wants no part in compromise. I wish he'd call a press conference and say "you know what. I tried compromise. I tried to work with the Republicans. And what do we have to show for it? Zero jobs bills out of the Republican-led House, and constant filibuster from the minority in the Senate. And I'm now calling on Boehner, Cantor, Ryan, McConnell etc. to break this deadlock and do what is right for this country. Because right now their goal is obstructing growth in this country to get their guy elected, which doesn't solve our problems. Compromise is done. Do what's right for America or face the consequences at the ballot box."

* Congress here represents the House and the Senate Republicans who filibuster damn near everything.

 

The problem is that both sides do think they are doing what is right for the country. It doesn't matter that they are both wrong.

 

OK I'll take a shot

 

See this is where you and I are never going to agree completely. Obama thinks (by his actions) that what is best for the country is to work with the Republicans in Congress* to find solutions to the country's issues. If you stand with the Republicans in Congress* you think** that is right for this country is to make sure Obama isn't reelected.

* See my above post for definition of Congress.

** I'm making an assumption here that you think Obama is flat wrong. If I've made a bad assumption please tell me.

 

I think that the Republican congress is certainly to blame for blocking Obama's policies in an attempt to make him a one term president but also because they didn't think Obama's policies were the correct policies to move the country forward. I don't agree with the methods used by congress, most notably the House members that simply refuse to even try.

I don't believe Obama's policies were all bad, just ill-timed. HCR didn't need to be done when it was done but Obama needed something big to hang his hat on. We will see if it worked or not come November.

 

I hope you aren't kidding. I've been playing SimCity on my phone and it's a bitch without the cheat codes.

 

You have to play Sim City 2000 with disasters on to appreciate how much this game fueled every kid's inner pyro.

 

Oh, I did. SimCity 2000 stole weeks and weeks of my life. Actually, I've been playing SimCity since the old days, when it was all 2D and shit. I love how you can intentionally inflict the disaster of your choice upon your city. Or maybe that was a cheat code. Anyway, it was awesome.

But were you joking about SimCity 5? Don't toy with me. When I got a new laptop last year, I was really bummed to learn that there wasn't a version for Windows 7.

 

It's just being called "SimCity" but it was announced for a 2013 release date.

 

I went to the Googles and found the website.* It looks like it will be freaking amazing.

Finally, something to live for. Do you know that I cannot pass a vacant lot in real life without picturing the old 2D representations of abandoned lots in the original SimCity? And when I think about zoning in real life, the zones are green, blue or yellow in my brain.


*Edit: Which I now see is linked in your post. Well, I'm too excited to pay attention to details right now.

Another Edit: The full version is $80. Yikes. And the bad news is that it comes out in February. I'll be at work ass deep in year-end audit/financial statement prep in February. Not a good time for a new game to come out.