“Voters are already turning off their televisions. It’s getting harder and harder to find a message that cuts through.”
— Frank Luntz, GOP pollster, on the heavy rotation of negative political ads in battleground states.
Breathtakingly observant, isn’t he? What did he think, that we’d be glued to our sets watching all that crap? At the rate the campaigns are going, the winner in November will be Nunno D. Abuv.
lol, love watching and following the presidential debate but hot dang, it’s a lot of crap going on there.
I’m still waiting for the debate to begin. So far it’s just mudslinging, and I’m busy trying not to get splashed.
lol, at least I do it from a distance here in the UK so not to much splash for me, interesting though to see that Mitt Romney meet up with the UK prime minister today, does that mean he is now legit option… hmm…
From what I’ve seen, he didn’t acquit himself well while he was there. He was trying to make political hay with your Olympics. Sorry about that.
well, actually he was correct about those remarks especially about the security which was a big mistake from the contractors side that they couldn’t find enough security personnel, ok thats sorted now with the help of the army but still… so for once I agree with him 😀
I agree with the commentator here who said you can’t expect an event this large to go without a hitch. There’s always going to be something. Even at much smaller events. For example, I’ve never seen a wedding that went without a hitch, whether or not the guests were aware of it.
I’ve noticed that many observers tend to blame “both sides” for the mud, and while I can’t deny that MSNBC and others tilt commentary the liberal way, the Democrats, poor moralists that they are, go to great lengths not to blatantly lie, IMHO. One example: On the Obama proposal to let the Bush tax cuts expire for those making over $250,0000, Boehner and company trumpet unfairness and that it would discourage hiring by small businesses. The fact is that only about 3% of “small businesses” would be affected at all, and even those would get the same tax break as the middle class on that first $250,000! That’s high demagoguery to me.
I highly recommend Rachel Maddow on week-nights, MSNBC. I think she’s a straight-shooter.
I blame both sides, not for lying but for putting out nothing but attack ads when they ought to be making the case for themselves and their own positions and plans. Right now I’d gladly strangle both sides; it’s the unpleasant result of living in a swing state.
Yes, Rachel is always a breath of fresh air.
There’s been some other dude on her show lately – I assume she’s on vacation. It’s kind of funny how he’s either adopted her affect, or he he was hired for it, because he has the same speech patterns and stresses the same words.
I turned to her show last night after reading these comments and found that guy there instead. Went on to something else. I wanted Rachel.
Agree with all the mud and muck slinging. Enough already. Tired of all the nonsense and misinformation from BOTH sides.
(Oh and as a small business owner, if Obama lets those tax cuts expire – many many “small” businesses will suffer badly. Realistically, money isn’t worth as much anymore – $250,000. used to be “rich” but not any more.) Struggling, and not hopeful – no matter who is elected.
I can’t speak as a business owner, only as a retiree concerned about keeping what I’ve got and not losing any more. Considering the problems the nation faces, I think the campaign so far from both sides has been pathetic. I want to hear about solutions, proposals, and plans, not personal attacks.
Applause. Wild applause.
I really can’t agree, Philo, that $250,000 isn’t “rich” anymore. Out here in the sticks, it more than qualifies. For sure the size of the city in which a family lives does matter in how one defines that, however, as does how people prioritize their spending. I saw a startling statement in a newspaper article about the impact of the drought on food prices yesterday. What percent of the average household budget is spent on “food”? (I am assuming this excludes the occasional restaurant meal.) Answer: 6% Now how do you define “rich” when that necessity is that cheap? I guess what I’m saying is that a great deal of any modern family’s budget is discretionary.
Not rich. Not young. Always worked. Have always lived on budget and tried to save. Have used coupons and shopped sales for years. No designer stuff / new cars. Use library as it’s free. Don’t travel. Don’t eat out. (family came from farm so know how to unprocessed foods) Pay bills. No discretionary money.
Cost of living vary and are higher in some spots than other. NE coast is extremely expensive. (couldn’t afford there) –
Even politicians agree that combined $250,000 wouldn’t go far for family expenses in major metro areas of the East. I used to think a $250,000 combined salary would be a fortune – not anymore. (especially trying to start a company and live at the same time)
Even here costs for electricity and water are some of the highest in the nation. No control over that.
Prices going up: salaries not. If customers can’t buy, businesses suffer.
It’s going to be really hard for families to afford food, clothing, and school costs this year…and then there’s transportation (even if the car is old, you have to keep it running). Most young families who budget do not have discretionary money – of course there are some that just charge up huge bills and live beyond their means. Current culture encourages that.
Glad you are doing well – and comfortable.
Not everyone is. Walk a mile in another’s shoes and be realistic.
I know some who have to decide whether to buy food or medicine or replace the old tire or try to fix the fridge that has broken again…
So about that 6% spend on food – data can be interpreted to prove anything. Would be interesting to see the cohort and research methods obtaining that. No doubt it is true in some cases. (Does it take into account those who spend less on themselves – eat less – in order to put more money back into their businesses like most small business owners do?)
All I can do is look around me at actual people.
(Oh, those people should give up their old dog? – then they would have more money for human food. Pets = foolish luxury…They’ve already turned off the AC…and walk to the store)
Like I said, not too hopeful no matter who wins the election (all politicians live in a different isolated world) – but I cannot afford any more taxes.
Our financial philosophy has always been similar to yours – our parents were Depression People. And, it’s true that there will always be people on the financial fringe, particularly those who have either not had your kind of self-discipline or who have been shortchanged by fate. I have been a strong proponent that a civilized society should have a safety net to provide a certain minimum of protection for everyone, not soft living but enough so that nobody regardless of their own weaknesses or misfortunes need starve or go without some kind of roof over their heads or basic healthcare. But if we are going to have that kind of society, there must be taxes, and occasionally a raise in taxes.
All that said, I still say that Big Ag has through economies of scale produced something of a miracle by lowering the cost of food. My grandparents were Oklahoma farmers, raising animals and living a great deal out of a vegetable garden. America has come a long way toward producing low-cost basics compared to those old days, and I don’t think most young people appreciate the real difference between “needs” and real necessities. IMHO.
Definitely agree with the needs vs wants ideas of many today.
Big farms do produce more but have harmed smaller landholders. Some of those are managing by becoming organic or specialized crops such as heritage produce.
We have worked hard to build our business – and we wish to provide for ourselves and not depend on others in the future – and with relatives easily living past 95 yrs and 100, we must be realistic that savings will have to last after we are not able to work.
We’ve worked for years 7 days a week (and me with a reg job during the week), doing without, working towards the light at the end of the tunnel only to be told: “Sorry, the government is going to take more because these people over here are needy?”
It used to be family took care of family – even extended family.
Small businesses cannot take any more. Between 2008-2010 the newest census said 223,800 small business went under(having less than 99 employees). It’s not gotten any better.
My sister-in-law is single, a small rancher who worked full time as a vet. Her employer recently laid off just enough people to get under the requirement for health care insurance. He operates multiple clinics, but is downsizing because he says under the new health care bill he can’t make it. She knows he is on a thin margin. She now works part-time. Luckily she sold much of her cattle before the drought got bad and hay got expensive. She lives extremely modestly. And is hoping to survive.
Government policies are harming small businesses.
Continue to feed kids breakfast and lunch at schools as is done here: Preschool – 12th (summer school does the same – and that’s free childcare- a big help and helps kids academically…summer school is now free.)
Offer meals for those who are willing to work at public service jobs – there’s lots that need doing.
Spend federal money here instead of fixing things abroad.
But maybe it’s time for the government to also understand wants and needs.
Don’t punish those who work hard and play by the rules.
I appreciate hearing your personal experience, Philo. One of the toughest problems of economic policies is fairness issues. A reform of the tax code would help, but I don’t expect to see it in my lifetime.
Reforming the tax code would help a great deal. But don’t expect it anytime soon. Meanwhile there’s nothing preventing those who have all their wants and needs fulfilled from writing a check to assist those who need help utilizing charities or even a federal fund. Many could do that without even feeling it. Start with those from both parties in Congress. Make it a contest – post the “leaders” on bill boards.
Nice chatting with you, Jim –
Hmm. A lot more than 6% of my budget goes to food. And I never eat out. I’ve never considered food “cheap,” although it is a lot more flexible than say, a mortgage or car payment. Housing in Colorado is also the highest I’ve ever encountered, but it was my decision to move here, so I guess I can’t complain about that.
If both sides are the same, a frequently heard claim (probably by republicans) why are the Koch brothers spending $400 million on this election?
I not in a swing state (by far- Kansas!) but there are still a lot of anti-Obama ads on the TV, the the local republicans running for office are having a helluva primary fight with red-state mud being flung at will. Not a peep from the local dems yet….
Seems to me with so much less to spend (nationwide, they say), the Dems would concentrate on quality and making every ad dollar count — being constructive, informative, honest, etc.
I’m not in a swing-state. It’s pretty much a solid blue state, so there isn’t a lot of motivation for the GOP to dump money into my area. Even so, I’ve been subjected to a few of their ads – all entirely negative, none addressing actual issues. Essentially it’s all “here’s a bunch of bad things going on – isn’t it time for a change?” kind of shit.
What most people probably don’t know about Washington state (or care for that matter) is that the state itself is divided into eastern and western halves when it comes to politics. The rural eastern half of the state is solidly Republication. The Western half of the state is all city, and solidly Democrat. It’s a blue state only because the western half of the state contains considerably more people than the eastern half. If you drive over the Cascades to the backwards-ass eastern side of Washington, you’ll be immediately subjected to conservative ranting and koolaid drinking tea-baggers.
Missouri is similar, Dood. Most of the Dems are in St. Louis and KC while the rest of the state is mostly solid Republican, and that includes our SW corner here. Joplin, MO consistently ranks right down near the bottom for median family income, and cost of living for that matter, but the social meme of conservative politics is solidly planted. And what makes it really ironic is that Joplin, which was 1/3 wiped off the map by an historic tornado one year ago, has been the recipient of massive state and federal aid ever since. Doesn’t matter to the voters – they consistently pander to the demagoguery that government is bad. My mental image of the average voter syncs with that of Mad Comics’ Alfred E. Newman.
The division is similar in CO, but with some notable exceptions. Large areas of the Denver metro are Democratic because of the concentrations of immigrants, mostly Hispanic. And Boulder is one of the most liberal cities in the entire country. Yet most of the state is rural and Republican. We seemed to flip-flop between Dem and GOP governors, and likewise in presidential elections. The state went Dem in 2008, but could go either way this year. We only have 9 electoral votes; the way the parties are fighting over us, you’d think we had 50.