It's a big piece of property, buildings have been built, parking lot, power, water, security, etc. There's a lot of value in that. And I don't know about other places, but property appreciates a lot in my neck of the woods over a decade.

A few meager dollars here and there completely locks up the poor, the minorities, just a pittance and they accept the bribe, but seniors they are totally different. They ignore the easy bribe. I guess. Or something. Basically the whole government bribing people is more than a little silly.

What are you talking about? Trillions of dollars have been spent on the welfare state. Only a liberal would call that a "few meager dollars."

3) health care spend stops rising and / or an end to tax-free employer sponsored health care ?

Well like I said, the people (poor and minorities) you claim are completely bribed by the government to vote for Democrats get MUCH less money than the people (seniors) the GOP is counting on. Seems to me if bribery were all it took Seniors would definitely be voting D and especially Obama.

3) health care spend stops rising and / or an end to tax-free employer sponsored health care ?

“The people down in New Orleans they don’t care about as much!” Obama shouts in the video, which was shot in June of 2007 at Hampton University in Virginia. By contrast, survivors of Sept. 11 and Hurricane Andrew received generous amounts of aid, Obama explains. The reason? Unlike residents of majority-black New Orleans, the federal government considers those victims “part of the American family."

The racially charged and at times angry speech undermines Obama’s carefully-crafted image as a leader eager to build bridges between ethnic groups. For nearly 40 minutes, using an accent he almost never adopts in public, Obama describes a racist, zero-sum society, in which the white majority profits by exploiting black America. The mostly black audience shouts in agreement. The effect is closer to an Al Sharpton rally than a conventional campaign event.

“Now here’s the thing,” Obama continues, “when 9-11 happened in New York City, they waived the Stafford Act — said, ‘This is too serious a problem. We can’t expect New York City to rebuild on its own. Forget that dollar you gotta put in. Well, here’s ten dollars.’ And that was the right thing to do. When Hurricane Andrew struck in Florida, people said, ‘Look at this devastation. We don’t expect you to come up with y’own money, here. Here’s the money to rebuild. We’re not gonna wait for you to scratch it together — because you’re part of the American family.’”

That’s not, Obama says, what is happening in majority-black New Orleans. “What’s happening down in New Orleans? Where’s your dollar? Where’s your Stafford Act money?” Obama shouts, angry now. “Makes no sense! Tells me that somehow, the people down in New Orleans they don’t care about as much!”

It’s a remarkable moment, and not just for its resemblance to Kayne West’s famous claim that “George Bush doesn’t care about black people,” but also because of its basic dishonesty. By January of 2007, six months before Obama’s Hampton speech, the federal government had sent at least $110 billion to areas damaged by Katrina. Compare this to the mere $20 billion that the Bush administration pledged to New York City after Sept. 11.

Does somebody seriously want to claim that there wasn't more than five times as much damage to New Orleans as to New York City? I could be convinced, maybe, but it doesn't seem likely.

Joe, you can't seriously believe that video is going to move the needle.

The video on page 2 of the link in #160 is remarkable. The video switches back and forth between Obama speaking in Hampton and then Obama's subsequent comments distancing himself from Jeremiah Wright. Obama was using his phony preacher voice in Hampton, but he spoke in his usual voice when backtracking from Wright.

The Republicans have squeezed all they can from the Reverend Wright stone.

Apparently, Newt was just on FOX saying this video is a nontroversy.

Hey, a vote for Newt is a vote for a moon colony.

Mitt Romney’s advisers have long insisted that economic doldrums—not immigration policy—would turn Hispanic voters toward the Republican nominee.

But Romney’s decision to break his silence on allowing young illegal immigrants to stay in the United States reflects a shift in that failing strategy and an implicit admission that the increasingly powerful Hispanic vote could, in part, cost him the election.

After months of mostly stonewalling about President Obama’s order to stop deporting children brought to the United States illegally by their parents, Romney told The Denver Post on Monday that he would not repeal those temporary visas. When Obama made the announcement in June, Romney criticized it as a politically motivated maneuver and said he would “replace and supersede” the order with a “long-term solution.”

Romney’s amended immigration policy comes as a new CNN poll shows 64 percent of registered voters supporting Obama's move. Polls also show Obama trouncing Romney in the fast-growing Hispanic community. Four million more Hispanic voters will be eligible to vote in 2012 than in 2008, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, though their turnout has lagged behind black and white voters.

“With Romney’s current level of support among Latinos, he loses," said Ana Navarro, who advised former GOP nominee John McCain on Hispanic issues. “He has no option but to keep trying to make up ground.”

“With Romney’s current level of support among Latinos, he loses," said Ana Navarro, who advised former GOP nominee John McCain on Hispanic issues. “He has no option but to keep trying to make up ground.”

I will be very surprised if Obama's debate strategy isn't simply to compare/contrast Romney's stance on every issue to Romney's prior stance on every issue earlier in the year/decade/career.

Why not just guarantee a minimum level of income for every household (say, $40k) and cut all government-administered welfare systems? This would preserve the "welfare state" by providing for the poor, would eliminate government waste, and would re-institute some level of personal responsibility. Everyone is satisfied.

Why not just guarantee a minimum level of income for every household (say, $40k) and cut all government-administered welfare systems? This would preserve the "welfare state" by providing for the poor, would eliminate government waste, and would re-institute some level of personal responsibility. Everyone is satisfied.

I'm liberal, want the safety net, but I'm not sure the UBI is the most efficient. Healthy 25 year olds, 30 year olds, who can work, should be working if at all possible.

If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.

He who does not work, neither shall he eat

Every citizen will make his particular contribution to the activities of the community according to his capacity, his talent and his age; it is on this basis that his duties will be determined, in conformity with the distributive laws.

He who does not work shall not eat

The shift on immigration seems so poorly executed.

Take your pick....

X by the Romney campaign seems so poorly executed (fill in your own X). What have they done that has impressed anyone so far? I can't think of anything they have pulled off that has impressed me in either the Primaries or the main campaign.

X by the Romney campaign seems so poorly executed (fill in your own X).

X by the Romney campaign seems so poorly executed (fill in your own X). What have they done that has impressed anyone so far? I can't think of anything they have pulled off that has impressed me in either the Primaries or the main campaign.

This seems to have become a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. All political calculations, by all pols, are political calculations and "managed" for optics. But Romney's core message is his plasticity and lack of a guiding center, so any time he does a basic political calculation it actually feeds into the negative image of him as a soulless automaton. I have no idea how he would break that cycle.

I'm liberal, want the safety net, but I'm not sure the UBI is the most efficient. Healthy 25 year olds, 30 year olds, who can work, should be working if at all possible.

we all have a moral responsibility to contribute to our own independent well-being

But of course any "healthy 25 year olds, 30 year olds" without any independent source of income*** should be working to support themselves one way or another.. (emphasis in the original)

So I'm guessing the other political thread got shut down.

So are people watching the debate tonight?