Will past personal issues affect Obama's 2012 campaign?

[mrchristo]

in australia we really hoped that he could of made a 'global' difference but from my perspective he seems to be gagged.

just happy Bush is gone, the worst thing is to have Palin groomed for the position, she scares the hell out of us...government is for the people and not the wallet

healthcare is simply humanity that should be available for all that NEED it
(just my point of view)

 

[BobG]

Nevertheless, 'it's still just the economy, stupid'. With the most recognizable current issue being unemployment, if unemployment is still above 9% in 20 months, he won't have a prayer of being re-elected and if it is below 7%, no Republican will have a prayer of beating him. Between those, it'll be about who can work the issue better.

I think Russ hit on the key point in the 2012 election. The average person won't remember the details of the stimulus bill, won't really know whether it had any effect or not, and won't even really know just how much any President's policies can effect the economy.

What they will know is how they feel about their own prospects for the future. If they're depressed about their own future, then they'll vote in the other party for President. If they're optimistic about their own future, they'll keep the current party in power.

At the end of 2008, I would have said Obama would be a shoo-in to be re-elected, since most recessions aren't going to last 4 years. He'd get to take credit for improving the economy even if he did nothing. At this point, I'd say high unemployment numbers make his chances iffy.

In fact, saying an unemployment rate of less than 7% gets Obama re-elected is a sign of just how far people are starting to adjust their sights. 7% unemployment isn't good.

But, yes, it is enough of an improvement that it would probably make people more optimistic about their future and that's often more important than their current situation.

Incredibly enough, I don't think it's a given that unemployment gets below 7% by next year. Taking into consideration how productivity has actually increased during the recession, the number of baby boomers that have to delay retirement because of the stock market crash in 2008/2009, and the number of workers that quit looking for work that will start looking again, unemployment could be a problem for the 2016 election, let alone the 2012 election.

 

[drankin]

Isn't the unemployment figure based on those who are currently collecting unemployment? How about those that have run out of their unemployment monies? For example, my wife will be running hers out in a few months. A different discussion but the recession has run long enough that people may be dropping off the percentage count yet still unemployed.

 

[WhoWee]

Isn't the unemployment figure based on those who are currently collecting unemployment? How about those that have run out of their unemployment monies? For example, my wife will be running hers out in a few months. A different discussion but the recession has run long enough that people may be dropping off the percentage count yet still unemployed.

There's a lot of information available on this site.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/lfcharacteristics.htm#nlf


more
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

 

[drankin]

There's a lot of information available on this site.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/lfcharacteristics.htm#nlf


more
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

Thanks for the link. My assumption was incorrect. Recieving UI is not supposed to have a bearing on whether someone is unemployed or not.

 

[russ_watters]

At the end of 2008, I would have said Obama would be a shoo-in to be re-elected, since most recessions aren't going to last 4 years. He'd get to take credit for improving the economy even if he did nothing. At this point, I'd say high unemployment numbers make his chances iffy.

I did make exactly that prediction in 2009, but I'm starting to question it as well. The economy hasn't rebounded as fast as I expected it to and what people will remember of/connect to the stimulus is the part that was a lot worse than I expected: the spectacularly high deficit. While it is good that Obama is flip-flopping on spending (finally), I don't think that he'll be able to claim that as a win.

In fact, saying an unemployment rate of less than 7% gets Obama re-elected is a sign of just how far people are starting to adjust their sights. 7% unemployment isn't good.

You're missing the point: 7% is key because that's [about] what unemployment was when Obama took office.

Incredibly enough, I don't think it's a given that unemployment gets below 7% by next year. Taking into consideration how productivity has actually increased during the recession, the number of baby boomers that have to delay retirement because of the stock market crash in 2008/2009, and the number of workers that quit looking for work that will start looking again, unemployment could be a problem for the 2016 election, let alone the 2012 election.

Agreed - at this point, I don't think there is much chance of it being below 8%, much less 7%.

 

[russ_watters]

Thanks for the link. My assumption was incorrect. Recieving UI is not supposed to have a bearing on whether someone is unemployed or not.

But looking for work does.

 

[turbo]

So far Russ, the "Obama Strategy for 2012" has come up pretty lame. If Obama needs a 2012 strategy, he needs a viable opponent to target with that strategy. There is none at this time, when potential candidates are forming "exploratory committees". The GOP and their FOX surrogate are putting up cardboard cut-outs with no real viability. It seems that the GOP is willing to cede a two-term presidency to Obama, IMO.

If they had an actual candidate for 2012, it seems like we would have been subject to all the hints and "vamping" that the national parties are known for.

 

[WhoWee]

So far Russ, the "Obama Strategy for 2012" has come up pretty lame. If Obama needs a 2012 strategy, he needs a viable opponent to target with that strategy. There is none at this time, when potential candidates are forming "exploratory committees". The GOP and their FOX surrogate are putting up cardboard cut-outs with no real viability. It seems that the GOP is willing to cede a two-term presidency to Obama, IMO.

If they had an actual candidate for 2012, it seems like we would have been subject to all the hints and "vamping" that the national parties are known for.

If I was a Republican strategist - there would be a large debate every 60 to 90 days (with all the candidates). There would, however, be one difference in the format - instead of tearing each other apart, candidates would be challenged to debate every aspect of what is wrong with President Obama's - every aspect. The differences in opinion would come about in the way the would fix the Presidents mess.

Let's label this entire post IMO.

 

[russ_watters]

So far Russ, the "Obama Strategy for 2012" has come up pretty lame.

Well, lacking a strategy isn't a strategy, but I'm not sure that's what you were after with that comment...

If Obama needs a 2012 strategy, he needs a viable opponent to target with that strategy.

Agreed, and that's going to continue to be a problem for him until one emerges: lacking someone for him to criticize, he'll have to play defense against criticism of himself. One of his primary strong points in his first election was a lack of a record to defend. He doesn't have that luxury now and he doesn't have anywhere else specific to aim his guns.

It seems that the GOP is willing to cede a two-term presidency to Obama, IMO.

If they had an actual candidate for 2012, it seems like we would have been subject to all the hints and "vamping" that the national parties are known for.

You really need to remember your history, turbo-1, because that's just plain not how it needs to work. See, Clinton:

During the aftermath of the Gulf War, President Bush's approval ratings were extremely high. During one point after the successful performance by U.S forces in Kuwait, President Bush's approval ratings were 89% [1] As a result, several high profile candidates such as Mario Cuomo refused to seek the Democratic Nomination for President...

The Democrats lacked a high-profile viable candidate to face an incumbent Republican president or vice president. Still, several candidates such as Bill Clinton, Paul Tsongas and Jerry Brown chose to run...

Clinton, meanwhile, was still a relatively unknown national candidate before the primary season... [emphasis added]

Again, your belief that a challenging party to the incumbent needs a leading candidate at this stage of the game is just plain historically wrong.

 

[turbo]

I believe that the GOP needs to field some plausible candidates, in order to be relevant in the 2012 presidential election. Right now, they have nothing but some wanna-be's, IMO. Mitt Romney is not a bad guy, but he is running as fast as he can from his record, and cannot (IMHO) get a majority of GOP support no matter what he does. He did some good stuff in Mass, but then again, "Romney-care" is not going to endear him to the hard right-wingers no matter how you cut it. Not that the people of Mass are complaining.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Turbo, judging from your past posts, I think it's unlikely that you will cast a vote for the Republican candidate, so I don't think the GOP particularly cares if you think its slate is "plausible" or not.

Neither party has to produce a perfect or flawless candidate. What they need to do is to produce a candidate who can get more votes than the other guy. We can (and will) debate this between now and Election Day, but it is a fact that President Obama won the last election with 53% of the vote, and another fact that he has fallen 20% in the polls since his inauguration. It is not a stretch to think that he will face a serious challenge, even if Superman does not chose to run this term.

 

[turbo]

Turbo, judging from your past posts, I think it's unlikely that you will cast a vote for the Republican candidate, so I don't think the GOP particularly cares if you think its slate is "plausible" or not.

Neither party has to produce a perfect or flawless candidate. What they need to do is to produce a candidate who can get more votes than the other guy. We can (and will) debate this between now and Election Day, but it is a fact that President Obama won the last election with 53% of the vote, and another fact that he has fallen 20% in the polls since his inauguration. It is not a stretch to think that he will face a serious challenge, even if Superman does not chose to run this term.

I am not enrolled with either party, and I DO vote for Republican candidates every election cycle if I think that they are the best candidate. I was a solid Republican until Uncle Ronnie and his gang gave us the shaft in favor of the super-wealthy. When Bush Sr called "trickle down" "Voodoo economics" during the primary fight, he was right on the money. The GOP has been stuck on that track ever since, to the detriment of the rest of the country.

 

[Vanadium 50]

So you haven't voted Republican in 30 years. I think it's fair to say that the GOP has written off your vote, and as such your opinion carries little weight.

 

[BobG]

By this time in 2007, there were several candidates for both parties. Historically, I think that was a little early, though.

None the less, the lack of Republican candidates has already resulted in http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-usa-campaign-debate-idUSTRE72T40U20110330 being rescheduled from May 2 to September due to a lack of Republican candidates.

There's reasons for some of those. In fact, Palin and Huckabee are running into the same problem Thompson ran into in the 2008 election. They're already pulling in money from numerous TV appearances and that would have to stop once they declare themselves candidates.

 

[WhoWee]

Maybe the Republicans should push for a return to the 2008 spending levels? President Obama might agree - if they can convince him he'll be able to run against Bush again.

 

[turbo]

So you haven't voted Republican in 30 years. I think it's fair to say that the GOP has written off your vote, and as such your opinion carries little weight.

I vote for the best candidate (IMO) regardless of party. That results in split tickets. I would probably have voted for McCain if he had chosen a serious VP candidate.

 

[WhoWee]

This 4/13/11 speech has been characterized as the President's first re-election speech. He made some very specific (and IMO harsh) charges against Republicans and twice drew a line in the sand - will the media hold him to these words thru the 2012 election?



http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/04/13/text-of-obama-speech-on-the-deficit/

"One vision has been championed by Republicans in the House of Representatives and embraced by several of their party’s presidential candidates. It’s a plan that aims to reduce our deficit by $4 trillion over the next ten years, and one that addresses the challenge of Medicare and Medicaid in the years after that.

Those are both worthy goals for us to achieve. But the way this plan achieves those goals would lead to a fundamentally different America than the one we’ve known throughout most of our history.

A 70% cut to clean energy. A 25% cut in education. A 30% cut in transportation. Cuts in college Pell Grants that will grow to more than $1,000 per year. That’s what they’re proposing. These aren’t the kind of cuts you make when you’re trying to get rid of some waste or find extra savings in the budget. These aren’t the kind of cuts that Republicans and Democrats on the Fiscal Commission proposed. These are the kind of cuts that tell us we can’t afford the America we believe in. And they paint a vision of our future that’s deeply pessimistic.

It’s a vision that says if our roads crumble and our bridges collapse, we can’t afford to fix them. If there are bright young Americans who have the drive and the will but not the money to go to college, we can’t afford to send them. Go to China and you’ll see businesses opening research labs and solar facilities. South Korean children are outpacing our kids in math and science. Brazil is investing billions in new infrastructure and can run half their cars not on high-priced gasoline, but biofuels. And yet, we are presented with a vision that says the United States of America – the greatest nation on Earth – can’t afford any of this.

It’s a vision that says America can’t afford to keep the promise we’ve made to care for our seniors. It says that ten years from now, if you’re a 65 year old who’s eligible for Medicare, you should have to pay nearly $6,400 more than you would today. It says instead of guaranteed health care, you will get a voucher. And if that voucher isn’t worth enough to buy insurance, tough luck – you’re on your own. Put simply, it ends Medicare as we know it.

This is a vision that says up to 50 million Americans have to lose their health insurance in order for us to reduce the deficit. And who are those 50 million Americans? Many are someone’s grandparents who wouldn’t be able afford nursing home care without Medicaid. Many are poor children. Some are middle-class families who have children with autism or Down’s syndrome. Some are kids with disabilities so severe that they require 24-hour care. These are the Americans we’d be telling to fend for themselves.

Worst of all, this is a vision that says even though America can’t afford to invest in education or clean energy; even though we can’t afford to care for seniors and poor children, we can somehow afford more than $1 trillion in new tax breaks for the wealthy. Think about it. In the last decade, the average income of the bottom 90% of all working Americans actually declined. The top 1% saw their income rise by an average of more than a quarter of a million dollars each. And that’s who needs to pay less taxes? They want to give people like me a two hundred thousand dollar tax cut that’s paid for by asking thirty three seniors to each pay six thousand dollars more in health costs? That’s not right, and it’s not going to happen as long as I’m President.

The fact is, their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America. As Ronald Reagan’s own budget director said, there’s nothing “serious” or “courageous” about this plan. 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. And this is not a vision of the America I know.

The America I know is generous and compassionate; a land of opportunity and optimism. We take responsibility for ourselves and each other; for the country we want and the future we share. We are the nation that built a railroad across a continent and brought light to communities shrouded in darkness. We sent a generation to college on the GI bill and saved millions of seniors from poverty with Social Security and Medicare. We have led the world in scientific research and technological breakthroughs that have transformed millions of lives.

This is who we are. This is the America I know. We don’t have to choose between a future of spiraling debt and one where we forfeit investments in our people and our country. To meet our fiscal challenge, we will need to make reforms. We will all need to make sacrifices. But we do not have to sacrifice the America we believe in. And as long as I’m President, we won’t."

 

[WhoWee]

Label IMO - my wife received a recorded telemarketing message on her cell phone today from President Obama - talking about his mortgage refinance deal - Making Home Affordable. It was funded with $75 Billion.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/economy
"Keeping Americans in Their Homes
Millions of hard-working, responsible families are at risk of losing their homes as home prices fall and jobs are threatened. The Making Home Affordable Refinancing program will expand access to refinancing for up to 4 to 5 million families who are current on their mortgages but otherwise unable to refinance because their homes have lost value. The Making Home Affordable Modification program has a $75 billion commitment to support loan modifications so that up to 3 to 4 million borrowers at risk of foreclosure can keep their homes. President Obama’s programs to prevent foreclosures will help bolster home prices and will provide direct support to up to 9 million homeowners to refinance for lower payments or have their mortgages modified to prevent foreclosure. President Obama also launched MakingHomeAffordable.gov, where borrowers can learn basic facts about mortgages, homeownership, and resources available."

I think this is the program that lowers the monthly payment to 31% of income? Why does a Government program designed to save homes from foreclosure need telemarketing support?

Has any President ever communicated/educated the public in such a manner?

Is this appropriate?

Please label post IMO.

 

[WhoWee]

Apparently S&P wasn't impressed with the 4/13/11 speech?

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/text-of-sps-downgrade-of-us-ratings-outlook-2011-04-18

"Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services said today that it affirmed its ‘AAA’ long-term and ‘A-1+’ short-term sovereign credit ratings on the U.S. Standard & Poor’s also said that it revised its outlook on the long-term rating of the U.S. sovereign to negative from stable".

 

[mugaliens]

Apparently S&P wasn't impressed with the 4/13/11 speech?

I think S&P wasn't impressed with U.S. financials. The billions that were supposedly saved during the recent budget deal comes to around $353 million after tallying all the financials rather than just the programs on the chopping block. It was a shell game that fooled half the American people and the media.

It didn't fool S&P.

I vote for the best candidate (IMO) regardless of party. That results in split tickets. I would probably have voted for McCain if he had chosen a serious VP candidate.

Wow! For a second I thought I was reading something I'd written. My sentiments exactly, turbo-1, except for the vote. I thought Palin was well-spoken during the campaign, but she became overly outspoken afterwards. Regardless, she wasn't running for President; just VP. True, there's always the question of who might become President in case of disaster, but that's not a statistical liklihood, so I focus 90% on the Presidential candidates themselves, not the VP candidates.

 

[turbo]

Wow! For a second I thought I was reading something I'd written. My sentiments exactly, turbo-1, except for the vote. I thought Palin was well-spoken during the campaign, but she became overly outspoken afterwards. Regardless, she wasn't running for President; just VP. True, there's always the question of who might become President in case of disaster, but that's not a statistical liklihood, so I focus 90% on the Presidential candidates themselves, not the VP candidates.

McCain is getting along in years and had survived several bouts of cancer. All he needed to do was choose a running mate that was intelligent and IMO capable of stepping into his shoes without a lot of hand-holding, and he would have gotten my vote. Palin was not that person by a long shot. She couldn't even give sensible answers to Couric's softball questions. That killed McCain's shot at my vote.

Had he chosen a well-known moderate Republican as VP, I believe he would be President today. For example, he could have picked someone like William Cohen: former Congressman, former Senator, former Secretary of Defense. That's a lot of experience and a verifiable track record. Choosing Cohen wouldn't have made the hard-right of the GOP happy, but they would have voted for McCain anyway instead of flipping to Obama. McCain blew it, IMO.

 

[russ_watters]

All he needed to do was choose a running mate that was intelligent and IMO capable of stepping into his shoes without a lot of hand-holding, and he would have gotten my vote. [emphasis added]

http://www.rearrange-inc.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/owl-orly.jpg

Now, we are almost certainly committed to voting a straight-Democratic ticket (with some exceptions) because of the blatant lies and hijacking of our government by Bush/Cheney and the unwavering support they have gotten from our (both women) senators...
I hope that there are lot of life-long conservatives who don't want to be tied to the neo-cons and their agendas, and will be willing to vote for Obama.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=251195&page=2

You had very little nice to say about McCain during the campaign and were quite clear that he had no shot at your vote. Did you forget that everything you posted back then is still recorded here? Who do you think you are fooling?

 

[turbo]

You had very little nice to say about McCain during the campaign and were quite clear that he had no shot at your vote. Did you forget that everything you posted back then is still recorded here? Who do you think you are fooling?

My wife and I were certainly willing to vote for McCain, until he chose Palin. Then we had to wonder if we could vote for either Obama (a wild card) or Clinton (way too much baggage). The fact that our state's two GOP senators followed Bush-Cheney in lock-step did not endear them to us, so it had become an exercise in researching their opponents to make comparisons. Both senators seem OK on women's issues and on jobs (at least Maine jobs) but they gave the neo-cons everything that they asked for in national policy and foreign policy. Like I said, if McCain had chosen a moderate running mate with some experience, he would probably have gotten our votes. There have never been political bumper stickers on our vehicles, nor political signs on our lawn. We're issues voters, not ideologues.

If you choose not to believe that, that's your look-out, not mine.

 

[turbo]

Russ you conveniently left out a lot of context. I'm sure it was an oversight.

My wife and I both came from large and poor families, and when we started out, we had nothing but each other. We have worked very hard to get where we are, and we always voted split tickets to make sure that we got the best of the (sometimes poor choices of) candidates in office. Now, we are almost certainly committed to voting a straight-Democratic ticket (with some exceptions) because of the blatant lies and hijacking of our government by Bush/Cheney and the unwavering support they have gotten from our (both women) senators. Collins is history this time, if we can make it happen, and Snowe is gone next time, if possible, though they have both gotten our votes in the past. Enough is enough.

 

[russ_watters]

My wife and I were certainly willing to vote for McCain, until he chose Palin...

Like I said, if McCain had chosen a moderate running mate with some experience, he would probably have gotten our votes...

If you choose not to believe that, that's your look-out, not mine.

That is quite clearly false. Would you like to see more quotes where you said exactly the opposite? What's going on here? Do you just not remember your own position?

Russ you conveniently left out a lot of context. I'm sure it was an oversight.

None of that directly addresses the point: it just explains why you weren't going to vote for McCain.

 

[CAC1001]

We're issues voters, not ideologues.

You say that, yet you continually refer to conservatives that don't fit your ideal of conservatism as "neocons."

 

[turbo]

You say that, yet you continually refer to conservatives that don't fit your ideal of conservatism as "neocons."

That is because "conservatives" that want to practice class-warfare, give tax-breaks to businesses and the wealthy, and chisel on SS, Medicare, Medicaid, etc for regular citizens are clearly not conservatives. They are hand-maids to the wealthy and have absolutely no interest in balancing our budget. Judge them by their deeds, not their rhetoric.

Margaret Chase Smith and Barry Goldwater would never understand what has happened to the Republican party over the last few decades. Kennedy and Johnson would never understand the present spineless nature of the Democratic party, either.

BTW, I got to get acquainted with Senator Smith after her retirement. She was a treasure. If we could clone her, the GOP would be a far different party.

 

[CAC1001]

That is because "conservatives" that want to practice class-warfare, give tax-breaks to businesses and the wealthy, and chisel on SS, Medicare, Medicaid, etc for regular citizens are clearly not conservatives. They are hand-maids to the wealthy and have absolutely no interest in balancing our budget. Judge them by their deeds, not their rhetoric.

George W. Bush was about as textbook "neoconservative" as you can get, and he signed what was a pretty massive expansion of Medicare, which has been hugely popular. Conservative attempts to reform Medicare and SS have nothing to do with getting rid of them, just reforming them so that they can continue to function.

I'd say it is more your far-right fiscal conservatives who want to get rid of Medicare, Medicaid, and SS outright. Wanting to end Medicare, Medicaid, and SS is conservative, just conservatism taken to an extreme.

George W. Bush's tax cuts were for everyone. And giving tax breaks to businesses can help create jobs. It depends on the business.

The problem I see with the Republican party is you either have big government conservatives (such as Bush) or the far-right ultra-religious types who want to end all social safety nets (Medicare, Medicaid, SS, unemployment, etc...). I don't know why the Republican party cannot produce a decent limited-government conservative who can argue for proper reform of these programs to keep them sustainable, and otherwise be for limited government as opposed to being anti-government.

Even the late great Milton Friedman said that a society has to have a way to care for those who can not care for themselves, so things like Medicare, Medicaid, and SS do not really contradict the philosophy of limited government. At their core, they are safety nets, not an outright social welfare state. There's a huge difference between paying people not to work (welfare) and having a healthcare system for elderly who have worked many years.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The problem I see with the Republican party is you either have big government conservatives (such as Bush) or the far-right ultra-religious types who want to end all social safety nets (Medicare, Medicaid, SS, unemployment, etc...).

Who are you talking about in the second category? I know of nobody holding major office (national or statewide) who is advocating ending all the safety nets you have mentioned. Asking that they be "ultra-religious" would only narrow the field further.

 

[russ_watters]

That is because "conservatives" that want to practice class-warfare.

Ridiculous. It is the Democrats who benefit from the class warfare because they are able to paint it as an "us vs them" situation with the "us" being 99% of the voter base. Republicans have nothing to gain by trying to raise-up the 1% (or even 10%).

Republicans want fairness and in this context "fair" means that everyone who is not poor should pay taxes.

Case in point:

George W. Bush's tax cuts were for everyone.

That's correct. But from liberals, including from the media, we constantly see it being harped-on that Bush cut taxes for "the wealthy". Liberals ignore this fact because it enables them to create class warfare by implying he only cut taxes for the wealthy.

 

[CAC1001]

Who are you talking about in the second category? I know of nobody holding major office (national or statewide) who is advocating ending all the safety nets you have mentioned. Asking that they be "ultra-religious" would only narrow the field further.

They may not advocate it for fear of apearing too radical, but they exist. Just as you have some socialists among the Democrats who would never admit it pubicly. Sharon Angle who ran for Harry Reid's Senate seat wanted to privatize Social Security. Alaska Senate candidate Joe Miller said unemployment benefits, Medicare, and SS are un-Constitutional.

 

[Vanadium 50]

They may not advocate it for fear of apearing too radical, but they exist. Just as you have some socialists among the Democrats who would never admit it pubicly.

Then that's a conspiracy theory. Sorry, not permitted on PF.

 

[CAC1001]

Case in point: That's correct. But from liberals, including from the media, we constantly see it being harped-on that Bush cut taxes for "the wealthy". Liberals ignore this fact because it enables them to create class warfare by implying he only cut taxes for the wealthy.

Yes, it really shows the whole ridiculousness of the entire notion of undoing the Bush tax cuts. If people truly thought, "We cannot afford the Bush tax cuts," then they'd be for undoing all of them. Instead though, they are just for undoing them for the highest earners, which means either:

1) They are clueless that the Bush tax cuts were actually for everyone

2) The are selfish, and while fine with having had their own taxes reduced, throw a rant over the higher-earners having had their taxes reduced.

You rant if the rich guy's taxes are cut and yours aren't. If the poor guy's and the middle-income guy's taxes are cut however, even eliminated, you don't also rant that the wealthier guy also got a tax cut.

 

[CAC1001]

Then that's a conspiracy theory. Sorry, not permitted on PF.

It is...!? Hmm...well all I ever see are your country-club big-government Republicans (John McCain, George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, Bob Dole, etc...) or your extreme right Republicans (such as Ron Paul, Sharon Angle, Joe Miller, etc...). I have yet to see the sensible limited government Republican, although Paul Ryan, Mitch Daniels, and a few others might be this (I would hope).