What Gingrich, Santorum, etc. got right about Romney
Back in the heat of the primary season, Republican leaders grew very uneasy when Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Rick Perry began to attack Mitt Romney as an out-of-touch rich guy who built his wealth through “vulture capitalism” (Rick Perry’s term) and was hiding something in his taxes. Among other concerns, GOP leaders recognized that if such attacks on Romney worked, they might end up with Gingrich, Santorum or Perry as their nominee.
That was not an outcome they were willing to risk, so they quickly ruled that line of attack out of bounds.
These days, however, they may be reaping the consequences of that decision. The latest CNN poll has Barack Obama pulling out to a seven-point lead over Romney. Ipsos/Reuters also puts the margin at seven, while Fox News puts it at nine. And as Fox notes, the internals are more worrisome still for Romney:
“Obama’s advantage comes largely from increased support among independents, who now pick him over Romney by 11 percentage points. Some 30 percent of independents are undecided. Last month, Obama had a four-point edge among independents, while Romney had the advantage from April through early June….
“The Obama campaign has spent heavily on advertising attacking Romney’s time at Bain Capital and his tax returns. And it appears to be working. Romney’s favorable rating dropped six percentage points since last month and now sits at 46 percent, down from 52 percent in mid-July. At the same time his unfavorable rating went up five points. Romney’s favorable rating has held steady among his party faithful, but it’s down eight percentage points among independents and seven points among Democrats.”
Moreover, Fox notes, Obama outpolls Romney by eight percentage points on the question of which man is more likely to help people achieve the American dream, which constitutes the foundation of the Romney strategy. And the erosion of support isn’t limited to the party’s nominees:
“While Democrats typically hold a slight edge over Republicans nationally in party identification, this attitude shifts based on events and changing sentiment. These days, voters seem to be even more likely to consider themselves Democrats than Republicans. There has been a five-percentage-point Democratic advantage, on average, in Fox News polls this year. In this poll, the Democratic edge is nine points. That may or may not be on the high side, although it is similar to other recent national polls conducted by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal, which put Democrats up 11 percentage points, and the Pew Research Center, with Democrats up by 13 percent.”
(In a humorous aside, only one major polling outfit in the last three weeks — the ever-reliable Rasmussen — has Romney leading, with the former Massachusetts governor up by four. See below.)
Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html
It’s still early, of course — the campaign holds a lot of unanticipated twists and turns ahead. But for the moment, the line of attack against Romney that Republican leaders ruled off-limits in the GOP primary seems to be working quite well when employed by Democrats. The party’s decision to protect Romney back in January and February — in effect, Gingrich et al were told not to look the dressage horse in the mouth — meant that he was never forced to develop an explanation or defense against such criticism, and it appears that he has yet to do so to this day.
With voters now forming their early impressions of the GOP nominee, that could prove to have been a major blunder.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
881 comments Add your comment
Paul
August 10th, 2012
4:54 pm
Bernie
You one of those types who just ignores the questions asked of you in response to your posts?
TaxPayer
August 10th, 2012
4:58 pm
can’t see how you proved that part
Erwin,
That much we can agree on. An understanding would require that you read the material rather than simply dismiss it as you do. The data is there. You choose to not read it. Do you really think it is something that can be compiled into a bumper sticker just for you. Then again, when “bumper sticker” was mentioned, that did get your attention. When I give you a link that links to all the papers that support the statements, you come back looking for something summarized in the form of a bumper sticker and if you cannot have your bumper sticker proof, you want no part of it. Does that about sum you up, Erwin.
Bernie
August 10th, 2012
4:59 pm
Paul @ 4:53 pm – by the way I do not think ALL of OUR JEWISH BROTHERS and SISTERS, appreciate your comments here!
Your comments sound ALARMS that can be heard all the way back to ISREAL!
Many will think Do ALL MORMONS think like you and JOSEF?
Hmmmm! I wonder about MITT because Like his TAXES he refuses to TALK about this TOO!
Maybe MITT should do something like Candidate OBAMA did when Foxnews was jumping Up and DOWN about Rev.Wright in the last ELECTION!
Skip
August 10th, 2012
5:00 pm
Anybody remember what the topic was ?
Thulsa Doom
August 10th, 2012
5:00 pm
Look out. Joe mama is (laughing, pointing) again.
That Black Guy
August 10th, 2012
5:02 pm
Thulsa Doom
August 10th, 2012
3:10 pm
Then I stand corrected. As do a lot of libs. The $77,000 figure I had seen several libs post it several times a few weeks ago. So naturally I just assumed it to be true. I take the libs at their word and end up getting burned by their lie. Won’t do that again.
__________________________________
So did I. But something didn’t feel right so I pulled out the googlie.
I have posted that info several times here and Kyle’s, but people still bring up the $77,000 thingie.
AND they also use the *business* deduction of a ENORMOUS, WHOPPING, STAGGERING $49, as their basis for attacks on the Romneys *medical* deductions (which NO ONE actually knows they have taken).
Bernie
August 10th, 2012
5:04 pm
Skip @ 5:00 pm – Anybody remember what the topic was ?
Why is MITT and the MORMON CHURCH are BAPTIZING DEAD JEWISH CITIZENS?
TaxPayer
August 10th, 2012
5:08 pm
Perhaps That Black Guy would like to explain this to us.
Paul
August 10th, 2012
5:10 pm
Why do you think it’s okay to cut off the ends of little boy’s dallywhackers against their will, Ben?
Bernie
August 10th, 2012
5:11 pm
Paul @ 4:45 pm – Around Atlanta or at least on the SOUTHWEST side, the only door knockers are the JEHOVAH WITNESSES. But I do not think they BAPTIZE DEAD PEOPLE as a RULE!
I am sorry, I find the ACT VERY STRANGE! and I NEVER want to SEE IT or PARTICIPATE in IT!
Or SHAKE THE HAND or …….VOTE for anyone who HAS!
Paul
August 10th, 2012
5:12 pm
Why do you kill innocent animals on altars to appease your G-d, Ben?
Keep your hands off my pets, Ben.
They BOTH suck
August 10th, 2012
5:13 pm
Paul
You are a good dude. One day I will have the patience that you display
Paul
August 10th, 2012
5:14 pm
If Lieberman had become VP, would he have made all males in the US cut their private parts, Ben?
Would he have made an altar in the West Wing and killed animals with knives?
See how it works, Ben?
Joe Hussein Mama
August 10th, 2012
5:14 pm
Doom — “Look out. Joe mama is (laughing, pointing) again.”
Mr. Obvious strikes again.
Paul
August 10th, 2012
5:16 pm
BOTH suck
Sometimes I do feel a tad bit guilty…. but at the time it’s so darn much fun.
Ever hear the one about the young lady in the shrinks office telling her about her wild weekends and the shrink asked her “do you ever feel guilty in the mornings?” and she says “oh no! I sleep ’till noon!”
where’s BadaBing?
They BOTH suck
August 10th, 2012
5:20 pm
Paul
That is good.
You do keep a pretty mild manner even when they shenanigans kick in.
Have a great weekend
Paul
August 10th, 2012
5:22 pm
you too, BOTH, you too -
Bernie
August 10th, 2012
5:23 pm
Paul @ 5:14 pm – Leave TRAITOR JOE alone, He is retiring THANK – GOD!
Like THE CARFAX commercial we have MITT Before us for consideration and he is claiming our PRESIDENT is making a WAR on Religion. And here he is going around BAPTIZING DEAD PEOPLE of ANOTHER RELIGION! without the DEAD PERSONS CONSENT!
Because his (MITTS) RELIGION (MORMONISM) says this is the only way to get to HEAVEN! those who were not BAPTIZED as a MORMON!
Many of the readers here and across the NATION have not been given a full insight into MITTS religious activities as WELL!
Wonder what good ole Pastor GRAHAM and the others would think and say about that?
Paul
August 10th, 2012
5:26 pm
Bernie
Don’t you think it’s wearing a little thin?
A good player knows when to take the chips left on the table and leave -
Erwin's cat
August 10th, 2012
5:26 pm
TP – I have read the papers and scanned the data…I’m not sold and for the most part find the GCC debate data unpersuasive..I don’t feel the need to defend my position to you or anyone else…I’m not try to convince you that I am right…get over it
Gotta run
That Black Guy
August 10th, 2012
5:35 pm
TaxPayer
August 10th, 2012
3:35 pm
And as for those passive gains and losses adding up to $49, there appears to be a little more to that claim than some would have you believe.
________________________
What were we supposed to gleen from that link?
That the Romney’s DID in fact receive $49 in deductions?
Or, are we supposed to ASSume what MAY, MIGHT, or COULD happen at some point in the future?
That Black Guy
August 10th, 2012
5:39 pm
Adam
August 10th, 2012
3:37 pm
So uh, what exactly is the issue here? That both administrations have officials that are “tax cheats”?
Let’s cut right to the chase: Does anyone really think that the Republicans wouldn’t eliminate taxes on themselves and their friends altogether if they could? – YES
Does anyone think Democrats would ALSO do that? – YES
Now after you answer those – which side seems to not get all that upset when someone doesn’t pay taxes? – they both do (R’s were upset over Rangel, D’s upset over Romney)
They BOTH write tax laws.
They BOTH take the MAXIMUM deductions allowed.
Don’t pretend that one side just LOVES paying taxes.
Adam, you are smarter than that.
TaxPayer
August 10th, 2012
5:44 pm
I have read the papers and scanned the data…I’m not sold and for the most part find the GCC debate data unpersuasive..I don’t feel the need to defend my position to you or anyone else…I’m not try to convince you that I am right…get over it
Gotta run
Erwin,
Sure you read ‘em.
Pick one and let’s discuss it the next time you don’t have to run.
TaxPayer
August 10th, 2012
5:47 pm
That Black Guy,
I don’t know what you ASSumed–probably whatever you ASSumed when you claimed that I demeaned someone with a disease earlier today. Obviously you missed the part in that Forbe’s link that explains how the Romney’s are not actually limited to a $49 deduction. But do carry on with your ASSumptions.
independent thinker
August 10th, 2012
5:49 pm
This is how that gasbag Gingrich tried to weasel out of backing Romney’s blatant lies about Obama and welfare:
“”"”"”"”"”"Newt Gingrich again defended the Romney campaign’s attacks on President Barack Obama’s “gutting” of the nation’s welfare system on Wednesday.Asked by CNN on “The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer,” if he believes the ad, released Tuesday claiming a directive issued by Obama would “gut welfare reform,” is misleading, the former House speaker declined, further backing-up his former Republican primary opponent.
Gingrich later toned down his support for the wording of the attacks in an interview with CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360″ saying, “I think if the ad makers had asked me I would have said, ‘This makes it possible,’ would have been a good way to enter into what it said.”
Gingrich continued, “We have no proof today, but I would say to you under Obama’s ideology it is absolutely true that he would be comfortable sending a lot of people checks for doing nothing.”
(from CNN yesterday)
Nothing like trotting out your former enemy the supreme gasbag of the GOP to get that white southern vote. Keep spreading that big lie that the Black man is giving away welfare to Black votes even if they refuse to work even if it is not true. Yeah Jay is right we should listen to ole Newt
Adam
August 10th, 2012
5:53 pm
TBG: No, I just don’t think that Democrats bend over backwards to make it legal to pay less for themselves and their friends. And if you consider low income people their “friends” then that still doesn’t explain not wanting to give tax breaks to themSELVES.
My comment wasn’t about taking legal deductions. It was about what the parties think SHOULD be legal in deductions and taxes. For the most part, I see the Republicans more than willing to make it easier to eliminate tax liability on high earners, businesses, and themselves all through loopholes and lower rates. I don’t see that same drive from the Democrats. I see them wanting to cut taxes on poor people (more recently, apparently this is actually new that they WANT to cut taxes at all).
In the end, the R’s get upset very little over when someone has limited tax liability UNLESS it’s a poor person. And the D’s get upset over businesses and rich people getting tax breaks and then the R’s claiming that really, ANYONE can use those (that irks me also).
I do not remember Kerry getting slammed for paying low taxes, instead I remember people getting upset that he was a rich Democrat and therefore out of touch. I DO remember R’s getting upset over tax CHEATS, but not over actual legal taxes, if that liability is zero, unless we’re talking about poor people who “don’t have skin in the game.”
Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
August 10th, 2012
5:57 pm
What is the over/under line on how many times Jay will mention the Supreme Leader’s epic mishandling of the economy, foreign policy, and basically everything within his purview as president between now and November? Not something a Democrat can really talk about, I know, so I would put that number at one, maximum.
My personal polling has Romney up 15 in all battleground states, with even New York, California, and Illinois now in play. My polling is more accurate than the sources you have listed.
The basic question remains – are you better off now than four years ago? Even his core constituencies, who he has brutalized the most, have to answer “NO”.
TaxPayer
August 10th, 2012
6:06 pm
are you better off now than four years ago?
Yes.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
August 10th, 2012
6:08 pm
Even his core constituencies, who he has brutalized the most, have to answer “NO”.
Don’t presume to speak for me, sport.
You don’t have the authority to identify what it is that I “have to” do.
That Black Guy
August 10th, 2012
6:24 pm
TaxPayer
August 10th, 2012
5:47 pm
That Black Guy,
I don’t know what you ASSumed–probably whatever you ASSumed when you claimed that I demeaned someone with a disease earlier today. Obviously you missed the part in that Forbe’s link that explains how the Romney’s are not actually limited to a $49 deduction. But do carry on with your ASSumptions
________________________________
NEVER said they were LIMITED to $49 deduction. I said they RECEIVED a $49 deduction.
There IS a difference.
AND they can only realize the balance of said deduction if they make a profit from the sale of their interest in said horse.
So, yes, one would have to ASSume a few things.
1) the Romneys WILL sell their interest in the horse
2) the Romneys WILL make a profit on that sale
3) the Romneys WILL seek the deduction
4) the horse will NOT
a. die
b. become injured
c. lose value
That Black Guy
August 10th, 2012
6:27 pm
Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
August 10th, 2012
5:57 pm
The basic question remains – are you better off now than four years ago? Even his core constituencies, who he has brutalized the most, have to answer
_______________________________________
Very much so.
Erwin's cat
August 10th, 2012
6:44 pm
TP…back for a sec then gotta run
discussion topics…start here
http://www.stsci.edu/~lbradley/seminar/butterfly.html
it’s a dumbed down overview, but a starting point and affords for a layman’s conversation (no offense meant)
I’ll be back
Adam
August 10th, 2012
7:05 pm
I love it when people in the bubble come out and declare victory.
Hey, Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, I bet $100 Obama wins. Will you take that bet?
bman
August 10th, 2012
7:12 pm
Adam .. … I wouldn’t place a wager on either. Rule #1- never bet on anything you have no control over. A better bet would be – if you believe in the current administration- to put your money and your confidence into expanding your business.
You have your own business. Why not bet 50-100k on expansion and growing it?
That would be a real wager.
Adam
August 10th, 2012
7:18 pm
If I had 50-100k just lying around to do that, I would have done that already.
Paul
August 10th, 2012
7:24 pm
TaxPayer
“are you better off now than four years ago?
Yes.”
Me, too.
No question about it.
Pleasant weekend, all -
Erwin's cat
August 10th, 2012
7:25 pm
Isn’t online betting illegal in GA?…just sayin
Erwin's cat
August 10th, 2012
7:31 pm
Adam – If I had 50-100k just lying around to do that, I would have done that already.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/smallbusiness/a/sbaloans.htm
larger amounts are generally easier to get, but go ahead….be a job creator
I’m guessin’ you’re a 1099 contractor doing “consulting”….maybe thru you’re own LLC…am I close?
TaxPayer
August 10th, 2012
7:34 pm
AND they can only realize the balance of said deduction if they make a profit from the sale of their interest in said horse.
That Black Guy,
That’s not quite the way I interpret the contents of that Forbe’s article. Then again, you do have a penchant for conveniently neglecting to mention things that do not fit with version of a given topic. From the article:
“The Romneys’ 2010 return shows $2,276,385 in losses from various passive activities, including a loss of $77,731 from Rob Rom, but just $2,120 in passive income. Since the taxpayer must allocate passive income proportionately against passive losses, only $49 of their passive horse loss could be used.
Tough, huh? But you don’t forfeit the passive losses you can’t use. Instead they’re “suspended” and can be carried forward and used in future years to the extent you have income from other passive activities. Moreover, when you sell all of a money losing passive investment, any unused losses from it are liberated and can be claimed against non-passive taxable income. If Mitt wins and Ann sells her share of Rob Rom, their suspended horse losses could, for example, be deducted against Mitt’s $400,000 Presidential salary.”
Then again, what are Mitt’s chances of having such a non-passive income to work with.
TaxPayer
August 10th, 2012
7:50 pm
Erwin,
Scroll down to section g in this link entitled “Chaos, Ensembles and Probabilities”. It may help explain the difference between weather prediction climate modeling. Of course, that is just one small piece of the work that has been done as well as is still being done. Perhaps you would also like to talk about some of the other pieces such as the actual global warming. Do you believe the data in that regard, that the earth is indeed warming? Then, there is the scientific fact that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increase the amount of radiation that is reflected back to earth and cause the earth to warm more than it would otherwise. Then, there is the fact that the added CO2 is indeed from fossil fuel combustion and we are the source of that combustion, etc. After all, there’s so much more to global warming than the so-called butterfly effect.
Cagle Post » The GOP Wants Fewer People to Vote for Them « Ye Olde Soapbox
August 10th, 2012
7:50 pm
[...] What Gingrich, Santorum, etc. got right about Romney (blogs.ajc.com) [...]
Erwin's cat
August 10th, 2012
8:04 pm
TP…don’t jump the shark tank yet
what are you trying to prove…right here right now…a serious question
TaxPayer
August 10th, 2012
8:12 pm
Erwin,
What do you mean, what am I trying to prove. What are you trying to prove. That climate science cannot progress because scientists cannot overcome your vision of a limitation of predicting potential outcomes from a system of non-linear equations. Are you limiting yourself somewhat there. Also, I mentioned that there is much more to the topic of climate science than constructing models. So, what do you mean when you say what am I trying to prove.
Erwin's cat
August 10th, 2012
8:19 pm
TP…remember, my position is unprovable….your goal is to prove yourself right…
let’s be clear…your position is GCC is accelerated by man or caused by man …better…what is your thesis statement?…3 sentences max
bman
August 10th, 2012
8:21 pm
“If I had 50-100k just lying around to do that, I would have done that already”
As much as you use the Internet you didn’t know that you may qualify for any number of loans and …that’s right – grants!? Why not give it a shot?
I assure you that it’s much easier to provide some silly link with charts or #s about the current economy or “business than it is if you were actually attempting to create jobs, grow your business etc…
TaxPayer
August 10th, 2012
8:39 pm
Erwin,
So now you fall back on your desire for a bumper sticker. And I thought that perhaps you were finally willing to defend your denier position with something concrete. We can continue with your discussion of non-linear equations if that’s all you got though. What part of running millions of computer simulations while introducing different sets of initial conditions along with real world parameters covering everything from ocean temperature versus depth to vegetation covering land masses do you want to cover. And to what end. Now, you claimed to have read all those papers in one of the links I gave you and you claim they are unconvincing. Pick one and link to it and tell me what you disagree with. Give me a sign that you have indeed even read a paper.
Erwin's cat
August 10th, 2012
8:47 pm
TP…i already said i wasn’t gonna defend my position…it’s unprovable nor will i try…so all you have to do to state your position prove with data and why..
science is not about tearing down someone else theory…it’s about standing up and taking your shots by peers about yours…you mentioned peer review…a few weeks ago…so come on…your thesis statement (3 sentences) and your data with minimal cut and paste …i wanna hear your words not polly parrot
TaxPayer
August 10th, 2012
8:53 pm
Erwin,
I asked you to defend your statement that you read the papers. I claim that you have not. Prove me wrong or retract your claim.
TaxPayer
August 10th, 2012
8:56 pm
science is not about tearing down someone else theory…it’s about standing up and taking your shots by peers about yours…you mentioned peer review…a few weeks ago
That’s your definition of science. I’m glad that you do not teach and I sure hope you are not in a position to make decisions that could potentially impact human life based on that claim.
Erwin's cat
August 10th, 2012
9:01 pm
is this what they call a rabbit hole?
http://www.bleachernation.com/2011/12/02/more-details-on-that-painful-new-collective-bargaining-agreement/facepalm-cat/
how is that important in proving your point….you’d rather prove me wrong than be right is an idiotic strategy…strive to be right
Erwin's cat
August 10th, 2012
9:05 pm
That’s your definition of science. I’m glad that you do not teach and I sure hope you are not in a position to make decisions that could potentially impact human life based on that claim.
you obviously have never had to defend a thesis or dissertation….
TaxPayer
August 10th, 2012
9:10 pm
Further Erwin, I am the one in this exchange that accepts the finding of the experts in climate science such as:
Fundamental physics and global climate models both make testable predictions as to how the global climate should change in response to anthropogenic warming. Almost universally, empirical observations confirm that these ‘fingerprints’ of anthropogenic global warming are present.
And that’s putting it mildly. You are the typical denier on the other hand. But worse than many, you cannot even state one reason for your denial and carry out a discussion on it. I even gave you a chance to continue with the discussion of the non-linear equations and you backed out of that one. I’ve given you links that explain the position of the climate scientists and I have stated that I accept their position. Now, do you want to proceed through the pieces that constitute that accepted position. I can certainly do that. How about temperature for openers. I accept the findings that the earth is indeed warming and temperature measurements confirm that. Do you accept that or not, Erwin.
TaxPayer
August 10th, 2012
9:14 pm
you obviously have never had to defend a thesis or dissertation….
Focus, Erwin. It’s not my thesis that is under attack by deniers such as yourself. I accept the work of the climate scientists and you reject it. Now let’s see if we can determine your basis for said rejection. Something a little more compelling than a discussion of the limitations of predicting the weather.
Erwin's cat
August 10th, 2012
9:18 pm
thesis statement…3 sentences max….convince me
this is how science works!….i will not respond to posts greater than 3 sentences…and i can identify a run on sentence when i read it…i’ve been a white paper guy before….so TP be a scientist, stand up and take your shots….claim and defend an original thought
TaxPayer
August 10th, 2012
9:31 pm
Erwin,
Global temperature increase (per the BEST work or other papers), accept or reject? You can do it. The climate scientists did the work–not you or I. We are discussing their work.
TaxPayer
August 10th, 2012
9:33 pm
Further Erwin, if you have a paper on climate change, I’ll be glad to read it. I’ve published as well but not on climate change. Have you published a paper dealing with climate change?
TGT
August 10th, 2012
9:34 pm
Of course when your polling gives Democrats a 9, 11, or 13 point edge, it is little surprise that Obama is leading. The problem is that that metric is not playing out in ANY recent elections. Certainly the 2010 midterms had no such divide. Also, many (if not all) of the polls where Obama has a significant lead relies on registered voters instead of likely voters, which the Rasmussen poll uses.
And who exactly are these “GOP leaders” that called of Santorum, Gingrich, and Perry. Any sources there, or is this simply more wishful pontificating by an Obama lemming?
And why the regret for the GOP? The Dems are going to lie about Romney’s financials no matter what. So what if he had to endure a bit of it during the primary. And speaking of those lies, the best effort of the Dems is to send out their highest ranking congressional member to look and sound like a fool? And this is good?! And then there is the cancer ad where the Obama team is caught in another blatant lie. Not to mention that the ad itself is a lie. And all of this is good for the Dems? Biased polls prove nothing. The Dems are on a long election losing streak and it will continue this fall.
Erwin's cat
August 10th, 2012
9:35 pm
3 max
TaxPayer
August 10th, 2012
9:39 pm
Erwin,
Don’t be a coward. Do you accept or reject the scientist’s work on temperature change. Do you believe the global temperature results or not? Further, answer my question about your work? Did you publish anything associated with climate change?
Erwin's cat
August 10th, 2012
9:41 pm
tp…you’re in the spotlight not me….it’s really easy….prove your point…it’s all about you…
TGT
August 10th, 2012
9:46 pm
Excuse me: “And who exactly are these “GOP leaders” that called off Santorum, Gingrich, and Perry?“
TaxPayer
August 10th, 2012
9:47 pm
Erwin,
Neither your work or my work is in the spotlight or do you not understand that simple fact. I am asking you if you accept or reject the results presented on global temperature change as presented in the BEST study or one of numerous others. We are discussing the work of the climate scientists here. Well, at least I am making an honest attempt to while you refuse to even answer a simple question regarding their work. Why is that, Erwin? Have you even read any of the papers? Oops, we’re back to that issue again. You have not read any of those papers. I’m right.
Erwin's cat
August 10th, 2012
9:54 pm
3
TaxPayer
August 10th, 2012
9:59 pm
Erwin,
You apparently do not understand that this is not about your work or my work and you only prove that you are nothing less than a blind denier given your unwillingness to actually debate the climate scientist’s work. Now you’ve been reduced to a parrot. A single-syllable one at that. Impressive, Erwin.
Erwin's cat
August 10th, 2012
10:01 pm
gotta a go..
TP….ask yourself…whats your point?…to be right or not wrong?
TaxPayer
August 10th, 2012
10:02 pm
Erwin,
What’s your point. To learn from others or blindly deny.
Erwin's cat
August 10th, 2012
10:04 pm
lol
TaxPayer
August 10th, 2012
10:05 pm
Blindly deny, it is then.
Proud to be me
August 11th, 2012
8:48 am
No similarities between Mass. healthcare and Obamacare . . only similarity is “care” . . . there is no way the Mass. State’s healthcare comes close to the size and magnitude of Obamacare (2600 plus pages) . . how many pages is the Mass healthcare bill (oh! I forgot Obamacare we don’t know what is in Obamacare … (silence)!
Proud to be me
August 11th, 2012
8:55 am
Romney will release his taxes when Obama releases all of his documents (that show he lied to get financial aid, etc. . . . and it will show what you ya-hoos really elected . . . a FAKE!!! How stupid can you be!!
Hamilton
August 11th, 2012
9:03 am
Romney/Ryan – About Ryan’s so called plan, the President said it best, “There’s nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. There’s nothing courageous about asking for sacrifice from those who can least afford it and don’t have any clout on Capitol Hill.”
Hamilton
August 11th, 2012
10:12 am
meetpaulryan.com
Wall Street Journal: Ryan Plan Would “Essentially End Medicare.”
According to Naftali Bendavid at the Wall Street Journal, “The plan would essentially end Medicare, which now pays most of the health-care bills for 48 million elderly anddisabled Americans, as a program that directly pays those bills.” [Wall Street Journal, 4/4/11 ]
Paul Ryan’s Plan Would “End Medicare As We Know It” By Replacing It With Private Plans.
According to Newark Star-Ledger Editorial, “The result is that Americans of limited means get pounded under Ryan’s plan. At a time when wages for the average American are dropping and salaries for the rich are skyrocketing, Ryan would deepen the divide. He would endMedicare as we know it and replace it with a menu of private plans. New enrollees would get help paying the premiums, but Washington’s contribution would be capped at a rate that is unlikely to keep upwith rising health costs. The modest cost-containment provisions in Obama’s health reform would be rescinded.”[ Newark Star-Ledger Editorial, 4/7/11 ]
The Ryan Plan Would Double Out-Of-Pocket Costs For Seniors While Cutting Spending On Medicaid.
According toSun-Sentinel, “The Ryan budget plan would cut federal spending on Medicaid, which provides health care for the poor, and begin distributing money by block grant to states. The plan would do away with Medicare’s direct payment for health care forseniors, replacing it with a voucher system in which recipients choose private insurers. The Congressional Budget Officefound that part of the plan, which would take effect in 2022, could nearly double out-of-pocket costs for seniors.” [Sun-Sentinel, 4/16/11]
Ryan Plan Would Set Off A Spiral Of Increased Premiums For Traditional Medicare As Healthy Individuals Abandoned It For Private Plans.
According to the CenterOn Budget and Policy Priorities, “Second, Chairman Ryan claimsthat his proposal ‘ensur[es] that traditional Medicare remains an option.’ Unfortunately, that’s not the case. Under premium support, traditional Medicare would tend to attract a less healthy pool of enrollees, while private plans would attract healthierenrollees (as occurs today with Medicare and private Medicare Advantage plans). Although the proposal calls for ‘risk adjusting’ payments to health plans — that is, adjusting them to reflect the average health status of their enrollees
—
the risk adjustment process is highly imperfect and captures only part of the differences in costs across plans that stem fromdifferences in the health of enrollees. Inadequate risk adjustment would mean that traditional Medicare would be only partially compensated for its higher-cost enrollees, which would force Medicare to raise beneficiary premiums to make up the difference. The higher premiums would lead more of Medicare’s healthier enrollees to abandon it for private plans, very possibly setting off a spiral of rising premium costs and falling enrollment for traditional Medicare. Over time, traditionalMedicare would become less financially viable and could unravel not because it was less efficient than the private plans, butbecause it was competing on an unlevel playing field in which private plans captured the healthier beneficiaries and incurredlower costs as a result. Ryan also would allow private plans to tailor their benefit packages to attract healthier beneficiaries and deter sicker ones, which only makes this outcome more likely.” [Center On Budget and Policy Priorities,
3/28/12 ]
Adam
August 11th, 2012
11:21 am
bman, Erwin’s Cat, I have been over the pros and cons of getting a loan or grant, and one of the big cons is also having to give up my day job to work full time on this. While I don’t have an overall general problem with doing that, I need a much better marketing plan if I am to actually make it successful and I have a specific timed goal in mind with regard to my day job. However, if I ALREADY HAD the money, most of these things would not outweigh the potential benefit of expanding my business as I would not have needed to start my day job in the first place, nor would I have to worry about getting a loan if a grant was not given. While there’s still a potential benefit anyway under a grant, I would still have to have a much better marketing plan and I suck at that. The day job has a sort of “guarantee” of giving me a resume building experience as well as a steady stream of cash.
Adam
August 11th, 2012
11:53 am
Erwin’s Cat: TaxPayer is not a graduate student who has studied this particular brand of science and now therefore has to give you a thesis or dissertation on it. That does not, however, mean that a general basis of understanding isn’t there. All it means is that he is not living up to your level explanation, which is unnecessary and uncalled for on a blog. Further, someone being unable to fully explain themselves in a conversation over a blog with two people does not automatically make you right. You know the process of dissertation and thesis is very different than that, and if you’re looking for that you need to talk to a climate scientist instead of a blogger.
Now here’s the thing: Climate Science does attempt to predict future outcomes of a specific type, even not knowing all of the variables exactly. Without a full understanding on the same level as the climate scientists (which is again unnecessary), I can tell you what they say they know:
-CO2 rising is the closest (non-linear) correlation to temperature rises
-CO2 is being put in the atmosphere a good extra amount by humans since the industrial revolution
-Humans are almost entirely the cause of our current climate change, including a temperature rise overall and a dramatic increase in severe weather recently (which is more like a bell curve being shifted than a linear correlation to the CO2 levels)
-Known solar activity and volcanic eruptions, when accounted for, do not change any of the above points
The real thing here is, they say they know these things because of decades of research. You, however, seem to be objecting without being able to show decades of research that indicate that their thesis is wrong. If you did, climate science would be forced to admit its error and you would “win.” It’s not a regular blogger who has to PROVE climate science to YOU, it is YOU who must go to all of the climate scientists of the world and provide them with a peer-reviewed paper that shows them to be wrong, and thereby forcing them to admit it. THAT is science.
Adam
August 11th, 2012
11:55 am
Proud: Romney will release his taxes when Obama releases all of his documents (that show he lied to get financial aid, etc. . . . and it will show what you ya-hoos really elected . . . a FAKE!!! How stupid can you be!!
And if he did release those documents and proved you to be wrong, you would say they were forgeries and/or ask for some other documentation. My bet is you’d pivot to fast and furious.
There is no equivalency between tax documents and college documents. None.
Adam
August 11th, 2012
11:59 am
And I would say it’s fair to have Obama’s college documents only AFTER we have all of Romney’s documents that have already been released by the President, INCLUDING all of Romney’s college documents as well. In other words, Romney must release his short form BC, long form BC, his tax returns for the same number of years as Obama, AND all of his college documents. THEN you can have Obama’s college documents. And ONLY then.
Adam
August 11th, 2012
2:26 pm
td: Two unbiased sources, both of which have been extremely harsh on Obama for many claims he has made that were false:
http://factcheck.org/2012/08/does-obamas-plan-gut-welfare-reform/
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/fact-check-does-obama-want-to-gut-welfare-reform/
Adam
August 11th, 2012
2:28 pm
Also a “fair and balanced” article that rates both the welfare requirement ad and some of Obama’s claims:
http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/saunders/article/Obama-Romney-rev-up-base-with-lies-3779422.php
Proud to be me
August 11th, 2012
2:45 pm
Hamilton . . you poor misguided individual.
Adam
August 11th, 2012
10:03 pm
Brosephus: Well you can start here: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001
Choose formatting options, but it looks like you can only get percentage changes by 1m, 3m, or 12m intervals. However, if you look at JUST the numbers you should be able to compare January in 1 year to January and another.
Landmoonnadib
August 12th, 2012
7:12 am
#category[]