Support NeoGAF

[Dan]

Mike Huckabee's such a piece of shit:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/mike...y-to-defend-restaurants-right-to-be-anti-gay/

Chick Fil-A is free to be anti-gay. Other people are free to inform the public about this position and to respond by not consuming their food. Deal with it.

Gotta love conservatives whining when free market principles don't go their way.

 

[AniHawk]

wait what is that building behind the guy on the right. i can't tell without a caption.

 

[Black Mamba]

I'm working on a piece regarding "You Didn't Build That"-gate, and I have a question that hopefully someone can answer.

Basically the idea of the piece is that saying, "If you have a business, you didn't build that business," is ridiculous, and it's painfully obvious that Obama was referring to the American system that helps make success possible. If you acknowledge that the quote was misinterpreted, but still argue that it shows that Obama's attitude is anti-business, then I argue that his policies to this point have been pro-business.

My question is regarding s-corps. As I understand it, an s-corp's profits flow through the owner and are taxed at the personal income rate. The argument I'm seeing the most is: "Just because $250,000 of company profit is treated as your personal income doesn't mean that you actually take home $250,000." Can Obama's proposal to raise taxes on households making over $250,000 reasonably be construed as an unfair tax hike on households who are actually closer to middle class than to upper class status? Is there any truth to this argument whatsoever?

No. When you tax an S-corp, you're taxing a person's take home pay after expenses. If they net $250k profit it's like a doctor making $250k in salary. The only main difference being that you pay the full SS and medicare portions on the first $108k.

Businesses with revenues of $250k do not get taxed at the $250k rate. You have deductions first.

Allowing the high-income tax cuts to expire would hurt small businesses.

One of the most common objections to letting the cuts expire for those in the highest tax brackets is that it would hurt small businesses. As Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) recently put it, allowing the cuts to lapse would amount to "a job-killing tax hike on small business during tough economic times."

This claim is misleading. If, as proposed, the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire for the highest earners, the vast majority of small businesses will be unaffected. Less than 2 percent of tax returns reporting small-business income are filed by taxpayers in the top two income brackets -- individuals earning more than about $170,000 a year and families earning more than about $210,000 a year..

And just as most small businesses aren't owned by people in the top income brackets, most people in the top income brackets don't rely mainly on small-business income: According to the Tax Policy Center, such proceeds make up a majority of income for about 40 percent of households in the top income bracket and a third of households in the second-highest bracket. If the objective is to help small businesses, continuing the Bush tax cuts on high-income taxpayers isn't the way to go -- it would miss more than 98 percent of small-business owners and would primarily help people who don't make most of their money off those businesses.

Five Myths About Bush Tax Cuts

William Gale is an economist, fwiw.


Also:

Small business. The evidence does not support the claim that raising top marginal income tax rates has a heavy impact on small business owners: a recent Treasury analysis finds that only 2.5 percent of small business owners fall into the top two income tax brackets and that these owners receive less than one-third of small business income. Moreover, even those small business owners who would be affected by tax increases on high-income households are unlikely to respond by reducing hiring or new investment. As Tax Policy Center co-director William Gale has noted:[6]

[T]he effective tax rate on small business income is likely to be zero or negative, regardless of small changes in the marginal tax rates. This is for three reasons. First, small businesses can expense (immediately deduct in full) the cost of investment. This alone brings the effective tax rate on new investment to zero, regardless of the statutory rate. Second, if they can finance the investment with debt, the interest payments would be tax deductible, making the effective tax rate negative. Third, they can deduct wage payments in full, so the marginal tax rate should have minimal impact on hiring.

In addition, a review of the research finds little evidence for the common assertion that small businesses are responsible for the majority of job creation in the United States or that tax breaks for small businesses generally — as distinguished from start-up ventures — are effective at stimulating jobs or growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

Entrepreneurship. CRS finds that “An extensive empirical literature on [the relationship between income tax rate increases and business formation] is mixed, but largely suggests that higher tax rates are more likely to encourage, rather than discourage, self-employment.”[7] One reason is that taxes may reduce earnings volatility, with the government bearing some of the risk of a new venture — by allowing tax deductions for losses — and receiving some of the returns. Further, there is little evidence that the current preferential tax rates for capital gains and dividends substantially stimulate investment in new ventures.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3756

 

[Oblivion]

WSJ sez that the government didn't create the internets.

 

[Black Mamba]

WSJ sez that the government didn't create the internets.

And already refuted by the very guy he sourced in his article:

And while I'm gratified in a sense that he cites my book about Xerox PARC, "Dealers of Lightning," to support his case, it's my duty to point out that he's wrong. My book bolsters, not contradicts, the argument that the Internet had its roots in the ARPANet, a government project. So let's look at where Crovitz goes awry.

http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-mo-who-invented-internet-20120723,0,5052169.story

LOL

 

[Oblivion]

And already refuted by the very guy he sourced in his article:



http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-mo-who-invented-internet-20120723,0,5052169.story

LOL

Haha, just read that. Wonder if this dude'll issue a correction.

 

[Puddles]

Not sure if it's been posted, but President Obama settled once and for all the meaning of his "You didn't build that" remark in this interview.

And by "settled once and for all", I mean that people who want to believe he's a business-hating socialist from Kenya will claim that he's lying, and those who just want to see the Republicans score points will claim that this violates a no-take-backs rule, or something.

No. When you tax an S-corp, you're taxing a person's take home pay after expenses. If they net $250k profit it's like a doctor making $250k in salary. The only main difference being that you pay the full SS and medicare portions on the first $108k.

Businesses with revenues of $250k do not get taxed at the $250k rate. You have deductions first.

Thanks. Either the "small business owners" I've debated with on the WSJ don't actually own small businesses at all, or they're idiots, in which case I don't see how they'll ever make $250k.

 

[Chumly]

Yea I've never understood the argument that small business wouldn't hire due to high taxes with higher profits. In fact it would be the opposite since if you want to avoid taxes you can put money back into the business and grow since you can deduct payroll.....

 

[Guileless]

No. When you tax an S-corp, you're taxing a person's take home pay after expenses. If they net $250k profit it's like a doctor making $250k in salary. The only main difference being that you pay the full SS and medicare portions on the first $108k.

Businesses with revenues of $250k do not get taxed at the $250k rate. You have deductions

Correct on revenue, but the argument I've heard from an S Corp small business owner is that he does not pay himself all of that "profit." some of it stays in the operating account to fund ongoing operations in the future because collections versus expenses can be volatile. It's not like a doctor making a salary from a hospital. The business owner has to be able to make payroll and fund ongoing operations. If he pays himself the entire 250k profit and something happens to decrease revenue the next month and there is no reserve fund, he has to come up with money from somewhere himself. right or wrong, that is their mentality.

 

[gcubed]

Yea I've never understood the argument that small business wouldn't hire due to high taxes with higher profits. In fact it would be the opposite since if you want to avoid taxes you can put money back into the business and grow since you can deduct payroll.....

you have people on this forum talking about how their family members turned down job offers because it put them 1 dollar over the next tax bracket and they'd actually be losing money if they did it... and i've met people in real life who've argued the same. The world is full of morons... and snippets like that cater to them

 

[empty vessel]

Correct on revenue, but the argument I've heard from an S Corp small business owner is that he does not pay himself all of that "profit." some of it stays in the operating account to fund ongoing operations in the future because collections versus expenses can be volatile. It's not like a doctor making a salary from a hospital. The business owner has to be able to make payroll and fund ongoing operations. If he pays himself the entire 250k profit and something happens to decrease revenue the next month and there is no reserve fund, he has to come up with money from somewhere himself. right or wrong, that is their mentality.

None of that changes anything vis-a-vis claims that raising taxes on households making over $250,000 amount to an unfair tax hike on households who are closer to middle class. And this argument, too, does not make sense. If the money is in an operating account and is being used for expenses, it simply is not part of the "profit" of the enterprise to begin with.

 

[Chumly]

Correct on revenue, but the argument I've heard from an S Corp small business owner is that he does not pay himself all of that "profit." some of it stays in the operating account to fund ongoing operations in the future because collections versus expenses can be volatile. It's not like a doctor making a salary from a hospital. The business owner has to be able to make payroll and fund ongoing operations. If he pays himself the entire 250k profit and something happens to decrease revenue the next month and there is no reserve fund, he has to come up with money from somewhere himself. right or wrong, that is their mentality.

I understand where the argument is coming from but I don't know If it holds any weight. You can fund the general expense fund from the investment loan and it's more of a one time deal since you wouldn't have to keep increasing by a significant amount. Any decrease in revenue would lower the taxes as well.

 

[Loudninja]

Ahead Of Voter ID Trial, Pennsylvania Admits There’s No In-Person Voter Fraud

In that case, Pennsylvania might have handed those groups and their clients (including 93-year-old Viviette Applewhite) a bit of an advantage: They’ve formally acknowledged that there’s been no reported in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania and there isn’t likely to be in November.

The state signed a stipulation agreement with lawyers for the plaintiffs which acknowledges there “have been no investigations or prosecutions of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania; and the parties do not have direct personal knowledge of any such investigations or prosecutions in other states.”

Additionally, the agreement states Pennsylvania “will not offer any evidence in this action that in-person voter fraud has in fact occurred in Pennsylvania and elsewhere” or even argue “that in person voter fraud is likely to occur in November 2012 in the absense of the Photo ID law.”

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsme...voter_id_no_in_person_voter_fraud.php?ref=fpa

 

[Guileless]

Their point is that the money is not used for expenses before it is declared and taxed as a profit on that year's taxes. Yes, they could take out every cent of profit, plan to try and just get a loan if a crunch happens, and buy matching jet skis or whatever, but they don't because its not prudent.

 

[Kosmo]

And this is ridiculous:

http://www.wusa9.com/news/article/2...-Received-26000-Stipend-Plus-Tuition-From-NIH

The swell of emotion comes as new information about the suspect emerges. 9 News has learned that James Holmes was awarded a prestigious grant from the National Institutes of Health. It gave the graduate student a $26,000 stipend and paid his tuition for the highly competitive program in neuroscience at the University of Colorado in Denver.

It is difficult even to consider that taxpayer dollars may have helped fund his alleged rampage.

Can we not fucking politicize this?


That being said, Obama is doing all he can to walk back his "you didn't build that" comments.

Mr. Romney and his Republican allies have seized on those remarks, turning into an anti-Obama TV commercial and a campaign theme that the president doesn’t understand American capitalism.

And there’s evidence the attacks are gaining traction with voters. A USA/Today Gallup poll released Monday found that a record number of Americans express skepticism about Mr. Obama’s view of the activist role of government: 61 percent say the government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses. Gallup said it was the highest number since the polling outfit began asking the question in 1992.

And despite the Obama campaign’s relentless attacks on Mr. Romney’s record at Bain Capital, the survey found that 63 percent of the public believes the Republican would do well handling the economy as president, with only 29 percent viewing him unfavorably on the economy.

Even Sen. Bob Casey, Pennsylvania Democrat and a friend of the president, suggested Monday that he didn’t agree with Mr. Obama’s remarks.

“Everyone knows that when someone builds a business and is successful, they’re successful for a variety of reasons,” Mr. Casey told an audience in Harrisburg, Pa. “One of the reasons they’re successful is they work hard. Usually, sometimes they just get lucky, but a lot of the times — probably most of the time, at least in terms of people I’ve talked to over the years, it’s hard work.”

Romney campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul said the president’s views are revealing and wrong-headed.

“Americans everywhere — including Senator Bob Casey, a prominent Obama supporter — all agree: government isn’t responsible for building our nation’s businesses,” she said in a statement. “It’s just the latest out-of-touch remark from a president who has consistently made life more difficult for job creators and middle-class workers. Mitt Romney will deliver a new direction by pursuing pro-growth policies that help entrepreneurs create new businesses and hire new workers.”

The president said Monday night that this latest attack on him is just election-year politics.

“Now, look, in politics we all tolerate a certain amount of spin,” he said. “I understand these are the games that get played in political campaigns, although when folks just omit entire sentences of what you said … they start kind of splicing and dicing, you may have gone a little over the edge there.”

 

[electricpirate]

Their point is that the money is not used for expenses before it is declared and taxed as a profit on that year's taxes. Yes, they could take out every cent of profit, plan to try and just get a loan if a crunch happens, and buy matching jet skis or whatever, but they don't because its not prudent.

But how much money would that really be, and wouldn't then the crunches just show up as a reduction on your taxes in the next year? Generally economists take an infinate horizon on these kind of things, and with good reason.

 

[Diablos]

WTF, Bob Casey? For real?

Why are PA Democrats being such pussies?

This fucking state, argh...

 

[Loudninja]

Romney, RNC: We Did Obama A Favor By Taking Him Out Of Context!

“The context is worse than the quote,” Romney said in an exchange with Larry Kudlow. “The context, he says, ‘you know, you think you’ve been successful because you’re smart, but he says a lot of people are smart. You think you’ve been successful because you work hard, a lot of people work hard.’”

This is an ideology which says hey, we’re all the same here, we ought to take from all and give to one another and that achievement, individual initiative and risk-taking and success are not to be rewarded as they have in the past. It’s a very strange and in some respects foreign to the American experience type of philosophy. We have always been a nation that has celebrated success of various kinds.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/mitt-romney-out-of-context-obam.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

 

[Blergmeister]

That being said, Obama is doing all he can to walk back his "you didn't build that" comments.

This is walk back?

“Now, look, in politics we all tolerate a certain amount of spin,” he said. “I understand these are the games that get played in political campaigns, although when folks just omit entire sentences of what you said … they start kind of splicing and dicing, you may have gone a little over the edge there.”

 

[Kosmo]

This is walk back?

No, this is:

“I believe with all my heart that it is the drive and the ingenuity of Americans who start businesses that lead to their success,” Mr. Obama told supporters at a rally in Oakland. “I always have and I always will. The ability for somebody who’s willing to work hard, put in their sweat and their sacrifice to turn their idea into a profitable business, that’s the nature of America. That’s what helped make our economy the envy of the world.”

 

[gcubed]

No, this is:

I still dont see him walking back what he said?

 

[worldrunover]

Romney, RNC: We Did Obama A Favor By Taking Him Out Of Context!


http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/mitt-romney-out-of-context-obam.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

So they're suggesting there aren't inherent advantages in the American system? Why does it not surprise me that a bunch of middle-aged white men think that way.

 

[cousins]

So they're suggesting there aren't inherent advantages in the American system? Why does it not surprise me that a bunch of middle-aged white men think that way.

Pretty much. This is Obama vs. the ego of every white man everywhere, and Romney's playing it as well as he can.

 

[worldrunover]

Jon Kyl: Rich people are the Michael Jordans of the economy.

Declaring that the use of the phrase "middle class" is "misguided and wrong and even dangerous," Kyl argued in a Senate floor speech that Obama is "spreading economic resentment [that] weakens American values" and ignoring "the uniquely meritocratic basis of our society."

“We have a president who talks incessantly about class, particularly the middle class,” Kyl said.

"I just think the whole discussion of class is wrong. It's not what we do here in America," said Kyl, the Senate minority whip. He added, "I don't think there's anything called 'middle class values' that are different from the values of other people in this country. Tell me what's different about the values of someone who the president identifies as middle class?"

"When Michael Jordan came, after he established how great he would be, he was given an enormous, almost unheard of salary. Did the other players say, 'That's not fair?' No, actually all the other players got big salary increases, too," Kyl said. "The whole franchise did well, the people selling popcorn, the people parking the cars ... made more money than they ever would have had Michael Jordan never came to the team."

It's an odd argument to make, because team sports, especially ones with salary caps like the NBA has, are inherently socialist. There is a cap to the amount the best player can make and a floor on the amount the worst player can make. Oh yeah, and MJ was part of a pretty strong UNION. Kyl must have forgotten to mention that.

Also, if the average NBA salary were considered "middle class," then MJ would have to be making about $50 million a year just to be considered at the low end of the top 1%, which no NBA player makes or even could make.

 

[Blergmeister]

No, this is:

Regardless of what this says, it wasn't part of your statement above. No where in your original statement was Obama walking back his comments.

Edit: And since you didn't source your original article I have no way of knowing whether that statement was there as well. You are just making claims and hoping people don't find you are wrong burried in blocks of text.

 

[PantherLotus]

So my speculation of a hard-hitting Obama takedown of Romney every week was mostly undone by the Aurora massacre. I saw a roll-out for some VA support or something from the Admin, but nothing like the DREAM act roll-out.

I wonder what's next.

 

[Black Mamba]

Their point is that the money is not used for expenses before it is declared and taxed as a profit on that year's taxes. Yes, they could take out every cent of profit, plan to try and just get a loan if a crunch happens, and buy matching jet skis or whatever, but they don't because its not prudent.

How is this any different than someone taking into account saving for losing their job?

If the owner decided to close up shop that day, he'd take home $250k. Therefore, it should be taxed as such. Because the owners keeps some in a business account to pay the next month's payroll or for other necessities/assurances is irrelevant.

There is no justification for not taxing the reinvestment in an S-corp. You're be creating a massive tax shelter, to boot.

 

[Diablos]

And despite the Obama campaign’s relentless attacks on Mr. Romney’s record at Bain Capital, the survey found that 63 percent of the public believes the Republican would do well handling the economy as president, with only 29 percent viewing him unfavorably on the economy.

This is really bad news for the President, no matter how you try to spin it. Obama's going for the jugular and Mittens is still sitting pretty on economic issues, and that's what this election is all about.

 

[PantherLotus]

I thought we agreed that the Bain stuff was more about making his experience toxic rather than moving the needle at all. If it does, good, if it doesn't, wait...didn't you read that Ohio and Michigan are moving toward Obama?

 

[gcubed]

lollers....

So because of the supreme court ruling allowing states to opt out of the medicaid expansion the cost of obamacare went down. Bohener wanted to know how much repealing it would help...

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...aves-u-s-84-billion-over-11-years?ft=1&f=1001

A new report from the Congressional Budget Office finds that the Supreme Court ruling on President Obama's health care law will save the government $84 billion over the next 11 years.

...

That $84 billion in savings, the non-partisan CBO explained, comes from predictions that fewer states will enroll in the program.

....

The Congressional Budget Office also analyzed H.R. 6079 at the request of House speaker John Boehner, a Republican from Ohio. The bill, which would repeal ACA, has become a central campaign promise in the presidential contest. Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney said that repeal would be something he would do on day one, if elected president.

The CBO says that a repeal of Obamacare would actually increase the deficit by $109 billion.

 

[Snake]

Reuters/Ipsos Poll (7/24/12): In the overall national picture, Romney's economic numbers are decent (but weaker than the numbers in the Gallup poll above). Meanwhile, the Bain/tax return stories are hurting Romney with independents.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/24/us-usa-campaign-poll-idUSBRE86N05B20120724?irpc=932

(Reuters) - Sustained attacks by President Barack Obama's campaign on Republican rival Mitt Romney's business history and refusal to release more tax records appear to be working, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed on Tuesday.

More than a third of voters who are registered to a party or as an independent said in the online survey that what they had heard about Romney's taxes and his time at Bain Capital private equity firm had given them a less favorable impression of the Republican candidate.

And particularly worrying for Romney is that a large slice of independent voters -- whom he needs to win the November 6 election -- are also buying into the Obama campaign's portrayal of him as a ruthless businessman who may be hiding something in his taxes.

"With three-quarters of registered voters saying they've heard at least a little about these issues, I would say the Obama campaign has been successful in raising them to the national conscience," said Ipsos pollster Julia Clark.

After weeks of accusations from Obama and his allies that Romney cut U.S. jobs and sent them overseas while he headed Bain, 36 percent of registered voters said the issue had made them see Romney less favorably, compared to 18 percent who said they were now more favorable toward the former governor of Massachusetts.

Among independents, 26 percent regarded him less favorably and 13 percent more favorably after hearing about his business tenure.

...

The poll results were not all negative for Romney, though. The Republican holds a 5 percentage point advantage over Obama among registered voters on his "plan, policy or approach" to the country's economy.

The margin was 36 to 31 percent among registered voters, but 22 to 19 in favor of Obama among independents.

Americans also showed signs of displeasure about a candidate's taxes becoming such an important part of the national dialogue. More than half of registered voters -- 55 percent -- said the debate about Romney's tax returns was a waste of time, while 45 percent said it was an important part of the campaign.

But independents, by a margin of 54 to 46, saw Romney's taxes as important in the fight for the White House.

Don't expect these attacks to go away. Conservatives tried to change the subject with "you didn't build that," but I'll bet you anything that that story will have weak legs outside of conservative media, while "Bain/tax returns" attention continues in the mainstream past the conventions.

 

[TacticalFox88]

This is really bad news for the President, no matter how you try to spin it. Obama's going for the jugular and Mittens is still sitting pretty on economic issues, and that's what this election is all about.

And despite that, Romney's electoral college path for victory hasn't change. Until then, I owuldn't worry at all.

 

[NathanMcMahon]

I thought we agreed that the Bain stuff was more about making his experience toxic rather than moving the needle at all. If it does, good, if it doesn't, wait...didn't you read that Ohio and Michigan are moving toward Obama?

that's the way I interpreted it. just setting up a narrative pretty much.

 

[GhaleonEB]

About that PA voter ID law:

Pennsylvania admits it: no voter fraud problem

A court filing by the state of Pennsylvania, ahead of a trial starting later this week on a lawsuit filed by civil rights groups against the state’s new voter fraud law, contains an astounding admission:

The state signed a stipulation agreement with lawyers for the plaintiffs which acknowledges there “have been no investigations or prosecutions of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania; and the parties do not have direct personal knowledge of any such investigations or prosecutions in other states.”​

In other words, the state knows that voter fraud is a nonexistent problem, but will nonetheless defend a law that could potentially disenfranchise a huge number of the state’s voters. Of course, it’s not hard to see why the state — and particularly its Republican governor — would continue to support the measure.

So why pass the law?

Given the complete absence of voter fraud, the law’s rapid implementation, and the strong support from Republican lawmakers, it’s more than clear that this is a crude attempt to suppress Democratic turnout in the election. Pennsylvania Republicans aren’t shy about this fact. State GOP House Leader Mike Turzai recently admitted the extent to which this law serves no purpose other than to elect Republicans:

“We are focused on making sure that we meet our obligations that we’ve talked about for years,” said Turzai in a speech to committee members Saturday. He mentioned the law among a laundry list of accomplishments made by the GOP-run legislature.

“Pro-Second Amendment? The Castle Doctrine, it’s done. First pro-life legislation — abortion facility regulations — in 22 years, done. Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done.”​

Not shocking. Hopefully the law gets tossed.

 

[Snake]

Despite my post above, it should be said yet again that any polling now should be taken with a grain of salt. Regardless of whether it is favorable to Obama or Romney, it has almost no value.

After the conventions things will begin to take shape in a meaningful way. And then, only after certain bumps have subsided.

 

[markatisu]

Despite my post above, it should be said yet again that any polling now should be taken with a grain of salt. Regardless of whether it is favorable to Obama or Romney, it has almost no value.

After the conventions things will begin to take shape in a meaningful way.

Yeah it will get worse for Romney because he still won't have released his taxes nor come up with any plans other than "whatever Obama is not doing"

I hear it more and more in Iowa, people don't know what he is for or what his plan is. That was part of his problem in the Republican Primary, but his opponents were so godawful he did not lose

 

[Hitokage]

Declaring that the use of the phrase "middle class" is "misguided and wrong and even dangerous," Kyl argued in a Senate floor speech that Obama is "spreading economic resentment [that] weakens American values" and ignoring "the uniquely meritocratic basis of our society."

Hah.

Hahahahaha.

AAAHHHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA.

 

[PantherLotus]

I disagree that polling has zero value. Perhaps it has little value to November, but it absolutely has value to which messages are working, which aren't, and how deep message penetration is reaching. It's just that you're not going to see that kind of analysis here.

 

[GhaleonEB]

I disagree that polling has zero value. Perhaps it has little value to November, but it absolutely has value to which messages are working, which aren't, and how deep message penetration is reaching. It's just that you're not going to see that kind of analysis here.

It's also useful for establishing a baseline from which the candidates are operating. Shifts in tactics and messages will ensue as each works to improve their standing.

 

[tranciful]

And this is ridiculous:

http://www.wusa9.com/news/article/2...-Received-26000-Stipend-Plus-Tuition-From-NIH



Can we not fucking politicize this?


That being said, Obama is doing all he can to walk back his "you didn't build that" comments.

Obama didn't walk back on anything.

 

[worldrunover]

Fun with 270towin.com: A plausible 269 tie.

John Boehner's House gets to pick the president! Yay!

 

[Blergmeister]

Fun with 270towin.com: A plausible 269 tie.

John Boehner gets to pick the president! Yay!

You don't think Obama is going to get that one Nebraska vote again? How reliable is that district again?

 

[PhoenixDark]

The fact that Romney's numbers haven't changed despite the barrage of attacks tells me Obama is in trouble. This was thewindow to hit Romney hard, pre-convention before Romney can get his campaign into gear 100%/spend money.

Expect Romney to get a 2-3% lead in late August

 

[Diablos]

The fact that Romney's numbers haven't changed despite the barrage of attacks tells me Obama is in trouble. This was hit window to hit Romney hard, pre-convention before Romney can get his campaign into gear 100%/spend money.

Expect Romney to get a 2-3% lead in late August

Yeah. Obama's really been putting his ads out there, but... nothing. And we're not even into the fall yet. Someone's going to start breaking away as we get closer, and at this rate it might be Romney.

And you have to wonder what makes Dems like Casey and Rendell defend Romney against Bain attacks. I'm not saying they should be mindless sheep but if they want to see Obama get re-elected they need to stfu. Makes me wonder who is lining their pockets, etc.

 

[Kosmo]

Yeah. Obama's really been putting his ads out there, but... nothing. And we're not even into the fall yet. Someone's going to start breaking away as we get closer, and at this rate it might be Romney.

And you have to wonder what makes Dems like Casey and Rendell defend Romney against Bain attacks. I'm not saying they should be mindless sheep but if they want to see Obama get re-elected they need to stfu. Makes me wonder who is lining their pockets, etc.

I don't know their allegiances, but if they are Clinton Democrats, they probably want Obama the fuck out (Bill has never forgiven Obama for playing the race card on him according to many insiders) so Hillary might have one more chance in 2016 and they know if Obama gets re-elected and fucks things up even more Democrats won't have a chance in 2016.

 

[Qazaq]

Fun with 270towin.com: A plausible 269 tie.

John Boehner's House gets to pick the president! Yay!

This is insanely unlikely though. You're not gonna win Virginia and Colorado while losing both Nevada and New Hampshire. Nevada is bluer than Colorado and New Hampshire is certainly bluer than Virginia.

 

[Stinkles]

The fact that Romney's numbers haven't changed despite the barrage of attacks tells me Obama is in trouble. This was thewindow to hit Romney hard, pre-convention before Romney can get his campaign into gear 100%/spend money.

Expect Romney to get a 2-3% lead in late August

Almost every fact you read tells you Obama is in trouble.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I don't know their allegiances, but if they are Clinton Democrats, they probably want Obama the fuck out (Bill has never forgiven Obama for playing the race card on him according to many insiders) so Hillary might have one more chance in 2016 and they know if Obama gets re-elected and fucks things up even more Democrats won't have a chance in 2016.

Casey is an Obama loyalist, but Rendell is a Clinton loyalist; both have corporate ties though, which explains the pushback on Bain.

You're right overall though, it's been clear for awhile that many Clinton loyalists - especially Rendell - seem invested in Obama losing. They bet a lot on the losing team, and were ostracized when Obama's folks took over the party. To makes things worse, Obama is not a big social smoozer like Bill or Hillary, causing a lot of Clinton people to think he's holding some grudge when in reality he just not the same type of person as Bill. Carville has complained about Obama being aloof and distant in DC, not attending parties/dinners. Obviously Obama has plenty of fun, but it's regulated to his Chicago friends for the most part.

Same reason many in the NAACP and other black leaders grumble behind his back. They expected the Clinton full court press of being made to feel special. Obama doesn't seem to give a shit.

edit: the Clinton/race card stuff is bullshit. Clinton only has himself to blame

 

[Oblivion]

Haha, that dipshit WSJ guy who argued about that the government didn't create the internet seems to be getting repeatedly humiliated, by both the author he cites, and the scientist he actually tries to give credit to!

http://readingisforsnobs.blogspot.com/2012/07/idiot-wall-street-journal-columnist.html

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

The fact that Romney's numbers haven't changed despite the barrage of attacks tells me Obama is in trouble. This was thewindow to hit Romney hard, pre-convention before Romney can get his campaign into gear 100%/spend money.

Expect Romney to get a 2-3% lead in late August

Using PD logic, Romney will end up losing because his supporters will believe the election is a done deal and stay home. They don't even like the guy anyway. Heads Romney wins. Tails Obama loses.