• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jackson50

Member
numbers get better through the fall, so hopefully it gets better from 163k. Although you would think that consumer sentiment would be rather good if people are coming back into the workforce instead of staying discouraged... so far those numbers aren't lining up.

The biggest boon to Obama's chances was the EU comments on not letting the Euro die.
Yeah, it's a boon for the near term. Buy beyond his reelection, the prospect of the eurozone recession intensifying remains a ghastly specter. But that's a problem for his second term.
 

gcubed

Member
Yeah, it's a boon for the near term. Buy beyond his reelection, the prospect of the eurozone recession intensifying remains a ghastly specter. But that's a problem for his second term.

yeah, that was the main point, it was a boon for his re-election. The shit will hit the fan end of this year, early next when Greece finally decides to exit/gets kicked out
 
For the VP my money is on
Opus_the_Penguin_300.gif
I miss Bloom County
 

reilo

learning some important life lessons from magical Negroes
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Mitt Romney's economic advisers issued a rosy set of projections Thursday that predict 12 million new jobs and a sharp economic expansion if the Republican candidate were to capture the White House.
The estimates, the economists write, are "conservative."
Yet 12 million new jobs over just four years would be one of the strongest periods of employment growth in recent history, and require the economy to consistently add 250,000 jobs every 30 days for 48 straight months.

According to the position paper, the quick turnaround would be spurred by the lower tax rates and drastic spending cuts that are the hallmark of Romney's plan.
/rolleyes:
Much of the critique is focused on what the authors characterize as a pursuit of short-term patches -- such as the stimulus -- that failed to address deep-seated structural problems like an overly complicated tax code.


http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/02/news/economy/romney-jobs/index.htm?iid=HP_Highlight

hahahah
 
It would be nice to have that money back in my check. Too bad only the Amish have an opt out and some people before some long past cut off date.

You can have that money back in your check and have the social security program at the same time. They aren't mutually exclusive. The social security program prevents having to deal with the social problem of having many impoverished elderly people. There is no reason to end it.
 

ToxicAdam

Member
I finally agree with John Kerry on something ...

JOHN KERRY: 'Climate Change' as Much of a Threat as Iran's Nukes...

"I believe that the situation we face, Mr. President, is as dangerous as any of the sort of real crises that we talk about – today we had a hearing in the Foreign Relations Committee on the subject of Syria, and we all know what’s happening with respect to Iran, and nuclear weapons and the possibility even of a war. Well, this issue actually is of as significant a level of importance, because it affects life itself on the planet,”
 
Can someone point me to economic data that shows spending cuts increase hiring?

"Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5%. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression."--Mitt Romney, a couple months ago.
 
Obama closer to breaking even on jobs
The American economy only has to add another 316,000 jobs to get back to where it was in January 2009, when the president was sworn in.

Here's the math: 4.316 million jobs were lost in the first 13 months of Obama's presidency. Since he took office, 4 million net jobs have been added back.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/03/news/economy/obama-jobs/
When Obama breaks even and crosses the number of jobs lost, Republicans will simply move their cutoff date to that period and claim Obama created only 20,000 jobs or so.
 

Because we saw the greatest growth ever after Bush's tax cuts.

Wait, no, it was the worst among all 10 post WWII cycles. Whoopsie

(also 12 million jobs with what europe is doing is so stupid no matter what type of dumb economics you subscribe to).


"Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5%. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression."--Mitt Romney, a couple months ago.

Yeah, but if you only take out $450 billion out of the federal budget with $300 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy and middle and lower class tax raises, THEN you'd see 12 million new jobs.

DUH. DON'T BE DUMB.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
The McCain rumor, if true, makes me think the Romney camp thinks his campaign is in trouble. Admits a weakness on foreign policy at the very least, but at worst could indicate that nobody is taking Romney seriously.

Ironically, it would be the equal and opposite reaction of picking Sarah Palin. Rather than looking like a poor decision maker, Romney would look smaller next to 5-foot-nothin' McCain, overshadowed in both wisdom and experience. Like a nicer Dick Cheney.
 

Opiate

Member
I've mentioned this before on GAF, but the principle still applies; if the only defense for your behavior (in any context) is that it's technically legal according to current law, then you're probably being obnoxious or unethical. If it were ethical and good in addition to being legal, then you'd make that argument instead.

If I go around calling most of the people I meet terrible names like "idiot" and "ugly," that is technically legal and I won't be arrested for it unless I hound a specific person relentlessly. If someone criticized this behavior, I could say "I have been as cordial and considerate as is required by law" in exactly the same way that Romney is now. If Romney's taxes were fair and appropriate in addition to being technically legal, I'm quite confident he'd make that argument instead of the legal one.
 
It's all so weird, we're approaching immovable object/irresistible force territory here. I can't imagine why Romney would even try to run for President with a history of not paying any income tax. But I also can't imagine Reid would go so far out on a limb (with no one in the executive branch telling him to shut up) with no ground to stand on at all.

I honestly can't believe it could be close to true, and yet it seems like it has to be close enough that the political math still says it's better not to release the records.
 

RDreamer

Member
I honestly can't believe it could be close to true, and yet it seems like it has to be close enough that the political math still says it's better not to release the records.

It probably is close enough to be true. I mean look at all we know already:

We know his IRA is beyond abnormally high

We know he has offshore accounts

We know he changed his residence to Utah in order to take advantage of a large tax credit on his house.

We know he's relentlessly said he has only paid exactly what he legally owes and literally not a penny more.

It's likely his move to New Hampshire was in order to escape some capital gains tax

and we know he's already lied about what's in his taxes when he was running for governor

It's obvious the guy is trying to pinch every penny he can when it comes to taxes. He's already got a crazy low rate, and that's on the year he will show us.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
It's all so weird, we're approaching immovable object/irresistible force territory here. I can't imagine why Romney would even try to run for President with a history of not paying any income tax. But I also can't imagine Reid would go so far out on a limb (with no one in the executive branch telling him to shut up) with no ground to stand on at all.

I honestly can't believe it could be close to true, and yet it seems like it has to be close enough that the political math still says it's better not to release the records.

I'm not entirely sure why but I've been thinking its worse lately. Like maybe in addition to not paying anything in taxes he has been getting money back from the government.

The math on either side doesn't make sense unless either Reid is right or what I've posed above is somehow true. If Romney's rate was low but not zero he could destroy the dems credibility by releasing, but he still is not. And for Reid unless he knows he's right or its worse there is no way he triples down. The math just isn't there for this all to be nothing. It's gotta be bad, just a matter of how bad.
 

Jackson50

Member
Technically there's Sweden. But they more do replaced spending cuts with government stimulus. Imagine if Obama balanec put the stimulus on the books.
Your post is confusing. You may find it beneficial to preview your posts before submitting. Anyway, Sweden's a testament to the benefits of a robust social welfare system and aggressive monetary policy.
Romney insists he paid taxes every year

Talkingpointsmemo observantly wonders whether Romney can clarify that he's talking about income tax.
He probably paid sales taxes, property taxes, and excise taxes like everyone else with no skin in the game.
The McCain rumor, if true, makes me think the Romney camp thinks his campaign is in trouble. Admits a weakness on foreign policy at the very least, but at worst could indicate that nobody is taking Romney seriously.

Ironically, it would be the equal and opposite reaction of picking Sarah Palin. Rather than looking like a poor decision maker, Romney would look smaller next to 5-foot-nothin' McCain, overshadowed in both wisdom and experience. Like a nicer Dick Cheney.
I don't think there's any veracity to the rumor. Really, it's hardly a rumor. It was simply the author's opinion that McCain would be a wise choice. I disagree. And I doubt he's been considered.
 

RDreamer

Member
I'm not entirely sure why but I've been thinking its worse lately. Like maybe in addition to not paying anything in taxes he has been getting money back from the government.

The math on either side doesn't make sense unless either Reid is right or what I've posed above is somehow true. If Romney's rate was low but not zero he could destroy the dems credibility by releasing, but he still is not. And for Reid unless he knows he's right or its worse there is no way he triples down. The math just isn't there for this all to be nothing. It's gotta be bad, just a matter of how bad.

I don't know that he would "destroy" the dems if it's not at 0. If he releases it and it's at 4% he's still fucked. I mean think about that. He then has to proclaim at the top of his lungs "See, it's not 0. I'm paying FOUR PERCENT!" It's like having to argue that no you didn't kill that puppy, but you did kick quite a few times, and you also forgot to feed it... but you certainly didn't kill it! It's still going to be a problem.
 

reilo

learning some important life lessons from magical Negroes
I've facetiously said that he received TARP money in '08. Now I am starting to believe my own jokes because Romney is making this that much more pitiful.
 
It's all so weird, we're approaching immovable object/irresistible force territory here. I can't imagine why Romney would even try to run for President with a history of not paying any income tax. But I also can't imagine Reid would go so far out on a limb (with no one in the executive branch telling him to shut up) with no ground to stand on at all.

I honestly can't believe it could be close to true, and yet it seems like it has to be close enough that the political math still says it's better not to release the records.

Romney is not ashamed of anything. If we ever wanted a candidate who believed it is their RIGHT to be President, Romney is it.

One thing is accomplished: Media is not talking much about the job numbers again. Neither is Romney.
 
I don't know that he would "destroy" the dems if it's not at 0. If he releases it and it's at 4% he's still fucked. I mean think about that. He then has to proclaim at the top of his lungs "See, it's not 0. I'm paying FOUR PERCENT!" It's like having to argue that no you didn't kill that puppy, but you did kick quite a few times, and you also forgot to feed it... but you certainly didn't kill it! It's still going to be a problem.

The dems have nothing to lose here. There's no doubt in my mind that many people know what it is, through legal or not so legal means, and are calling Romney out because it's win/win to do so.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
I don't know that he would "destroy" the dems if it's not at 0. If he releases it and it's at 4% he's still fucked. I mean think about that. He then has to proclaim at the top of his lungs "See, it's not 0. I'm paying FOUR PERCENT!" It's like having to argue that no you didn't kill that puppy, but you did kick quite a few times, and you also forgot to feed it... but you certainly didn't kill it! It's still going to be a problem.

He could easily pivot it into tax reform though, closing loopholes and what not. "See this is how people can take advantage of the system and it needs to be fixed"

Who the help am I kidding, he wouldn't do that. I still do maintain if Reid isn't full of it, he's either on the money or its worse.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
I don't know that he would "destroy" the dems if it's not at 0. If he releases it and it's at 4% he's still fucked. I mean think about that. He then has to proclaim at the top of his lungs "See, it's not 0. I'm paying FOUR PERCENT!" It's like having to argue that no you didn't kill that puppy, but you did kick quite a few times, and you also forgot to feed it... but you certainly didn't kill it! It's still going to be a problem.

If he releases it and it's less than 15% he's screwed. I can't possibly imagine that going over well with independent voters.
 

RDreamer

Member
Romney is not ashamed of anything. If we ever wanted a candidate who believed it is their RIGHT to be President, Romney is it.

Other than not being ashamed, the other thing is that he has no reason to believe it'd realistically hurt him much. He's spent his whole life in that bubble, getting away with that sort of stuff. He gamed the system in Massachusetts, too, in order to become governor when he probably shouldn't have, and he lied the whole time while doing it. When someone continuously gets away with something there's no reason to believe they'd think twice about going further.


He could easily pivot it into tax reform though, closing loopholes and what not. "See this is how people can take advantage of the system and it needs to be fixed"

Who the help am I kidding, he wouldn't do that. I still do maintain if Reid isn't full of it, he's either on the money or its worse.

Yeah there's no way he'd do that. Romney's whole presidency could be a great one based on his knowledge of the business world and how people get away with these things. He could campaign on knowing why businesses outsource and ending that. He could campaign on knowing the tax loopholes and ending those or fixing them. That's not what this guy is about though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom