PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread |OT2| This thread title is now under military control

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think his argument is that there is a tipping point and once a few dominos fall, they are all going to fall. The current path of consumer confidence/job numbers/economic news is making this "tipping point" more likely.


I, of course, do not subscribe to this but have seen it worded in many similar ways by prognisticators.
 
I was talking to my conservative friends at a wedding over the weekend (both of them ;-), they don't even like Romney. I have yet to meet one person who will admit to liking Romney. Just the usual A.B.O garbage, if he can win based purely on dislike, and John Kerry couldn't do that very same thing, than we deserve Romney. If elected I think I'll just pretend he's some pulp villain in the movie of my life.

Also I know people like Toxicadam have pointed out the differences between Romney/Obamacare but that didn't make seeing my friend try to explain/justify Romneycare any less amusing.

Also, also, have yet to meet someone who wants to reinstate insurance denial for people with pre-existing conditions, conservative or democrat. Not one person.

Also, also, also, I hope EV continues to edify kosmo, will make my day much more interesting. I can hear the brain cells creaking and cracking open in new places.
 
The point is the campaign is doing a great job at changing the conversation from a bad jobs report. Horrible numbers were released on Friday, now the conversation has turned to a tax plan that further reinforces the idea that Romney explicitly wants tax cuts for wealthy people while he is consistently shady about releasing own tax returns.

The conversation isn't irrelevant because it dominated evening news coverage of the election for the day. Obama took a bad jobs number and smothered it. Romney should've been able to take this report and run with it, but his campaign has failed at setting a narrative once again. The Obama camp has been incredibly focused and I wouldn't be surprised if they had a "Monday after jobs report" story planned to unveil for every month after a mediocre jobs report. This campaign is constantly on the offensive.

No one is claiming this is some brilliant policy. The Bush tax cuts need to expire. There's no way the republicans would go along with it, and the Obama camp knows it. They're just playing politics and it's working.

1) What happens now, is really irrelevant. The voting public is not engaged enough to matter come November. All that matters will be job reports in September and October.

2) Romney's tax returns are as relevant as Obama's college transcripts. Is there evidence he has done something illegal?


The Bush tax cuts need to expire.

Why do you keep calling them this?


I hope EV continues to edify kosmo, will make my day much more interesting. I can hear the brain cells creaking and cracking open in new places.

Ha, as soon as he explains to me why confiscation has to be part of his plan. His argument is essentially that we have to steal caviar and truffles from those who have a lot of it to feed the starving, when in reality we have a magical garden that produces all the food anyone could ever need. Why would we resort to stealing when we can get to the same end without confiscation (in his reality)?
 
2) Romney's tax returns are as relevant as Obama's college transcripts. Is there evidence he has done something illegal?

Dunno.


Also whereas the transcripts and birth certificate were shown in as many forms as were available, Romney's tax returns are just plain being withheld.
 
Dunno.


Also whereas the transcripts and birth certificate were shown in as many forms as were available, Romney's tax returns are just plain being withheld.

No, only in that they were not shown because they were not made available. Both are moot points.
 
Why do you keep calling them this?

It's what everyone calls them, call it a misnomer, but it is what it is. Plus, I mean, c'mon, it's so catchy, you can just see the image of a hapless Bush urging congress to pass the cuts for the good of America. Just like "Obamacare" conjurs up fuck-all for conservatives.
 
It's what everyone calls them, call it a misnomer, but it is what it is. Plus, I mean, c'mon, it's so catchy, you can just see the image of a hapless Bush urging congress to pass the cuts for the good of America. Just like "Obamacare" conjurs up fuck-all for conservatives.

Silly arguments like this are all he has. Just let him have it.
 
This makes no sense. If you are seeking egalitarianism (in this case, in wealth distribution), why do you prefer to get to that end by taking money from the "rich" when you freely admit that the government can print all the money they want, meaning we can get to the same egalitarian end by simply printing money and giving it to people to put them on "egalitarian" footing with the rich.

Why must schadenfreude be a part of your solution?

Thinking that MMT states that you can just keep printing money is a complete misunderstanding of the theory. MMT simply states that the constraint on governments that can print their own money is not revenue but inflation. You can keep printing money until inflation becomes a bigger problem. Empty Vessels position is that printing extra money and putting it toward employment and single payer healthcare would help our economy much more right now than any rise in inflation that would create (at our current inflation rates.)

Then under this theory, taxation is a tool the government can use to decrease inflationary pressure by taking money out of this system. Empty Vessel also proposes to use this tool in a progressive fashion (as most of us here do) and that at this moment we need to especially tax the rich due to the wide gulf in inequality which he sees as a problem because those who control vast amounts of wealth are corrupting our democracy through spending that money on campaigning, lobbying, and other forms of political 'bribery'.

Remember to seperate out MMT - Inflation is the constraint on spending money. Taxation is a tool to manage inflation by taking money out of the economy. (and side note that printing bonds is an optional operation. We do not need to take in bonds to print money, we choose to, though bonds, like taxation, provide deflationary pressure to the economy.)

Did I get this right EV? I'm trying seperate out MMT (which does not favor left/right) from what policy prescriptions I believe you/the left would prescribe.
 
If the early Republican response to Obama's decoupling-the-tax-vote idea is any indication, it really was a brilliant move by his campaign. They literally have no response. "Uh ... Obama himself said any taxes going up right now would be bad for the economy ... job creators ... small businesses..."

Meanwhile, congressional Republicans are holding a vote to repeal Obamacare, Republican governors are pledging to not participate in increased coverage of women, children, and the elderly, and Romney is still trying to find a way to respond to all of the above. Good GOD, this campaign is a disaster.
 
If the early Republican response to Obama's decoupling-the-tax-vote idea is any indication, it really was a brilliant move by his campaign. They literally have no response. "Uh ... Obama himself said any taxes going up right now would be bad for the economy ... job creators ... small businesses..."

Meanwhile, congressional Republicans are holding a vote to repeal Obamacare, Republican governors are pledging to not participate in increased coverage of women, children, and the elderly, and Romney is still trying to find a way to respond to all of the above. Good GOD, this campaign is a disaster.

Is it the campaign, or is it the corner that the GOP has backed themselves into?

Let's be honest here--it's not going to change any time soon, either. You've got guys like Jeb Bush saying how crazy this mindset is and he and others are getting promptly ignored.
 
Thinking that MMT states that you can just keep printing money is a complete misunderstanding of the theory. MMT simply states that the constraint on governments that can print their own money is not revenue but inflation. You can keep printing money until inflation becomes a bigger problem. Empty Vessels position is that printing extra money and putting it toward employment and single payer healthcare would help our economy much more right now than any rise in inflation that would create (at our current inflation rates.)

Then under this theory, taxation is a tool the government can use to decrease inflationary pressure by taking money out of this system. Empty Vessel also proposes to use this tool in a progressive fashion (as most of us here do) and that at this moment we need to especially tax the rich due to the wide gulf in inequality which he sees as a problem because those who control vast amounts of wealth are corrupting our democracy through spending that money on campaigning, lobbying, and other forms of political 'bribery'.

Remember to seperate out MMT - Inflation is the constraint on spending money. Taxation is a tool to manage inflation by taking money out of the economy. (and side note that printing bonds is an optional operation. We do not need to take in bonds to print money, we choose to, though bonds, like taxation, provide deflationary pressure to the economy.)

Did I get this right EV? I'm trying seperate out MMT (which does not favor left/right) from what policy prescriptions I believe you/the left would prescribe.

111bbht.gif
 
If the early Republican response to Obama's decoupling-the-tax-vote idea is any indication, it really was a brilliant move by his campaign. They literally have no response. "Uh ... Obama himself said any taxes going up right now would be bad for the economy ... job creators ... small businesses..."

Meanwhile, congressional Republicans are holding a vote to repeal Obamacare, Republican governors are pledging to not participate in increased coverage of women, children, and the elderly, and Romney is still trying to find a way to respond to all of the above. Good GOD, this campaign is a disaster.

The Romney camp has been absolutely dreadful at carrying the narrative in their favor. When it comes to Bain, ACA, taxes, etc. Romney absolutely cannot defend himself. He flails around and then floats back to his talking points. He constantly lets the Obama campaign win the news cycle even when he has a huge thing to hammer him on (Jobs report).

In terms of being an all-around poorly managed campaign, this guy is making the McCain campaign look masterful.
 
A new Bloomberg analysis finds independent voters "are growing in numbers at the expense of Democrats in battleground states most likely to determine this year's presidential election."

"The collective total of independents grew by about 443,000 in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and North Carolina since the 2008 election, according to data compiled by Bloomberg from state election officials. During the same time, Democrats saw a net decline of about 480,000 in those six states, while Republicans -- boosted in part by a competitive primary earlier this year -- added roughly 38,000 voters in them, the analysis shows."

Obama's decided play for the middle the last four years is looking to pay off in a big way. His backers wanted him to double down on liberal doctrine, but that surely would have been poisonous this election as more and more independents will be coming to the polls and helping to decide who wins.
 
"Independents" lol. Only about 7-10% of registered independents are really independent. Everyone else leans Democrat or Republican. They just don't like the label.
 
PPP looks at the Wisconsin senate primary - tea party challenger Eric Hovde is up over former gov. Tommy Thompson by 2 points, 31-29.

Man, I'm glad the Republicans are pissing away yet another winnable senate contest in the interest of "purity"
 


3 trillion dollars in lost revenue over the next 10 years.

To protect pudgy little families in middle America:

a family of four at the exact middle of the income spectrum will pay only 4.6 percent of its income in taxes.



Then when you think about the last four years and all the policy decisions, bills, etc that have been held hostage or nerfed because of budgetary concerns. You can see how saving the precious middle class a few dollars a week is actually hurting the country as whole. But little Sarah needs her new bike and Ipad. Think of the children!
 
PPP looks at the Wisconsin senate primary - tea party challenger Eric Hovde is up over former gov. Tommy Thompson by 2 points, 31-29.

Man, I'm glad the Republicans are pissing away yet another winnable senate contest in the interest of "purity"

All I see around are Hovde commercials. Nothing for anyone else.
 
More!

PPP said:
North Carolina

Obama 47
Romney 46

Virginia

Obama 50
Romney 42
If Romney doesn't win Virginia he's done. NC toss-up, VA Lean D. That's a terrible prospect for any Republican.

Of note - healthcare is a wash. Both VA and NC are roughly split in favor/against the Supreme Court decision. Another advantage for the GOP neutralized and the debates will be fun.
 
3 trillion dollars in lost revenue over 10 years.

To protect pudgy little families in middle America:

The funniest thing to me about people trying to protect one set of tax cuts while demanding that others be raised is that they do so under the guise that the raises will do one or more of the following:

A) fund public works projects to get the middle and working class working again.
B) Reduce the deficit
C) Make everyone pay their "fair share"

All of these would be DRASTICALLY improved by having all brackets raised to their Pre-Bush/Obama (optics)Tax Cut levels. DRASTICALLY. Buffett Rule that makes 5 Billion, or ending Bush that will raise 300 billion +
 
Independents are usually Republicans who are ashamed.

I don't like the label, but I generally lean dem as of late considering most Republican ideas usually consist of removing/gutting social programs and lowering taxes/giving handouts to the wealthy.

They are the party of Social Conservatism now, and I have no interest in that, and no interest in supporting most of their platforms regarding it. They certainly don't appear to be the party of fiscal restraint anymore, not like they ever really were; but I guess if you get enough people to repeat it, everyone thinks its true.
 
I don't like the label, but I generally lean dem as of late considering most Republican ideas usually consist of removing/gutting social programs and lowering taxes/giving handouts to the wealthy.

They are the party of Social Conservatism now, and I have no interest in that, and no interest in supporting most of their platforms regarding it. They certainly don't appear to be the party of fiscal restraint anymore, not like they ever really were; but I guess if you get enough people to repeat it, everyone thinks its true.

It is the only reason I somewhat regard myself as Republican still. I am a social conservative, but more left on economics and foreign policy.
 
Guys, I've changed my stance on the tax cuts - we should let them expire on those making more than $250K a year. We can use the extra 8 1/2 days of spending every year.

:/

The reason to tax those in the upper tax bracket is not primarily deficit reduction; that is an incidental benefit, but it isn't the main purpose.

The main purpose, instead, is to disempower the extremely wealthy in our society, particularly those in charge of major business related and financial institutions. I would argue that any institution with too much power -- and this includes the Government in many instances, Kosmo, we probably have some common ground here -- has a tendency to abuse it in their favor, and thus needs to be kept in check.

Our government was deliberately created with a system of checks and balances upon its inception, and that system is a good thing; you don't want the president, or the congress, or the judiciary having too much of the power. What I am arguing is that "having too much power" is not exclusively a property of government, and that other institutions can also have too much power -- the church is a great historical example of this, and in our case, it is the financial and business class of our society which fits this description. Just as it is true with our branches of government, it is important to prevent this group from gaining too much power. As their power primarily derives from wealth, taxing them is one simple way to check their power, and has the additional benefit of reducing the deficit.
 
"Independents" lol. Only about 7-10% of registered independents are really independent. Everyone else leans Democrat or Republican. They just don't like the label.

Not true. Many are 'agnostic' or weak when it comes to presidential elections. Just because they live in a district/state that encourages them to vote a certain way, doesn't mean they apply that to their choice in a President.

4-17-12-5.png


With more than six months to go until the election, many independents have yet to commit to either Obama or Romney. While 90% of independents express a preference, only 66% say they are certain about how they will vote.


4-17-12-9.png


As the overall numbers of independents grow, the uncertainty they represent grows with it.
 
Not true. Many are 'agnostic' or weak when it comes to presidential elections. Just because they live in a district/state that encourages them to vote a certain way, doesn't mean they apply that to their choice in a President.

4-17-12-5.png


4-17-12-9.png


As the overall numbers of independents grow, the uncertainty they represent grows with it.

No. I think I'm right.

"We talk as though these people are strongly susceptible to the short-term influences of campaigning and the economy, and that they are a massive swing bloc in the electorate," says Petrocik, whose research helped lay the groundwork for the influential 1992 book The Myth of the Independent Voter.

"For the most part, none of those things are true," he says.

Wilson, who sees his political autonomy as a civic duty, is an example of someone who has taken to heart the belief that, as Petrocik puts it, "a good citizen is independent-minded and makes up his or her own mind."

"But as soon as you press them, they very quickly admit that they prefer one party or another," he says.

Alan Abramowitz, a political science professor at Emory University in Atlanta, agrees that being an independent is often an important part of a voter's personal identity. "People want to think of themselves as independent, that they don't just vote automatically," he says.

He also thinks there may be a more pragmatic reason why some voters remain unaffiliated: "They don't want to get literature; they don't want to be bothered; they don't want to get phone calls."

Truly independent voters do exist, according to Abramowitz and Petrocik, but they account for just 10 percent to 15 percent of the electorate. "And once you take away those people who aren't going to turn out, you're down to something like 6 percent or 7 percent," Abramowitz says.

They also haven't been the deciding factor in tight presidential elections that many people might think. In the three most closely contested races of the past 40 years — 1976, 2000 and 2004 — the majority of independents backed the candidate who wound up losing the popular vote. (In 2000, George W. Bush won the independent vote and the White House even though Al Gore won the popular vote by nearly 550,000 votes.)

http://www.npr.org/2012/03/26/149402358/just-how-independent-are-independent-voters
 
toxicadam, just admit you want obama to win!

Most of it is me wanting to be right and a smaller part is feeling that Obama is the best choice in November.

Not because I think Obama represents some kind of hope of making positive changes in America, but rather that Mitt Romney's stance on capital gains and foreign policy is (borderline) disasterous.
 
Part of it is me wanting to be right and another part is feeling that Obama is the best choice in November. Not because I think Obama represents some kind of hope of making positive changes in America, but rather that Mitt Romney's stance on capital gains and foreign policy is (borderline) disasterous.

but dat hair.
 
Romney: I Didn’t Even Know About That Bermuda Company!
“I don’t manage them, I don’t even know where they are,” Romney told Radio Iowa Monday of his investment portfolio. “That trustee follows all U.S. laws, all taxes are paid as appropriate, all of them have been reported to the government. There’s nothing hidden there.”
“I understand the president’s going to try to do anything he can to divert attention from the fact that his jobs record is weak and he has no plan to make things better,” he said.
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/romney-bermuda-swiss-cayman-blind-trust.php?ref=fpnewsfeed
 
Conversely: "I had not idea my publisher said I was born in Kenya."

This is a non-story. Can we just get to the fucking conventions already - nothing matters until then.

Let's talk more about Lysol wipes and how un-manly Obama looks while riding a bike!
 
Conversely: "I had not idea my publisher said I was born in Kenya."

This is a non-story. Can we just get to the fucking conventions already - nothing matters until then.
How is it a non story?

Actually its his fault it becoming a bigger story anyway.
 
This is a non-story. Can we just get to the fucking conventions already - nothing matters until then.
The fact that a major presidential candidate has oodles of offshore accounts in an attempt to have a lower tax bill isn't a story? This guy is the epitome of the out-of-touch, greedy, selfish rich bastard.

Also, I actually believe Romney when he says he doesn't know about that specific company. He has so many tax shelters and so much money that no wonder it's difficult to keep track.
 
How is it a non story?

Actually its his fault it becoming a bigger story anyway.

Yep. There's probably nothing terribly scandalous about it outside of the expected; ie. using the offshore accounts to dodge American taxes. People know that he's already doing this, if he would release them now it would get it out of the way. By him being dodgy about it it just brings much, much more attention to it. It's entirely his fault that this is still an issue.
 
Romney Applies Patented ‘Rubber/Glue’ Strategy To Bain Outsourcing
“ObamanomicsOutsourced” and an accompanying press conference Tuesday to decry Obama as “outsourcer-in-chief,” the same phrase Democrats have used to describe Romney. The Romney campaign followed with his own press release saying Obama “encouraged American jobs to move overseas and he’s sent taxpayer dollars to foreign-owned companies.”

The sourcing for Republicans’ claim centers on stimulus funding that went to foreign companies for clean-energy projects. The Obama campaign quickly pointed out that the stimulus bill specifically included provisions requiring funding go to American jobs, but the RNC is trumpeting news stories describing several individual companies that received funds and that also employ foreign workers.
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/romney-rubber-glue-bain-outsourcing.php?ref=fpnewsfeed
 
Yep. There's probably nothing terribly scandalous about it outside of the expected; ie. using the offshore accounts to dodge American taxes. People know that he's already doing this, if he would release them now it would get it out of the way. By him being dodgy about it it just brings much, much more attention to it. It's entirely his fault that this is still an issue.
It's a pretty big political liability to release everything, too. I guarantee he has ungodly sums of money stored away overseas, and that will allow the media to ballpark a dollar amount on the taxes he has dodged.

Everyday people pay taxes on the modest amounts they make, while this fucker is saving tens of millions in the Cayman Islands and Luxembourg so he can renovate his houses with car elevators and wine cellars.

He loses either way, but I also agree that he should probably just pull the band-aid off now.
 
Wow--pretty early for Romney to be unraveling like this.

Also, LOL at anyone saying the offshore account thing isn't a big story.
 
It's a pretty big political liability to release everything, too. I guarantee he has ungodly sums of money stored away overseas, and that will allow the media to ballpark a dollar amount on the taxes he has dodged.

Everyday people pay taxes on the modest amounts they make, while this fucker is saving tens of millions in the Cayman Islands and Luxembourg so he can renovate his houses with car elevators and wine cellars.

He loses either way, but I also agree that he should probably just pull the band-aid off now.


Yep. He loses to independents on the issue and gives democrats more ammo for the rest of the year either way, but he might as well be honest.



LOL This campaign is falling apart.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom