Depends on how close to zero. I'm more inclined to think it's multiple years of paying less than 13.9% (Maybe single digits some years), plus all sorts of perfectly legal gaming the system.
-
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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread |OT2| This thread title is now under military control
- Thread starter AlteredBeast
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Depends on how close to zero. I'm more inclined to think it's multiple years of paying less than 13.9% (Maybe single digits some years), plus all sorts of perfectly legal gaming the system.
On the other hand, that's pretty sad. Admit to killing children in January and people forget by November.
Get run out of town in 2008 then people come running back to you in 2010.
Yep. Romney is trying this strategy because it can work, except I don't think the tax issue is something that is going to slip away in this instance.
The electorate doesn't have a very strong memory.
Depends on how close to zero. I'm more inclined to think it's multiple years of paying less than 13.9% (Maybe single digits some years), plus all sorts of perfectly legal gaming the system.
oh, its definitely legal, it will just look sleazy, and it is most definitely single digits. I'm sure it will also call into question his claims about leaving Bain, where he lived when he was Gov of Mass, etc.
Memory lane:
Gaf's reaction to Sarah Palin vp pick
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=332440&highlight=PoliGAF&page=94
Great quote from PD:
Holy shit if McCain pulls this off. Seems like a great pick on a national scale. I dunno if it helps or hurts him in places like Colorado/NM/Penn./etc but a woman on the ticket would be great
I honestly think most liberals were a little scared the moment she was announced. I don't think anyone expected the oncoming circus, though.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
Least of all McCain!
New Romney Ad: Obama Declared War On Religion
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/new-romney-ad-obama-declared-war-on-religion
Do they really want to bring up anything healthcare related?
Forget health care. This is an ad about Mitt Romney loving the Pope! It took a Kennedy for us to elect a Catholic President -- when you're running for evangelical America, this is not a good idea. But it's especially not a good idea when everybody knows you're NOT EVEN CATHOLIC because...you're a Mormon. I seriously don't understand the thought process here.
Arrowgigantic
Member
While I was looking for the page the Sarah Palin news actually was (rumor starts to fly on page 186), I found this gem:Memory lane:
Gaf's reaction to Sarah Palin vp pick
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=332440&highlight=PoliGAF&page=94
Obama got so much shit for saying he'd go into a cave in Pakistan to get Bin Laden, then he sent helicopters full of SEALs down the damn street from the Pakistan Military Academy and got him.minus_273 said:"John McCain likes to say that he’ll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell, but he won’t even go to the cave where he lives."
Says the lawyer/politician to the POW military veteran. This one is going to come back to haunt him. damn. who thought THAT was a good idea. You dont talk tough and bring a knife to a gun fight.
Another good one:
She seems to be pretty pro-gay rights, for a republican anyway.
I seriously don't understand the thought process here.
Romney 2012
Memory lane:
Gaf's reaction to Sarah Palin vp pick
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=332440&highlight=PoliGAF&page=94
My reaction at the time:
VP's are meaningless, until they make gaffes (ie. Quayle, Stockdale).
It's nice to see McCain fighting and actually trying to win, unlike Dole in 96 who just rolled over.
oh, its definitely legal, it will just look sleazy, and it is most definitely single digits. I'm sure it will also call into question his claims about leaving Bain, where he lived when he was Gov of Mass, etc.
I agree with this, its not the numbers necessarily, its that it will unravel a lot of the other stories told.
electricpirate
Member
lol, Romney's campaign is just getting weird now
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romney-campaign-takes-press-pool-wild-ride-212837965.html
This sounds like fairly standard retail politics to me.
The highspeed motorcade is kind of funny though.
ErasureAcer
Banned
Now THIS has to be an ad.
ErasureAcer
Banned
Obama, Clinton, Castro.
That's the dream, right? 24 years of Democratic rule.
I'm eligible in 2016 I believe. 35 by the time you take office, right? GAF kickstarter?
Black Republican
Member
I'm eligible in 2016 I believe. 35 by the time you take office, right? GAF kickstarter?
Get ready for PhoenixDark's Superpac running against you
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
My reaction at the time:
This was, is and always will be the case. VP picks never bring a sustained boost, the idea is to pick one less damaging than the other guy.VP's are meaningless, until they make gaffes (ie. Quayle, Stockdale).
worldrunover
Member
I really want Romney's next ad to be him in front of a black screen saying "I'm not a business..." ala Christine O'Donnell.
Jay-Z needs to release his tax records, apparently.
I'm not a businessman, I'm a business, man.
RustyNails
Member
I've been pretty much convinced for a while now. Dude paid no taxes. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he got millions in returns.i have no doubt in my mind anymore that he paid close to 0%
RustyNails
Member
New GOP superpac ad calls Obama Deporter-In-Chief. I thought Republicans liked deportation>
Nope, they only like self-deportation.New GOP superpac ad calls Obama Deporter-In-Chief. I thought Republicans liked deportation>
I honestly think most liberals were a little scared the moment she was announced. I don't think anyone expected the oncoming circus, though.
Yup, I remember my friend calling me saying "It's all over, he picked a woman who likes guns."
Byakuya769
Member
Chicken Littles: I was unphased and entertained.
Chicken Littles: I was unphased and entertained.
Same even though I wasn't a member of neogaf at the time, I watched Poligaf intensely during the 2008 primaries/general election. I was curious and ambivalent till we learned more about her, and every new story that came out starting with the 'on going investigation' of the state trooper made me realize what a huge mistake this pick was in waiting. Was not prepared for how much of a clown she actually was though since she did get elected to lead a state even if that was Alaska, I figured she had to be somewhat competent, she sure showed me otherwise!
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Great quote from PD:
I honestly think most liberals were a little scared the moment she was announced. I don't think anyone expected the oncoming circus, though.
Holy shit!
adamsappel
Member
As Chris Matthews says the other day it pretty much ends the conversation. Plus it also sometimes makes the accuser look worse than the one being called a liar. Just don't tell Reince Priebus.
Every single time I see that name, I misread it as Prince Reibus, and think, "That's a pretty cool name." Then I realize my mistake and wonder exactly how you pronounce it and what the hell were his parents thinking.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
The move during the final weeks of Romney's administration was legal but unusual for a departing governor, Massachusetts officials say.
There's the first problem right there.
el retorno
Member
New GOP superpac ad calls Obama Deporter-In-Chief. I thought Republicans liked deportation>
Do they think latinos are stupid?
That being said. After seeing the ad all this is looking to do is depress the vote not change it.
Do they think latinos are stupid?
That being said. After seeing the ad all this is looking to do is depress the vote not change it.
Their entire campaign is built on the hope that people are stupid and uninformed.
Do they think latinos are stupid?
The GOP's entire strategy is predicated on thinking people are stupid.
This guy nailed it.
Edit:
This guy didn't quite.
Oh look, the exact opposite of what actually happened!
There's some fun to be had going back through the reactions, but given how Palin was a relative unknown to most of us, and certainly untested on the national stage, I can't blame anyone for whatever reaction they had at the time.
TA looks to have been the most sensible, though. (Kind of hoping I didn't have a reaction post to dig up, :lol)
The GOP's entire strategy is predicated on thinking people are stupid.
And in 2010 they were correct lol
Hmm...
Nah, you're good.
Stinkles said:I think she's going to be an underqualified gaffe machine and make ridiculous claims about how Alaska is right next to Russia or how she reads every newspaper and I suspect Katie Couric will put the final nail in her coffin. It's just a hunch. And hey Phoenix Dark, I think you will get over Hillary losing the nomination in a couple of weeks.
I amaze myself.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I amaze myself.
So right and then so wrong.
Byakuya769
Member
Are you guys just looking through the thread or is there a particular search you're using?
Are you guys just looking through the thread or is there a particular search you're using?
I just started with one of the linked posts above and am skimming. A lot of fun stuff in there.
My favorite reaction so far:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12587738&postcount=9903
Lemonz said:Has she even been vetted?
No! No she has not been vetted.
PhoenixDark
Banned
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12586203&postcount=9289
I think this chap had it right.
If it's Palin, that'd be the biggest panic move ever.
I think this chap had it right.
Hey EV, curious if you've read this article.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...x-reform-that-doesn-t-even-work-on-paper.html
"In 2015, and assuming no changes in policy, the Tax Policy Center estimates that the tax code will contain $1.5 trillion in deductions, exclusions, loopholes, and so on. But a third of these will be tax preferences for saving and investing, which Republicans have said they oppose changing. An additional 10 percent is made up of extremely progressive policies that help children, the poor and the elderly, and Democrats will fight like hell to retain these measures. And a further 17 percent comes from a category of miscellanea, much of which would be very difficult to change, like the exclusion of imputed rent on owner-occupied housing.
The closer you look at base-broadening, rate-lowering tax reform, the less it looks like an exception to the normal rules of Washington policy making and the more it looks like it will inevitably fall victim to them. It is clean and elegant when imagined by technocrats who don’t worry about the politics, clear and simple when endorsed by politicians who omit the crucial details, and likely to become polarizing and disappointing if it is actually taken up by Congress.
Olympians’ Break
Indeed, over the last week we’ve seen how superficial the commitment to a fairer, flatter tax code really is: Senator Marco Rubio has proposed, and Obama has endorsed, a new tax break so Olympians won’t pay any taxes on their prize money.
In their conclusion, the study’s authors note that there isn’t even the barest hint of an agreement between the two parties as to an acceptable target for revenue, a necessary first step for tax reform. So we are nowhere near the point where we can start working out the details of how to broaden the base and how far to lower the rates. But if we ever get there, the authors write that those details “might be the most difficult hurdle of all.”
They are almost certainly correct about that. Which is why it’s so worrisome that so many in Washington seem to think it will be easy."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...x-reform-that-doesn-t-even-work-on-paper.html
"In 2015, and assuming no changes in policy, the Tax Policy Center estimates that the tax code will contain $1.5 trillion in deductions, exclusions, loopholes, and so on. But a third of these will be tax preferences for saving and investing, which Republicans have said they oppose changing. An additional 10 percent is made up of extremely progressive policies that help children, the poor and the elderly, and Democrats will fight like hell to retain these measures. And a further 17 percent comes from a category of miscellanea, much of which would be very difficult to change, like the exclusion of imputed rent on owner-occupied housing.
The closer you look at base-broadening, rate-lowering tax reform, the less it looks like an exception to the normal rules of Washington policy making and the more it looks like it will inevitably fall victim to them. It is clean and elegant when imagined by technocrats who don’t worry about the politics, clear and simple when endorsed by politicians who omit the crucial details, and likely to become polarizing and disappointing if it is actually taken up by Congress.
Olympians’ Break
Indeed, over the last week we’ve seen how superficial the commitment to a fairer, flatter tax code really is: Senator Marco Rubio has proposed, and Obama has endorsed, a new tax break so Olympians won’t pay any taxes on their prize money.
In their conclusion, the study’s authors note that there isn’t even the barest hint of an agreement between the two parties as to an acceptable target for revenue, a necessary first step for tax reform. So we are nowhere near the point where we can start working out the details of how to broaden the base and how far to lower the rates. But if we ever get there, the authors write that those details “might be the most difficult hurdle of all.”
They are almost certainly correct about that. Which is why it’s so worrisome that so many in Washington seem to think it will be easy."
el retorno
Member
Hey EV, curious if you've read this article.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...x-reform-that-doesn-t-even-work-on-paper.html
"In 2015, and assuming no changes in policy, the Tax Policy Center estimates that the tax code will contain $1.5 trillion in deductions, exclusions, loopholes, and so on. But a third of these will be tax preferences for saving and investing, which Republicans have said they oppose changing. An additional 10 percent is made up of extremely progressive policies that help children, the poor and the elderly, and Democrats will fight like hell to retain these measures. And a further 17 percent comes from a category of miscellanea, much of which would be very difficult to change, like the exclusion of imputed rent on owner-occupied housing.
The closer you look at base-broadening, rate-lowering tax reform, the less it looks like an exception to the normal rules of Washington policy making and the more it looks like it will inevitably fall victim to them. It is clean and elegant when imagined by technocrats who dont worry about the politics, clear and simple when endorsed by politicians who omit the crucial details, and likely to become polarizing and disappointing if it is actually taken up by Congress.
Olympians Break
Indeed, over the last week weve seen how superficial the commitment to a fairer, flatter tax code really is: Senator Marco Rubio has proposed, and Obama has endorsed, a new tax break so Olympians wont pay any taxes on their prize money.
In their conclusion, the studys authors note that there isnt even the barest hint of an agreement between the two parties as to an acceptable target for revenue, a necessary first step for tax reform. So we are nowhere near the point where we can start working out the details of how to broaden the base and how far to lower the rates. But if we ever get there, the authors write that those details might be the most difficult hurdle of all.
They are almost certainly correct about that. Which is why its so worrisome that so many in Washington seem to think it will be easy."
I hate that term. Its code for tax the poor.
Blergmeister
Member
Hey EV, curious if you've read this article.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...x-reform-that-doesn-t-even-work-on-paper.html
"In 2015, and assuming no changes in policy, the Tax Policy Center estimates that the tax code will contain $1.5 trillion in deductions, exclusions, loopholes, and so on. But a third of these will be tax preferences for saving and investing, which Republicans have said they oppose changing. An additional 10 percent is made up of extremely progressive policies that help children, the poor and the elderly, and Democrats will fight like hell to retain these measures. And a further 17 percent comes from a category of miscellanea, much of which would be very difficult to change, like the exclusion of imputed rent on owner-occupied housing.
The closer you look at base-broadening, rate-lowering tax reform, the less it looks like an exception to the normal rules of Washington policy making and the more it looks like it will inevitably fall victim to them. It is clean and elegant when imagined by technocrats who dont worry about the politics, clear and simple when endorsed by politicians who omit the crucial details, and likely to become polarizing and disappointing if it is actually taken up by Congress.
Olympians Break
Indeed, over the last week weve seen how superficial the commitment to a fairer, flatter tax code really is: Senator Marco Rubio has proposed, and Obama has endorsed, a new tax break so Olympians wont pay any taxes on their prize money.
In their conclusion, the studys authors note that there isnt even the barest hint of an agreement between the two parties as to an acceptable target for revenue, a necessary first step for tax reform. So we are nowhere near the point where we can start working out the details of how to broaden the base and how far to lower the rates. But if we ever get there, the authors write that those details might be the most difficult hurdle of all.
They are almost certainly correct about that. Which is why its so worrisome that so many in Washington seem to think it will be easy."
Tax revenue, as a deflationary pressure, is not what is needed right now with such high unemployment. The Federal government should be putting more money into the economy at this point, not taking it out.
Tax revenue, as a deflationary pressure, is not what is needed right now with such high unemployment. The Federal government should be putting more money into the economy at this point, not taking it out.
Right, I'm sure EV'll agree on that point, but as far as the "deets" are concerned, I think the article does well in pointing out the difficulty Congress would have addressing these issues.
speculawyer
Member
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...46.html?ir=Politics&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009
Kenyan Muslim Socialist isn't enough. Gotta add more to it!
lol
The amount of conspiracy theories on the right is quite disturbing. But I guess it is nothing new . . . McCarthism, water fluoridation, Vince Foster, etc.
hydragonwarrior
Member
Their entire campaign is built on the hope that people are stupid and uninformed.
It works - check out Mitt Romney's facebook page.
I suppose it wouldn't be their strategy if they didn't think it would work.And in 2010 they were correct lol
speculawyer
Member
And that is why the GOP often has a lot of electoral success.Their entire campaign is built on the hope that people are stupid and uninformed.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.