Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
The same great Twins Daily coverage, now for the Vikings.

The Store


Photo

Brutal Campaign Ad(s)

  • Please log in to reply
47 replies to this topic

#1 PseudoSABR

PseudoSABR

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 1,962 posts

Posted 14 July 2012 - 04:47 PM

No matter your politics, the production value here is eerily effective. I've often wondered why there's not more 'art' to such ads. Thoughts? Other favorite ads from the past?

#2 Badsmerf

Badsmerf

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,655 posts

Posted 15 July 2012 - 10:53 AM

I like this ad a lot. Its strange to me the direction the GOP is heading. While the dems are seemingly trying to reach out to the middle-class/upper middle-class, the GOP is fighting for the 1%. I'm a Ron Paul supporter so not your classic Republican, but what Paul has created a type of Libertarian Conservative. The more I pay attention the more it seems the GOP refuses to evolve and bring new solutions to the table. Now, I'm not in favor of handouts by any means, but do think its time the US gets tax money from people it deserves. Why do I have to pay so much in taxes when someone that makes 10 times more than me can hide it and end up paying less than I do? The system is broken. I don't trust Romney will correct it. As much as I disagree with some of the positions and decisions Obama has made, he is still more of a leader to me than Romney.

#3 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,749 posts

Posted 15 July 2012 - 11:03 AM

Clinton's 3am ad was fantastic and I actually thought McCain's celebrity ad against Obama was pretty good, too.

#4 PseudoSABR

PseudoSABR

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 1,962 posts

Posted 15 July 2012 - 12:46 PM

Now, I'm not in favor of handouts by any means, but do think its time the US gets tax money from people it deserves.

I think this is key, and why Romney doesn't want to release his taxes, because he's paying at significantly lower rate than anyone in the middle class. The notion that tax breaks create jobs becomes complicated when you consider these job-creators already have a favorable tax code.

The sad truth is that if we brought taxes to zero, the free market would still push jobs overseas because American labor is too expensive. What's the Republican solution then? Slowly lower the quality of life of the middle class?

#5 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 5,022 posts

Posted 15 July 2012 - 01:12 PM

What's the Republican solution then? Slowly lower the quality of life of the middle class?


That's not the intended solution, but you're right that they are focusing on trickle-down economics too heavily. What is amusing is that the Democratics have arguably had an even more damaging effect on the middle class ever since LBJ. I find it amusing how lefties are so blind to the damage they cause as well - just because your intentions are compassion and care - doesn't make the ****ty results any easier to swallow.

What we really need is a true alternative plan from these two paths to misery. Neither party is offering that as usual.

#6 fatbeer

fatbeer

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 147 posts

Posted 15 July 2012 - 09:35 PM

What lie isn't Obama willing to tell. He makes up the facts of his first date with his wife for crying out loud. Hey Barack nobody cares if you went to a movie or not, I'll accept political lies because it is a contact sport, but you better be willing to tell the truth once in a while.

#7 PseudoSABR

PseudoSABR

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 1,962 posts

Posted 16 July 2012 - 11:45 AM

What lie isn't Obama willing to tell. He makes up the facts of his first date with his wife for crying out loud. Hey Barack nobody cares if you went to a movie or not, I'll accept political lies because it is a contact sport, but you better be willing to tell the truth once in a while.

What's he lying about? Let's see how much you really care about truth-telling.

#8 SpiritofVodkaDave

SpiritofVodkaDave

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 16 July 2012 - 04:33 PM

What's he lying about? Let's see how much you really care about truth-telling.


His first date with his wife. DUH!

#9 fatbeer

fatbeer

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 147 posts

Posted 16 July 2012 - 06:58 PM

Whats wrong with outsourcing? I understand that if a specific job is moved it is bad for a specific person, but overall outsourcing is good for the entire economy. Look at your cellphone and tell me what you would have had to pay for all it does 5 years ago. Obamas green (a term that means nothing) job creation resulted in plenty of outsourcing as well.

#10 snepp

snepp

    Curve Hanger

  • Twins Mods
  • 4,230 posts
  • LocationSioux Falls

Posted 16 July 2012 - 07:01 PM

*speechless*

#11 Badsmerf

Badsmerf

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,655 posts

Posted 16 July 2012 - 08:36 PM

I actually work in the green sector, am I outsourced? LOL. For realz though, some green jobs (like wind) are jobs that get created out of thin air (or wind) and are permanent jobs that inject millions into the economy. At my site alone the 7 guys working there will be paid over .5 million in wages this year. Add in construction workers and sub-contractors and this is an industry that Americans should be supporting. I just like talking about wind, sorry.

#12 PseudoSABR

PseudoSABR

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 1,962 posts

Posted 17 July 2012 - 01:29 AM

Whats wrong with outsourcing? I understand that if a specific job is moved it is bad for a specific person, but overall outsourcing is good for the entire economy. Look at your cellphone and tell me what you would have had to pay for all it does 5 years ago. Obamas green (a term that means nothing) job creation resulted in plenty of outsourcing as well.

Overall good for whom? Who exactly benefits from outsourcing? Not me. Probably not you. At some point we might actually have to be choose patriotism over capitalism; I doubt you have the balls to make the right choice.

#13 a-wan

a-wan

    Member

  • Members
  • 39 posts

Posted 17 July 2012 - 02:01 AM

Can someone outsource me to Canada?

#14 fatbeer

fatbeer

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 147 posts

Posted 17 July 2012 - 05:34 AM

Saying you don't benefit from outsourcing is like saying you don't benefit from roads in northern Minnesota. If you want to pay $20 for a t-shirt thats spectacular. If you want to pay $1500 for an Iphone cool.

#15 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 8,722 posts

Posted 17 July 2012 - 06:17 AM

Saying you don't benefit from outsourcing is like saying you don't benefit from roads in northern Minnesota. If you want to pay $20 for a t-shirt thats spectacular. If you want to pay $1500 for an Iphone cool.


Actually, producing electronics in America isn't nearly as expensive as one would think. Google just started manufacturing the Nexus Q in the US and it retails for $300. If it was made in China, it might be $249 or $199 at the very least. Given the savings in exporting, shipping, and a plethora of other reasons (state subsidies, weak dollar, etc.), it's really not that hard to bring manufacturing to the US if a corporation is truly interested in doing so.

#16 drjim

drjim

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,074 posts
  • LocationSt. Paul

Posted 17 July 2012 - 03:07 PM

Of all the problems hitting our economy right now I would say outsourcing is pretty low on the list. Playing up stuff like this is why I will never be a full-fledged Democrat, but its not like the Republican alternative is all that attractive. The Obama campaign is not stupid, the one place they can get movement into the Romney coalition is with blue collar whites. Ads like this can only help. As an aside, after all that has happened in the economy and our country I am pretty surprised that no coalition has formed as strong anti-bank and anti-buyout. There is some noise but neither party will take up that mantle. Shows how corrupt our current politicians are in regards to the large banks.

#17 glunn

glunn

    Head Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 5,208 posts
  • LocationBeverly Hills, CA

Posted 17 July 2012 - 11:13 PM

I have come to the conclusion that the powerful lobbies will get what they want no matter who wins the presidency or Congress. We will continue to spend more on "defense" than the next 20+ countries combined, and Wall Street will continue to gamble with trillions of dollars of other people's money.

The need to raise millions for political campaigning has corrupted almost everyone in Washington, and the Citizens United decision has made it easier than ever before for rich people to elect candidates (Democrats and Republicans) who will do their bidding. And someone who is basically honest like Ron Paul will never get the big dollars, because he would be a genuine threat to the fiction that is our government.

On a more positive note, taxes on high earners are the lowest that they have been in decades, so this is a great time to be a high earner (and an even better time to get capital gains and dividend income.

But on a negative note, the only way that the government can ever get out of this mess will be with double digit inflation, and when this kicks in, people who invest in fixed income instruments are going to get creamed. It would be wise to stock up on investments that will hold their value when the inflation hits.

#18 PseudoSABR

PseudoSABR

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 1,962 posts

Posted 18 July 2012 - 01:17 AM

But on a negative note, the only way that the government can ever get out of this mess will be with double digit inflation, and when this kicks in, people who invest in fixed income instruments are going to get creamed. It would be wise to stock up on investments that will hold their value when the inflation hits.

Well, inflation or lower wages, however you want to put it is exactly what Wall Street types want. They want to lower the standard of living among American people to keep profit margins equal or better than that of the past. I can't believe we, as a nation, tolerate this. Indeed what is good for hyper-capitalists is not good for all Americans. As I've said before, if we lower the tax rate to zero for "job creators," there's still economical incentive to hire non-Americans, because their labor is cheaper, because their standard of living is cheaper, because such countries haven't gone through their own French Revolution. What Wall Street types don't understand is that cheap labor is a limited resource and soon enough the working force of China and Indonesia will have had enough and will violently oppose their working conditions. And how will Mitt Romney's equity firms continue to make money without providing goods or services? Poor private equity; really, boo ****ing hoo. I'm so over the notion of free market clown car crap. (Glunn, this might not marry your point, so apologies; I've had a drink or seven, so a rant feels good.)

#19 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 5,022 posts

Posted 18 July 2012 - 05:35 AM

As an aside, after all that has happened in the economy and our country I am pretty surprised that no coalition has formed as strong anti-bank and anti-buyout. There is some noise but neither party will take up that mantle. Shows how corrupt our current politicians are in regards to the large banks.


Well said. Not only that, but neither party will get behind the idea of restoring the Glass-Steagall Act which just makes too much damn sense. The middle class is being pounded on by both left-wing and right-wing nonsense constantly.

#20 Badsmerf

Badsmerf

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,655 posts

Posted 18 July 2012 - 08:27 AM


On a more positive note, taxes on high earners are the lowest that they have been in decades, so this is a great time to be a high earner (and an even better time to get capital gains and dividend income.


Positive for who? That certainly doesn't help me, or the 99% of other Americans. I have felt less and less sorry for these people and their taxes. Remember, if they have REPORTED income that high, their actual income is most likely much much higher. Why give them breaks when they have so many already? Its crazy. The money is getting more and more lopsided every year. That isn't how this country was supposed to work.

#21 PseudoSABR

PseudoSABR

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 1,962 posts

Posted 18 July 2012 - 11:41 AM

Positive for who? That certainly doesn't help me, or the 99% of other Americans. I have felt less and less sorry for these people and their taxes. Remember, if they have REPORTED income that high, their actual income is most likely much much higher. Why give them breaks when they have so many already? Its crazy. The money is getting more and more lopsided every year. That isn't how this country was supposed to work.

You give them a break, because clearly if they had more money, they'd start hiring more people. Clearly. ;)

#22 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 5,022 posts

Posted 18 July 2012 - 12:28 PM

You give them a break, because clearly if they had more money, they'd start hiring more people. Clearly. ;)


While we are skewed too far one way, it is true that you can restrain economics by over-regulation and taxation. Once again we come back to the stupidity of going too far either way.

#23 glunn

glunn

    Head Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 5,208 posts
  • LocationBeverly Hills, CA

Posted 18 July 2012 - 01:05 PM

Positive for who? That certainly doesn't help me, or the 99% of other Americans. I have felt less and less sorry for these people and their taxes. Remember, if they have REPORTED income that high, their actual income is most likely much much higher. Why give them breaks when they have so many already? Its crazy. The money is getting more and more lopsided every year. That isn't how this country was supposed to work.


Positive for the high earners, and I was being tongue in cheek. I agree with you my friend.

#24 glunn

glunn

    Head Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 5,208 posts
  • LocationBeverly Hills, CA

Posted 18 July 2012 - 01:10 PM

You give them a break, because clearly if they had more money, they'd start hiring more people. Clearly. ;)


In my business I have always had 3 employees, because that's how many I need. When my taxes were lowered, I had no reason to hire any more people. I have pocketed the tax savings from the Bush tax cuts, but have given most of it to charities that feed hungry people and that fight for social justice.

Most high earners are not job creators. They are executives, professionals, athletes, movie stars etc. If the plan is to foster job creation, there are more focused strategies for encouraging this, such as tax credits for expanding a business that will create more jobs.

#25 PseudoSABR

PseudoSABR

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 1,962 posts

Posted 18 July 2012 - 01:21 PM

In my business I have always had 3 employees, because that's how many I need. When my taxes were lowered, I had no reason to hire any more people. I have pocketed the tax savings from the Bush tax cuts, but have given most of it to charities that feed hungry people and that fight for social justice.

Most high earners are not job creators. They are executives, professionals, athletes, movie stars etc. If the plan is to foster job creation, there are more focused strategies for encouraging this, such as tax credits for expanding a business that will create more jobs.

Right. While I'm sure you're happy to have the money to do with as you see fit (charity); the notion that lower taxes on hire earners will create more jobs is just silly.

#26 PseudoSABR

PseudoSABR

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 1,962 posts

Posted 18 July 2012 - 01:26 PM

While we are skewed too far one way, it is true that you can restrain economics by over-regulation and taxation. Once again we come back to the stupidity of going too far either way.

Oh right. But we are well beyond the pale of tax breaks and deregulating being good for the economy. The Bush years are evidence of this. Look if the private sector isn't spending their money, and they aren't creating jobs--it's left to no other entity other than government (as messy as it might be at it) to create liquidity and jobs. It's not as if there aren't any number of public works jobs that need to get done and that would actually help private enterprise.

#27 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 5,022 posts

Posted 18 July 2012 - 01:38 PM

Oh right. But we are well beyond the pale of tax breaks and deregulating being good for the economy. The Bush years are evidence of this. Look if the private sector isn't spending their money, and they aren't creating jobs--it's left to no other entity other than government (as messy as it might be at it) to create liquidity and jobs. It's not as if there aren't any number of public works jobs that need to get done and that would actually help private enterprise.


The government cannot and will not jump start the economy. It's simply too large a task for such bureaucracy to handle. Large number of public tasks do need to be completed, in fact they were "shovel ready", how'd that turn out? There is one major advantage to leaning on the private sector - they almost always prioritize the need to make money which does lead to economic revitalization. The government's motives aren't always to make money as evidenced by the above example.

The problem isn't that we need more tax breaks, it's that the tax breaks need to be better oriented to job creation rather than blanket tax breaks as glunn said. We also need to put the banking industry back in the business of lending money as their primary vehicle of profit rather than the current mega-bank model. (Glass-Steagall Act again)

#28 glunn

glunn

    Head Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 5,208 posts
  • LocationBeverly Hills, CA

Posted 18 July 2012 - 01:52 PM

The government cannot and will not jump start the economy. It's simply too large a task for such bureaucracy to handle. Large number of public tasks do need to be completed, in fact they were "shovel ready", how'd that turn out? There is one major advantage to leaning on the private sector - they almost always prioritize the need to make money which does lead to economic revitalization. The government's motives aren't always to make money as evidenced by the above example.

The problem isn't that we need more tax breaks, it's that the tax breaks need to be better oriented to job creation rather than blanket tax breaks as glunn said. We also need to put the banking industry back in the business of lending money as their primary vehicle of profit rather than the current mega-bank model. (Glass-Steagall Act again)


I agree with your second point, but as to your first point, I would like to hear your views as to the following questions. Why not give temporary government jobs to the millions of unemployed people who are collecting unemployment benefits, welfare, etc.? Since they are being supported anyway, why not put them to work repairing infrastructure, clearing brush to prevent wildfires and other useful jobs until they can get private sector jobs? In California, we have big wildfires every few years and the politicians always pretend to be surprised by the billions of dollars of damages. I am angry that we don't have unemployed people (who the government is paying anyway) out there clearing the damn brush so that the wildfires can be minimized. And the same applies to potholes, graffiti and a lot of other problems that these people could be fixing. I would be happy to even pay them extra to do some useful work instead of just collecting benefits. Do you agree that this makes sense?

#29 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 5,022 posts

Posted 18 July 2012 - 02:19 PM

I agree with your second point, but as to your first point, I would like to hear your views as to the following questions. Why not give temporary government jobs to the millions of unemployed people who are collecting unemployment benefits, welfare, etc.? Since they are being supported anyway, why not put them to work repairing infrastructure, clearing brush to prevent wildfires and other useful jobs until they can get private sector jobs? In California, we have big wildfires every few years and the politicians always pretend to be surprised by the billions of dollars of damages. I am angry that we don't have unemployed people (who the government is paying anyway) out there clearing the damn brush so that the wildfires can be minimized. And the same applies to potholes, graffiti and a lot of other problems that these people could be fixing. I would be happy to even pay them extra to do some useful work instead of just collecting benefits. Do you agree that this makes sense?


I'm not opposed to it, because it is a better use of the funds. The problem is that people may be content to keep those jobs rather than seeking out full employment. The left-wing dependency state that has been built in this country is built on solutions like this that aren't thought through all the way. It could work and I would welcome it as temporary solution along with more temporary benefits. I've always thought unemployment should come with some form of skill building/education after a certain period of time as well. Whatever it takes so that it's not so exploitable.

#30 Badsmerf

Badsmerf

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,655 posts

Posted 18 July 2012 - 08:28 PM

Lev, I think you might be hyperventilating a little. Nobody is claiming government be the answer (we both know psuedo is a little left, but he's playing nice). To me the answer is a mix. I also don't think "welfare" itself is the problem. The big 3 no politician will touch (except Paul) is Medicaid, Medicare and the defense budget. Each one needs to reformed and until that happens this country will continue to go into further debt. I'll list my solutions, since I would be an awesome president (and I'd still talk on BYT... er... Twins Daily). Medicade- Require drug testing and enrollment in community building activities (i.e. removing brush with I.D. checks and everything). This will require the people getting money from tax payers to actually do something in return. Medicare- Raise the age eligible. People are living too long on Medicare. The mortality age has risen and medical technology has allowed older people to rack up huge costs. I'm not going to talk about social security.... Defense budget- Audit that bitch. We are paying way too much money and politicians just don't give a ****. Why? At this point its just out of control.