Support NeoGAF

[RustyNails]

Either way, as I've said, they're not pandering to Hispanic voters. They're going after the conservative voters where economy and immigration are at the top of important issues.

The only issue Romney has now compared to 2008 are the amount of fuck ups he did in S.C..

I haven't seen much Israel pandering either, similar to the reasons you described above.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Romney's position is farthest to the right of any of the candidates.

Edit: Here.

Oh, wow. I didn't catch the self-deporation comment from Romney. Yeah, that's pretty bad. Hmmm. Gingrich's immigration plan or any of the other candidates is still more conservative than McCain's plan.

Gonna be interesting too see Hispanic turnout in FL.

I haven't seen much Israel pandering either, similar to the reasons you described above.

We have one more FL debate!

 

[Learn2read]

Boston Bruins goalie appears to be some kind of teabagger.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/23/sport/white-house-bruins-goalie/index.html

LOL, goalies are always a bit fucked in the head.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Anyone know the quick and dirty way to calculate effective tax rate from my 1040? just for shits and giggles (and inevitable stupid facebook posts) I want to see what mine is

I had found this a couple days ago:

To compare your effective rate to Romney's, get your 2010 Form 1040 and divide line 60 (total tax) by line 37 (adjusted gross income).
There are other ways to measure effective tax rates.

Some say you should divide line 61 (total tax) by line 22 (total income), which typically results in a slightly lower effective rate. (Obama's drops to 25 percent.)

The Tax Policy Center uses an even broader measure of income that includes some items left out of adjusted gross income, such as tax-exempt interest and un-taxed Social Security benefits.

By this measure, the effective tax rate is 9 percent for all individuals and 14.7 percent for those in the $200,000 to $500,000 bracket. The rate is higher for people in higher brackets and lower for those in lower brackets.



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/01/18/BUD91MR4RS.DTL#ixzz1kOqLm74G

 

[ToxicAdam]

lol. only if you completely forget/ignore everything that happened for those tax cuts to be renewed.

Can't that be said about every President that signs a bill contrary to their political dogma? Reagan and SS tax hikes. Bush tax hikes. Clinton's Welfare reform. Bush and TARP.

We all accept that they owned those things despite whatever misgiving or pressures that led them into doing it. You need to do the same for Obama and quit tripping over yourself to be his apologist.

 

[Cyan]

Some say you should divide line 61 (total tax) by line 22 (total income), which typically results in a slightly lower effective rate. (Obama's drops to 25 percent.)

This is what I did to come up with mine--which is about the same as Mitt's. It's a good bit higher doing it with AGI.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

This is what I did to come up with mine--which is about the same as Mitt's. It's a good bit higher doing it with AGI.

That's probably because you make the same amount of money as Mitt.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Can't that be said about every President that signs a bill contrary to their political dogma? Reagan and SS tax hikes. Bush tax hikes. Clinton's Welfare reform. Bush and TARP.

We all accept that they owned those things despite whatever misgiving or pressures that led them into doing it. You need to do the same for Obama and quit tripping over yourself to be his apologist.

Oh man, I don't have the energy to go through it, but the only one of those things that you listed that is remotely similar is HW Bush's tax hikes.

 

[reilo]

http://www.gallup.com/Home.aspx

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

\

Conservative
Unite
Moneybomb

Con
Unite
Money

C
U
M

.
.
.

 

[speculawyer]

Holy hell at Romeny's tax return, earning money doing nothing sounds great. Earning 45 million while doing nothing sounds even better. Earning that amount in two years while doing nothing sounds incredible.

And earning all those millions while paying a lower tax rate than Joe Six-pack sounds too good to be true.


Romney may end up being one of the best things the Dems have had in years. He has put a smug face on a guy who sits on his ass, collect millions, pays an extremely low tax rate, and runs for president as a hobby. Do we really have system that incentives him to work . . . or have we told our "best & brightest" to go sit on your ass? Is he really helping the country or the economy at all?

That is great that he earned so much money. But why should we have an incentive structure that incentives him to sit on his ass?

 

[The Librarian]

http://www.gallup.com/Home.aspx

Came from behind, Mittens!

 

[SolKane]

\

Looks like he's about to blow a million dollar wad.

 

[sc0la]

I had found this a couple days ago:

To compare your effective rate to Romney's, get your 2010 Form 1040 and divide line 60 (total tax) by line 37 (adjusted gross income).
There are other ways to measure effective tax rates.

Some say you should divide line 61 (total tax) by line 22 (total income), which typically results in a slightly lower effective rate. (Obama's drops to 25 percent.)

The Tax Policy Center uses an even broader measure of income that includes some items left out of adjusted gross income, such as tax-exempt interest and un-taxed Social Security benefits.

By this measure, the effective tax rate is 9 percent for all individuals and 14.7 percent for those in the $200,000 to $500,000 bracket. The rate is higher for people in higher brackets and lower for those in lower brackets.



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/01/18/BUD91MR4RS.DTL#ixzz1kOqLm74G

Thanks that is helpful. I don't get why it would use the AGI versus your total income? I have extremely small education deductions going to AGI, while things like the domestic production deduction and HSA is in there that will make some peoples effective tax rate seem comparatively larger after they take those.
I used 60 (total tax) and 22 (total income) and am within 2%+/- of Mitt's. Not surprising, Romney and I are a lot alike, both of us being unemployed and all , but it still misses distortions like payroll tax etc. that have a greater impact on low end wage earners like me.

EDIT tough to see whether Mitt used AGI or total income since they both round to 13.9 in his case.

 

[Cloudy]

Btw I don't get the point of having a live debate audience if they can't even applaud . That was ridiculous last night

 

[Cyan]

That's probably because you make the same amount of money as Mitt.

Spoiler

I am Mitt.

 

[RustyNails]

http://www.gallup.com/Home.aspx

Romney got Newt-ered.

He'll bounce back though.

 

[Chichikov]

Can't that be said about every President that signs a bill contrary to their political dogma? Reagan and SS tax hikes. Bush tax hikes. Clinton's Welfare reform. Bush and TARP.

We all accept that they owned those things despite whatever misgiving or pressures that led them into doing it. You need to do the same for Obama and quit tripping over yourself to be his apologist.

I always believed that a president should be judged mostly based on results.
Not because it's fair, fuck fair, but because it make it the president's problem, and ideally, should drive for results, which is what we want.

 

[Aaron Strife]

http://www.gallup.com/Home.aspx

oh shit son.

 

[RustyNails]

Btw I don't get the point of having a live debate audience if they can't even applaud . That was ridiculous last night

You've never seen Oxford debates or Doha debates? Check em out on youtube. That's how "professional" debates take place. Cheering, whistling and applauding your team is for football games.

 

[Admiral Bone to Pick]

Romney got Newt-ered.

He'll bounce back though.

February will be a good month for Romney. He'll easily carry Nevada, Colorado, Minnesota, Michigan, and Maine. Not sure about Arizona and Missouri but he'll have plenty of momentum.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

And earning all those millions while paying a lower tax rate than Joe Six-pack sounds too good to be true.


Romney may end up being one of the best things the Dems have had in years. He has put a smug face on a guy who sits on his ass, collect millions, pays an extremely low tax rate, and runs for president as a hobby. Do we really have system that incentives him to work . . . or have we told our "best & brightest" to go sit on your ass? Is he really helping the country or the economy at all?

That is great that he earned so much money. But why should we have an incentive structure that incentives him to sit on his ass?

He invests a ton of money in private and public entities. He pays ~$3,000,000 in taxes every year. He's also well groomed. Do you think that helps or hurts the country and economy?

 

[TestOfTide]

And Obama's numbers are:

I'm still not optimistic unless it becomes a clear trend and not a tiny bump.

 

[KtSlime]

He invests a ton of money in private and public entities. He pays ~$3,000,000 in taxes every year. He's also well groomed. Do you think that helps or hurts the country and economy?

Probably helps less than 500 people earning $90,000 and paying ~$20,000 in taxes every year.

Probably helps less than 250 people earning $90,000 and paying ~$20,000 in taxes every year.

 

[TestOfTide]

So in other words, it doesn't really matter. Especially when looking at the questionnaire.

McCain took a more moderate approach to immigration reform (since he worked with Ted Kennedy). I don't think Santorum or Gingrich have a moderate plan like McCain did. Or Gingrich does, I haven't followed his position on immigration reform.

Oddly enough, gingrich and Perry had more moderate positions on immigration than Romney. And even if Romney technically had the same position on the DREAM Act as Gingrich, he came off as following Gingrich's lead on immigration.

 

[speculawyer]

He invests a ton of money in private and public entities. He pays ~$3,000,000 in taxes every year. He's also well groomed. Do you think that helps or hurts the country and economy?

I know the fact that he pays far less than he would have in years past hurts the economy because it has create endless deficits and massive debt.


But I guess conservatives don't care about deficits and massive debt . . . they only pretend to care about them when a Democrat is in the Whitehouse.

 

[empty vessel]

I always believed that a president should be judged mostly based on results.
Not because it's fair, fuck fair, but because it make it the president's problem, and ideally, should drive for results, which is what we want.

Exactly, criticism of a politician doesn't have to be fair if it's coming from the right left place.

 

[Plinko]

February will be a good month for Romney. He'll easily carry Nevada, Colorado, Minnesota, Michigan, and Maine. Not sure about Arizona and Missouri but he'll have plenty of momentum.

LOL

No.

Also, on Fox and Friends, Gingrich threatened to pull out of debates if the audience can't cheer because it stifles free speech.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/...cant-participate/?smid=tw-thecaucus&seid=auto

The National Journal, which co-hosted the NBC debate, compared Gingrich to “a stand-up comedian whose routine suffers without echoes of laughter egging him on.” Mr. Gingrich clearly noticed something was off, too. “We’re going to serve notice on future debates,” he told Fox. “We’re just not going to allow that to happen. That’s wrong. The media doesn’t control free speech. People ought to be allowed to applaud if they want to.”

I LOVE the "no crowd noise" rule. It doesn't allow Americans to be swayed by stupidity like crowd noise and instead makes them think about the issues.

 

[speculawyer]

Oddly enough, gingrich and Perry had more moderate positions on immigration than Romney. And even if Romney technically had the same position on the DREAM Act as Gingrich, he came off as following Gingrich's lead on immigration.

Does it really matter though? . . . Romney's position will change as soon as the primary is over.

 

[Snaku]

http://www.gallup.com/Home.aspx

American voters are such flipfloppers.

 

[Admiral Bone to Pick]

LOL

No.

Also, on Fox and Friends, Gingrich threatened to pull out of debates if the audience can't cheer because it stifles free speech.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/...cant-participate/?smid=tw-thecaucus&seid=auto



I LOVE the "no crowd noise" rule. It doesn't allow Americans to be swayed by stupidity like crowd noise and instead makes them think about the issues.

He carried Michigan in 2008 even when facing a much more moderate candidate in John McCain. Unless of course you think Michigan is going to swing for Gingrich.

 

[Plinko]

He carried Michigan in 2008 even facing a much more moderate candidate in John McCain. Unless of course you think Michigan is going to swing for Gingrich.

Did you forget the op-ed, "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt"?

 

[Kosmo]

I know the fact that he pays far less than he would have in years past hurts the economy because it has create endless deficits and massive debt.


But I guess conservatives don't care about deficits and massive debt . . . they only pretend to care about them when a Democrat is in the Whitehouse.

Well, perhaps he should just sit on his money and pay no taxes? Her certainly doesn't need MORE money, so why deal with shits who want to complain he only paid $3M in taxes on his $21M income (and $3M to charity/church).

 

[KtSlime]

He carried Michigan in 2008 even when facing a much more moderate candidate in John McCain. Unless of course you think Michigan is going to swing for Gingrich.

Michigan, hmmm, Michigan - is that that same state that has Detroit? And is that that same Detroit Romney said "Let Detroit go bankrupt" about?

 

[Admiral Bone to Pick]

Did you forget the op-ed, "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt"?

I'm not denying that it will hurt his chances in Michigan. So please elaborate on a scenario where Romney loses Michigan and the state goes to Gingrich, Santorum, or Paul.

 

[eBay Huckster]

But I guess conservatives don't care about deficits and massive debt . . . they only pretend to care about them when a Democrat is in the Whitehouse.

Clearly you're just envious that Romney's successful for making $45 million in two years

Spoiler

while doing effectively nothing that's actually productive

.

I'm not denying that it will hurt his chances in Michigan. So please elaborate on a scenario where Romney loses Michigan and the state goes to Gingrich, Santorum, or Paul.

Santorum inexplicably drops out and endorses Gingrich after finishing in a distant fourth in Florida.

 

[Kosmo]

Michigan, hmmm, Michigan - is that that same state that has Detroit? And is that that same Detroit Romney said "Let Detroit go bankrupt" about?

Haha, you guys with revisionist history equating Romney's position on the Big 3 to meaning "let them go out of business." They basically did EXACTLY what he suggested, except they gave a big percentage of GM to the UAW (who had ZERO legal stake compared to the bond holders) ) instead of private investors.

Here's the OpEd: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html And the critical part:

It is not wrong to ask for government help, but the automakers should come up with a win-win proposition. I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration. The federal government should also rectify the imbedded tax penalties that favor foreign carmakers.

But don’t ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass — they bet on management and they lost.

The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.

Tell me which part you disagree with and how it was better handled by the Obama Auto Bailout Team headed by Ratner.

 

[Cyan]

Well, perhaps he should just sit on his money and pay no taxes?

lols.

I was gonna say "never change, Kosmo," but then I realized there's no need.

 

[NihonTiger90]

\





.
.
.

HOW DOES HE OR HIS CAMPAIGN STAFF NOT HAVE GOOGLE?!?!

Seriously, the jokes write themselves.

 

[eBay Huckster]

They basically did EXACTLY what he suggested, except

So basically they did exactly what he said, except for the fact that they didn't.

 

[Plinko]

I'm not denying that it will hurt his chances in Michigan. So please elaborate on a scenario where Romney loses Michigan and the state goes to Gingrich, Santorum, or Paul.

The people are Michigan are more conservative than you think. Nearly every county in Michigan is a red county. Michigan suffered tremendously when Detroit's auto industry plummeted.

Newt puts out commercials referencing Romney's column and how bad it was for the state. Easy win.

 

[ivysaur12]

\





.
.
.

Can't make this shit up.

 

[Chichikov]

Haha, you guys with revisionist history equating Romney's position on the Big 3 to meaning "let them go out of business." They basically did EXACTLY what he suggested, except they gave a big percentage of GM to the UAW (who had ZERO legal stake compared to the bond holders) ) instead of private investors.

Here's the OpEd: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html And the critical part:

Tell me which part you disagree with and how it was better handled by the Obama Auto Bailout Team headed by Ratner.

We're talking about his prospects in Michigan.
Do you doubt that this op-ed will be used EXTENSIVELY against him if he ever get within striking distance in that state?
Do you doubt it will be effective?

 

[Clevinger]

PublicPolicyPolling
Minnesota GOP poll tomorrow- good nugget- Mitt is 4th!!! among voters whose minds are totally made up

.

 

[Plinko]

.

LOL..."Carrying" Minnesota, eh guys?

 

[KtSlime]

Haha, you guys with revisionist history equating Romney's position on the Big 3 to meaning "let them go out of business." They basically did EXACTLY what he suggested, except they gave a big percentage of GM to the UAW (who had ZERO legal stake compared to the bond holders) ) instead of private investors.

Here's the OpEd: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html And the critical part:



Tell me which part you disagree with and how it was better handled by the Obama Auto Bailout Team headed by Ratner.

Who cares about share-holders and the management, most were bunch of rich people that caused the company to go bankrupt - I agree with Romney on this. I do not agree with "It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs." When Romney says managed bankruptcy he doesn't likely care about what happens to "excess labor" aka PEOPLE that need JOBS to buy food, or "pensions" aka money people need so they are not leaching off of social security - as you like to point out they do, or "real estate costs" aka boarded up factories.

The way the government handled it meant most people kept on working, and made the process a very smooth transition. If you want to see an example of Romney's "managed bankruptcy" just take a look at American Pad & Paper.

 

[Snake]

They basically did EXACTLY what he suggested... Tell me which part you disagree with and how it was better handled by the Obama Auto Bailout Team headed by Ratner.

This is the GOP primaries, not the general. Whatever Obama did, they don't like it. So assuming you are correct, "Obama followed Romney's plan" is yet another easy attack against Mitt that Newt can make. I'm not yet saying Mitt will lose Michigan to Newt, but he very well could if the narrative is against him as strongly as in SC.

 

[Admiral Bone to Pick]

The people are Michigan are more conservative than you think. Nearly every county in Michigan is a red county. Michigan suffered tremendously when Detroit's auto industry plummeted.

Newt puts out commercials referencing Romney's column and how bad it was for the state. Easy win.

If memory serves, Romney's op-ed wasn't heartlessly calling for Detroit to go bankrupt, rather that the automotive companies centered there should go bankrupt and restructure instead of being bailed out by the government. And Gingrich also came out against the bailouts so he'd be a pretty big hypocrite to criticize something he agreed with Romney on. Even if the op-ed damaged Romney's popularity in Michigan, I still don't believe he'd ever lose to Gingrich, Santorum, or Paul in the state. Perhaps in a more moderate field.

 

[Kosmo]

Who cares about share-holders and the management, most were bunch of rich people that caused the company to go bankrupt - I agree with Romney on this. I do not agree with "It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs." When Romney says managed bankruptcy he doesn't likely care about what happens to "excess labor" aka PEOPLE that need JOBS to buy food, or "pensions" aka money people need so they are not leaching off of social security - as you like to point out they do, or "real estate costs" aka boarded up factories.

The way the government handled it meant most people kept on working, and made the process a very smooth transition. If you want to see an example of Romney's "managed bankruptcy" just take a look at American Pad & Paper.

Yes, who cares about the people who actually invest in the company who paid for those jobs...why should they be given any protection when we have people downing 40's and smoking weed at lunch to protect!?

As to your point, those people would not have all been laid off, since the private investors knew there is a multiplier effect to making an automobile - they could not just fire all the line workers, not produce cars, and then expect the suppliers to be there later, since they would quickly be out of business. It would have likely happened exactly as it did, with the exception being private investors, not the UAW getting that stake of the company.

 

[Dude Abides]

Haha, you guys with revisionist history equating Romney's position on the Big 3 to meaning "let them go out of business." They basically did EXACTLY what he suggested, except they gave a big percentage of GM to the UAW (who had ZERO legal stake compared to the bond holders) ) instead of private investors.

Here's the OpEd: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html And the critical part:



Tell me which part you disagree with and how it was better handled by the Obama Auto Bailout Team headed by Ratner.

Judge Gonzalez overruled Lauria's group's objection because it would have sent Chrysler into liquidation. You don't know how bankruptcy works and apparently neither does Mittens.