Support NeoGAF

[Tobor]

This guy nailed it.


Edit:
This guy didn't quite.

Oh look, the exact opposite of what actually happened!

I love it when I'm right.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

...Are you guys really going to make prize money for Olympians tax-free...? Are you shitting me?

 

[RDreamer]

...Are you guys really going to make prize money for Olympians tax-free...? Are you shitting me?

This seems like such a fucking bad idea... They could have their contracts with sponsors structured in such a way that it becomes prize money.

 

[Blergmeister]

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.

One thing I always wanted to ask EV was that if politicians finally agree that taxation doesn't fund the federal government, wouldn't the fight for higher, or at least progressive, taxation be much harder. With the conceptions of it now, generally everone agrees that we need taxes at least to fund the government and then a case for higher/progressive taxes is made. I guess my point is... are people going to agree to higher taxes when the argument is not "to fund the government" but "to add deflationary pressure to leave room for the government to spend as well as decrease inequality"? I don't know if that is as easy as a sell. I guess it's probably best though that we operate with a correct understanding of our world and then educate people, it's just going to be a long, hyperbolic slog.

Has there been enough MMT talk that there should be a thread on it? Maybe in PolicyGAF: Thread of boring bordos that zzzzzzzzzz?

 

[Rocket Scientist]

This seems like such a fucking bad idea... They could have their contracts with sponsors structured in such a way that it becomes prize money.

I didn't even think of something like that. That would be ludicrous if possible and given that apparently this:

Gross income shall not include the value of any prize or award won by the taxpayer in athletic competition in the Olympic Games.

Is the wording. I'm sure it'd be possible.

 

[Blergmeister]

Did Obama have to pay taxes on his Nobel Peace Prize award money?

 

[Byakuya769]

I think the wording would always be reasonably construed to only cover prizes awarded from the Olympics, not those awarded because of the olympics.

Also, not many of those athletes are going to get endorsements. Making them drop taxes on a gold medal they likely will never sale is bullshit. Just tax them on any transaction of that award.

 

[Tamanon]

Did Obama have to pay taxes on his Nobel Peace Prize award money?

If he didn't donate it all to charity, he would've had to pay taxes. But it went to charity.

 

[RDreamer]

I didn't even think of something like that. That would be ludicrous if possible and given that apparently this:

Is the wording. I'm sure it'd be possible.

Yeah, that was one of the first critiques after Fox news did their scaremongering on the whole thing. The other critiques are that most of the athletes get so many deductions that they rarely if ever have to pay much of anything on the prize money anyway, and since it's just like income if the athlete didn't make much outside of that they're not going to get taxed much at all anyway. The ones with the big taxation bills are going to be the Michael Phelps types, but he's got plenty of money to pay for it.

 

[Mike M]

One thing I always wanted to ask EV was that if politicians finally agree that taxation doesn't fund the federal government, wouldn't the fight for higher, or at least progressive, taxation be much harder. With the conceptions of it now, generally everone agrees that we need taxes at least to fund the government and then a case for higher/progressive taxes is made. I guess my point is... are people going to agree to higher taxes when the argument is not "to fund the government" but "to add deflationary pressure to leave room for the government to spend as well as decrease inequality"? I don't know if that is as easy as a sell. I guess it's probably best though that we operate with a correct understanding of our world and then educate people, it's just going to be a long, hyperbolic slog.

Has there been enough MMT talk that there should be a thread on it? Maybe in PolicyGAF: Thread of boring bordos that zzzzzzzzzz?

MMT seems like it only works until we acknowledge it. In addition to the problems you outline, it seems like the second we stop issuing T-Bonds for new money, the entire world would drop the dollar as reserve currency and the value of the dollar would fall through the floor.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

I think the wording would always be reasonably construed to only cover prizes awarded from the Olympics, not those awarded because of the olympics.

Making them drop taxes on a gold medal they likely will never sale is bullshit.

Tax-code and reasonably construed don't mix very well together Concerning the medals, yeah it might be silly to tax the actual medal, but if I got/bought something valuable in a foreign country and then returned home with it, I'd be forced to pay taxes on it too regardless of whether I plan to re-sell or do whatever with it.

Yeah, that was one of the first critiques after Fox news did their scaremongering on the whole thing. The other critiques is that most of the athletes get so many deductions that they rarely if ever have to pay much of anything on the prize money anyway. And since it's just like income if the athlete didn't make much outside of that they're not going to get taxed much at all anyway. The ones with the big taxation bills are going to be the Michael Phelps types, but he's got plenty of money to pay for it.

I see, haven't been following it and just read a few articles on it now. Income is income though, the way some of these articles are worded makes it seem like it's not even worth competing because oh mah lawd you're going to have to pay all these taxes... Some even imply it's getting taxed twice even though international sports events have tax exemptions etc. I can't believe they came up with a bill that's going to add another layer to the tax-code and Obama is a pussy. All his talk about everyone paying their fair share and then supporting this. Smh.

 

[Dram]

Ohio Early Voting Cutbacks Disenfranchise Minority Voters

http://www.thenation.com/blog/169284/ohio-early-voting-cutbacks-disenfranchise-minority-voters

In response to the 2008 election results, Ohio Republicans drastically curtailed the early voting period in 2012 from thirty-five to eleven days, with no voting on the Sunday before the election, when African-American churches historically rally their congregants to go to the polls. (Ohio was one of five states to cut back on early voting since 2010.) Voting rights activists subsequently gathered enough signatures to block the new voting restrictions and force a referendum on Election Day. In reaction, Ohio Republicans repealed their own bill in the state legislature, but kept a ban on early voting three days before Election Day (a period when 93,000 Ohioans voted in 2008), adding an exception for active duty members of the military, who tend to lean Republican. (The Obama campaign is now challenging the law in court, seeking to expand early voting for all Ohioans).

Now, in heavily Democratic cities like Cleveland, Columbus, Akron and Toledo, early voting hours will be limited to 8 am until 5 pm on weekdays beginning on October 1, with no voting at night or during the weekend, when it’s most convenient for working people to vote. Republican election commissioners have blocked Democratic efforts to expand early voting hours in these counties, where the board of elections are split equally between Democratic and Republican members. Ohio Republican Secretary of State Jon Husted has broken the tie by intervening on behalf of his fellow Republicans. (According to the Board of Elections, 82% of early voters in Franklin County voted early on nights or weekends, which Republicans have curtailed. The number who voted on nights or weekends was nearly 50% in Cuyahoga County.)

"I cannot create unequal access from one county board to another, and I must also keep in mind resources available to each county,” Husted said in explaining his decision to deny expanded early voting hours in heavily Democratic counties. Yet in solidly Republican counties like Warren and Butler, GOP election commissioners have approved expanded early voting hours on nights and weekends. Noted the Cincinnati Enquirer: “The counties where Husted has joined other Republicans to deny expanded early voting strongly backed then-candidate Barack Obama in 2008, while most of those where the extra hours will stand heavily supported GOP nominee John McCain.” Moreover, budget constraints have not stopped Republican legislators from passing costly voter ID laws across the map since 2010.

The cutbacks in early voting in Ohio are part of a broader push by Republicans to restrict the right to vote for millions of Americans, particularly those who voted for Obama. “The Republicans remember those long lines outside board of elections last time in the evenings and on weekends,” Tim Burke, Democratic Party chairman in Cincinnati’s Hamilton County, told the Enquirer. “The lines were overwhelmingly African-American, and it’s pretty obvious that the people were predominately—very predominately Obama voters. The Republicans don’t want that to happen again. It’s that simple.”

 

[gcubed]

I think the wording would always be reasonably construed to only cover prizes awarded from the Olympics, not those awarded because of the olympics.

Also, not many of those athletes are going to get endorsements. Making them drop taxes on a gold medal they likely will never sale is bullshit. Just tax them on any transaction of that award.

the tax is on award money, not the medal. Its not real gold either, just a coating. Olympics athletes win money with their medals

Gold - $25,000
Silver - $15,000
Bronze - $10,000

 

[markatisu]

Tax-code and reasonably construed don't mix very well together Concerning the medals, yeah it might be silly to tax the actual medal, but if I got/bought something valuable in a foreign country and then returned home with it, I'd be forced to pay taxes on it too regardless of whether I plan to re-sell or do whatever with it.

Last time I came back from France they asked me if i had wine or pate, they could give a shit about any valuables.

I say let the medal winners have their money, 90% of them have to basically put their families and their financial lives on the line just to compete and the piddly ass medal winning money does not even begin to repay that.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

Early voting hours during the times that everyone is working. Awesome. These people are pure evil.

 

[RDreamer]

One thing I always wanted to ask EV was that if politicians finally agree that taxation doesn't fund the federal government, wouldn't the fight for higher, or at least progressive, taxation be much harder. With the conceptions of it now, generally everone agrees that we need taxes at least to fund the government and then a case for higher/progressive taxes is made. I guess my point is... are people going to agree to higher taxes when the argument is not "to fund the government" but "to add deflationary pressure to leave room for the government to spend as well as decrease inequality"? I don't know if that is as easy as a sell. I guess it's probably best though that we operate with a correct understanding of our world and then educate people, it's just going to be a long, hyperbolic slog.

Has there been enough MMT talk that there should be a thread on it? Maybe in PolicyGAF: Thread of boring bordos that zzzzzzzzzz?

I think they're both hard arguments to work. Right now if the only reason for raising taxes on the rich is "to fund the government" then why only do it on the rich? Doesn't everyone need to "fund the government." In essence you get people like Kosmo resulting out of that style of thinking, saying more people need skin in the game. In order to hit home with a progressive taxation system even now you have to rely on those other things. You have to persuade people that inequality is bad.

We really need a large culture change either way. People have to realize how bad inequality really is. And people have to start voting for the longevity and good of the country rather than of their own lot, no matter how you phrase things. And right now the debt/deficit "problem" is such a big thing that it's being used as a weapon against policies and programs we need. It's making things we need to do a much harder sell already. So yes it might be a harder sell, but we're quickly approaching impossible sell because of the debt, since every single thing we vote on now is countered with "BUT HOW WILL IT LOWER THE DEFICIT OR OUR DEBT?"

 

[RoninChaos]

Ohio Early Voting Cutbacks Disenfranchise Minority Voters

http://www.thenation.com/blog/169284/ohio-early-voting-cutbacks-disenfranchise-minority-voters

So... how can they get away with this?

 

[Byakuya769]

Tax-code and reasonably construed don't mix very well together Concerning the medals, yeah it might be silly to tax the actual medal, but if I got/bought something valuable in a foreign country and then returned home with it, I'd be forced to pay taxes on it too regardless of whether I plan to re-sell or do whatever with it.

I'm pretty sure people would try, but if the IRS took it to court, I think there are enough statutory cannons that would guide judges in the direction of "Congress intended for this to only touch awards directly from the Olympics, it would be absurd to construe it otherwise."

If you bought an object you would clearly have the funds to pay and anticipate a tax on the object. A lot of these athletes are paying heavily to do their sport, these aren't sports superstars.

the tax is on award money, not the medal. Its not real gold either, just a coating. Olympics athletes win money with their medals

Gold - $25,000
Silver - $15,000
Bronze - $10,000

Ah ok, I'm okay with that being taxed as income, but not as a gift.

 

[RustyNails]

Early voting hours during the times that everyone is working. Awesome. These people are pure evil.

Didn't one of the conservative dirtbags say it's worth it to disenfranchise thousands of voters if it means one illegal voter off the rolls?

 

[RedSwirl]

Maybe this is my mistake for continuing to read the Washington Times (one of my college editing teachers got me on it), I don't know GAF's opinion of it, but this in particular struck me as "WTF".

Gingrich basically calling Obama a "radical," comparing him to Saul Alinsky (I honestly don't know who that is so I could be sounding stupid in quoting all this).
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/aug/9/gingrich-obama-last-hope-left-wingers-america/

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, never one to mince words, explained Thursday why conservatives were up in arms over a Mitt Romney spokeswoman's invocation of Mr. Romney's Massachusetts health care law Wednesday, and why, as a questioner put it, he doesn't have the same "hold on the activist wing of his party as the president does."

"Well, I think for a very practical reason," Mr. Gingrich said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." "Barack Obama is a Saul Alinsky radical," invoking the name of left-wing activist and organizer.

"Barack Obama is the last hope of left-wingers in America," Mr. Gingrich added. "They will swallow almost anything in order to get him re-elected because they know that at 8.3 percent unemployment, he is in grave, grave danger of getting defeated, and they know that for their world view, for their idea of a government-run, politician-defined left-wing world, his defeat will be a catastrophe."

Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul invoked Mr. Romney's Massachusetts health care overhaul Wednesday while attacking an independent pro-Obama ad that featured a laid-off steelworker at a plant taken over by Mr. Romney's former company, Bain Capital, whose wife subsequently died from cancer after the worker lost his job and his health insurance. Republicans have sharply criticized the veracity of the ad, but Ms. Saul's defense of Mr. Romney's controversial health care plan muddied the attack and outraged many conservatives.

"To that point, if people had been in Massachusetts, under Governor Romney's plan, they would have had health care," Ms. Saul said on Fox News. "There are a lot of people losing jobs and losing health care in President Obama's economy."

The defense was somewhat odd, considering that Mr. Romney has downplayed the law on the campaign trail, while Mr. Obama's team gleefully proclaims it as a model for the president's own 2010 national health law. Conservatives ranging from talk show host Rush Limbaugh to commentator Erick Erickson blasted Ms. Saul's comments on Wednesday.

Bill Burton, a former White House staffer who is now with the Super PAC Priorities USA, which was behind the steelworker ad, has not backed away from it, and the campaign has distanced itself from it. But Mr. Gingrich suggested anyway that the White House or the campaign could have been coordinating with the group — a violation of election law.

"The idea that [former White House press secretary Robert] Gibbs is not close to Obama is pathetic," he said. "So clearly this ad was in some way approvable by the general team."

I still don't understand how people can believe Obama is a full-blown communist.

 

[empty vessel]

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

I think the whole thing is a fool's errand. The false premise of all of these arguments is that the government is operating under financial constraints like a household and that it is important for the government to close deficits and balance the budget. That is the same thing as saying that it is important for the government to remove financial assets from the private sector, i.e., to drain the private sector's stock of financial assets and make it poorer. And that it is important to do this without regard to any other considerations, i.e., that it is per se important for the government to remove financial assets from the economy.

From the article: "As polarized as Washington is over tax and budget issues, a base-broadening, rate-lowering tax-code overhaul has become the one policy every wonk in town can agree on." I definitely cannot agree on that. I certainly welcome tax reform that simplifies everything. I would like to see progressivity sharply increased and rates on the highest income earners greatly increased (deflationary). I'll take a repeal of the payroll tax (inflationary). But that's about it. Unlike everybody else, I am unconcerned with how much "revenue" these changes generate and whether it matches spending. The only thing one would have to be careful about with regards to a tax overhaul are its implications with respect to inflation/deflation, i.e., if it reduces taxes so much in conjunction with spending that inflation results or increases taxes so much in conjunction with spending that deflation results. All the rest is substantive policy, e.g., what do you want your level of post-tax income inequality to be? (That is captured in my reform by the increase in rates on high earners and elimination of a tax on lower earners.) Another example of a substantive policy issue is what behavior do you want do dissuade? If you want to dissuade smoking, you can tax it.

One thing I always wanted to ask EV was that if politicians finally agree that taxation doesn't fund the federal government, wouldn't the fight for higher, or at least progressive, taxation be much harder. With the conceptions of it now, generally everone agrees that we need taxes at least to fund the government and then a case for higher/progressive taxes is made. I guess my point is... are people going to agree to higher taxes when the argument is not "to fund the government" but "to add deflationary pressure to leave room for the government to spend as well as decrease inequality"? I don't know if that is as easy as a sell. I guess it's probably best though that we operate with a correct understanding of our world and then educate people, it's just going to be a long, hyperbolic slog.

It's possible it would be harder. Those are political problems, not economic ones. I think, though, that the benefits of a popular (correct) understanding of the monetary system far outweigh the negatives. Republicans and business interests use debt and deficit fear mongering to severely constrain the government's ability to act in the public interest. The very fact that no additional stimulus is forthcoming and that high unemployment that is devastating to society and costing us untold amounts of social wealth is being tolerated due solely to deficit and debt fear mongering is proof of that, I think.

It's my opinion that, ultimately, progressive taxation is popular mostly because people perceive the benefits of equality. Can't prove that, of course.

 

[Blergmeister]

MMT seems like it only works until we acknowledge it. In addition to the problems you outline, it seems like the second we stop issuing T-Bonds for new money, the entire world would drop the dollar as reserve currency and the value of the dollar would fall through the floor.

That may be because we try so hard to not acknowledge it. Also, while the T-Bond thing maybe happen, that is because we'd be the first country to do it. I would compare it to the first country to go off the gold standard and the other countries that follow suit. It would take the world formally acknowledging these things rather than pretend it's not the way it is.

 

[GhaleonEB]

So... how can they get away with this?

I'm sure lawsuits will ensue to try and force, at the very least, equal hours across counties. They're limiting them in Dem counties and urban areas, and keeping voting hours expanded in GOP-heavy counties. It's so spectacularly transparent.

Early voting hours during the times that everyone is working. Awesome. These people are pure evil.

I don't like tossing around that particular term, but it fits. These people are absolute scum.

 

[Measley]

It works - check out Mitt Romney's facebook page.

There's a lot of people slamming Romney on his Facebook page.

 

[Stinkles]

If he didn't donate it all to charity, he would've had to pay taxes. But it went to charity.

Ah, see? Libertarian social justice, as practised by the President himself. Why even bother with Universal Healthcare? Obama hypocrisy knows no bounds.

 

[empty vessel]

MMT seems like it only works until we acknowledge it. In addition to the problems you outline, it seems like the second we stop issuing T-Bonds for new money, the entire world would drop the dollar as reserve currency and the value of the dollar would fall through the floor.

What's wrong with that? Wouldn't that just result in an increase in US exports and an eventual rise in the strength of the dollar? Keep in mind that when you are talking about the "value of the dollar" in this context, you are talking about the value of the dollar relative to other currencies. It doesn't affect the domestic economy except by making exports more attractive and imports less attractive. The trade balance would probably move (which, ironically, would give the government more leeway to reduce net spending without affecting private savings since it would mean that more US dollars would be injected externally from foreign sources).

I guess my question to you is why you think it matters, even if what you say is true?

 

[Suikoguy]

Maybe this is my mistake for continuing to read the Washington Times (one of my college editing teachers got me on it), I don't know GAF's opinion of it, but this in particular struck me as "WTF".

Gingrich basically calling Obama a "radical," comparing him to Saul Alinsky (I honestly don't know who that is so I could be sounding stupid in quoting all this).
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/aug/9/gingrich-obama-last-hope-left-wingers-america/



I still don't understand how people can believe Obama is a full-blown communist.

To answer your question:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-maher-wants-to-know-who-the-fk-is-saul-alinsky/

 

[NullPointer]

I still don't understand how people can believe Obama is a full-blown communist.

The people who believe that couldn't tell you what communism is (or socialism or fascism for that matter). It's just short-hand for anything they perceive as un-American, or that criticizes America.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Decker ends her piece on an optimistic note, pointing out that Obamacare temporarily increases Medicaid’s fees for primary care physicians in 2013 and 2014. As Sarah Kliff observes, “some interest groups already have their eyes on an extension” of the fee bump. In the current fiscal environment, however, it’s hard to see how that fee bump would continue.

Indeed, in the absence of permanent reform, states are continuing to reduce, not increase, their Medicaid fees

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/20...of-doctors-wont-accept-new-medicaid-patients/

 

[Mike M]

What's wrong with that? Wouldn't that just result in an increase in US exports and an eventual rise in the strength of the dollar? Keep in mind that when you are talking about the "value of the dollar" in this context, you are talking about the value of the dollar relative to other currencies. It doesn't affect the domestic economy except by making exports more attractive and imports less attractive. The trade balance would probably move (which, ironically, would give the government more leeway to reduce net spending without affecting private savings since it would mean that more US dollars would be injected externally from foreign sources).

I guess my question to you is why you think it matters, even if what you say is true?

I guess I just don't see how massive, widespread devaluation of the dollar doesn't drive prices up for US consumers, reduce spending dramatically, and cause extensive
economic hardship while the trade imbalance takes time to right itself.

 

[pigeon]

I guess I just don't see how massive, widespread devaluation of the dollar doesn't drive prices up for US consumers, reduce spending dramatically, and cause extensive economic hardship while the trade imbalance takes time to right itself.

But America has the resources to produce almost everything it needs itself. Nothing made in America goes up in price when the dollar falls, so all it does is crowd imports out of the market.

 

[Blergmeister]

I guess I just don't see how massive, widespread devaluation of the dollar doesn't drive prices up for US consumers, reduce spending dramatically, and cause extensive
economic hardship while the trade imbalance takes time to right itself.

If it puts us in the right place in the long run then I'd prefer to do it while putting policies in place to best mitigate the damages until we get there, much like globalization (though I don't think we are effectively mitigating the damage policy-wise for globalization.)

 

[empty vessel]

I guess I just don't see how massive, widespread devaluation of the dollar doesn't drive prices up for US consumers, reduce spending dramatically, and cause extensive
economic hardship while the trade imbalance takes time to right itself.

There could be ramifications like that, although I don't know that I use words like "massive" and "dramatically." That said, I don't see a connection between bond issuance and the dollar's status as reserve currency. The dollar's status is due to the strength of the US government, not the fact that it issues bonds. As well, the US government does not have to stop selling bonds. It just has the option to stop doing so. Likewise, it has the option not to match bond issuance dollar-for-dollar with deficit spending, which is an arbitrary legal connection. I guess what I'm saying is, MMT doesn't care whether the government issues bonds. It just observes that it doesn't have to do so in order to be able to spend more money than it taxes.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/20...of-doctors-wont-accept-new-medicaid-patients/

What do you consider the implications of this information to be?

 

[electricpirate]

I guess I just don't see how massive, widespread devaluation of the dollar doesn't drive prices up for US consumers, reduce spending dramatically, and cause extensive
economic hardship while the trade imbalance takes time to right itself.

It's worth noting that increases in price would either not widely impact us, or if they did, they would impact us on a level that isn't exactly crippling. I say this, because 88% of our spending stays local

 

[codhand]

What do you consider the implications of this information to be?

No idea what he's getting at. I might agree for all I know.

 

[Mike M]

But America has the resources to produce almost everything it needs itself. Nothing made in America goes up in price when the dollar falls, so all it does is crowd imports out of the market.

Yes, but how long would it take to get that capacity up and running again? What do we do in the meantime? We are incredibly dependent on foreign energy, what are we supposed to do about that?

There could be ramifications like that, although I don't know that I use words like "massive" and "dramatically." That said, I don't see a connection between bond issuance and the dollar's status as reserve currency. The dollar's status is due to the strength of the US government, not the fact that it issues bonds. As well, the US government does not have to stop selling bonds. It just has the option to stop doing so. Likewise, it has the option not to match bond issuance dollar-for-dollar with deficit spending, which is an arbitrary legal connection.

I understand that.

I have trouble articulating what I'm trying to say, but basically I think the rest of the world's inability/unwillingness to accept/acknowledge MMT would cause enough havoc on any overt implementation thereof that the situation might never right itself.

 

[ToxicAdam]

What do you consider the implications of this information to be?

The uphill struggle that Obamacare/HCR will have in 'bending the curve' while providing access to those that need it the most.

 

[codhand]

The uphill struggle that Obamacare/HCR will have in 'bending the curve' while providing access to those that need it the most.

Agree.

 

[Aaron Strife]

CNN national poll

Obama 52
Romney 45

Democrats 45
Republicans 39

Economy will get better if Obama is re-elected 48
Economy will get better if Romney is elected 45

63% say Romney should release more tax returns.

"Who do you think will win" - Obama 63 Romney 33

 

[speculawyer]

Ohio Early Voting Cutbacks Disenfranchise Minority Voters

http://www.thenation.com/blog/169284/ohio-early-voting-cutbacks-disenfranchise-minority-voters

Republicans apparently need affirmative action for voting.

 

[Tamanon]

CNN national poll

Obama 52
Romney 45

Democrats 45
Republicans 39

Economy will get better if Obama is re-elected 48
Economy will get better if Romney is elected 45

63% say Romney should release more tax returns.

"Who do you think will win" - Obama 63 Romney 33

Statistical tie

 

[Aaron Strife]

Statistical tie

Romney's to lose, really.

 

[Tim-E]

CNN national poll

Obama 52
Romney 45

Democrats 45
Republicans 39

Economy will get better if Obama is re-elected 48
Economy will get better if Romney is elected 45

63% say Romney should release more tax returns.

"Who do you think will win" - Obama 63 Romney 33

Ouch :lol

 

[markatisu]

CNN national poll

Obama 52
Romney 45

Democrats 45
Republicans 39

Economy will get better if Obama is re-elected 48
Economy will get better if Romney is elected 45

63% say Romney should release more tax returns.

"Who do you think will win" - Obama 63 Romney 33

Key things

Among independent voters, the poll indicates President Obama has a 53%-42% lead," CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said. "The president holds a nine point advantage among women voters and a smaller six point edge among men."

Sixty-four percent of all Americans, and 68% of independents, think Romney favors the rich over the middle class. And 63% of the public thinks Romney should release more tax returns than he has already made public, a figure which rises to 67% among independents.

Control of Congress is also up for grabs in November. According to the survey, 45% say the country would be better off if Congress were controlled by Democrats, with 39% saying things would be better if the GOP ran Capitol Hill.

 

[Aaron Strife]

The "Would Congress be better if it were run by Democrats or GOP" is close enough to a generic ballot question that I think this applies here:

D+6 means Pelosi gets her +35.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

If those independent numbers are real and they hold, it's going to be one hell of a trouncing. But, August is not November of course.

But, Romney's falling apart.

 

[The Librarian]

CNN national poll

Obama 52
Romney 45

Democrats 45
Republicans 39

Economy will get better if Obama is re-elected 48
Economy will get better if Romney is elected 45

63% say Romney should release more tax returns.

"Who do you think will win" - Obama 63 Romney 33

Bad news for Obama.

 

[Aaron Strife]

If those independent numbers are real and they hold, it's going to be one hell of a trouncing. But, August is not November of course.

But, Romney's falling apart.

If he's trying to get Obama on religion and welfare, he's losing.

If he's trying to get Obama on ANYTHING that isn't the economy, he's losing because that's the only issue he can run on.

Now he just needs to go for the hail-Mary, pick Ryan as his VP and nationalize the House campaign.

 

[Tim-E]

Romney Faces Pressure From Right to Put Ryan on Ticket

WASHINGTON — Conservatives are increasing the pressure on Mitt Romney again.

The extended summertime silence of Mr. Romney, the Republican candidate, on his choice of a running mate has provided a new opening for social and economic conservatives to lobby for a die-hard member of their movement to join the Republican ticket.

A strongly-worded Wall Street Journal editorial on Thursday urged Mr. Romney to pick Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, the architect of the Republican budgetary vision who has pushed ambitious plans to curtail entitlement programs. The paper said Mr. Ryan “best exemplifies the nature and stakes of this election.”

The editorial follows on a fresh wave of public pressure from other conservative outlets for Mr. Romney to erase doubts about his commitment to conservative causes — an issue that has dogged Mr. Romney since his days campaigning as a liberal Republican for the Senate in Massachusetts.

The Weekly Standard on Thursday urged Mr. Romney to embrace the conservative principles in Mr. Ryan’s budget — and Mr. Ryan himself as his pick for vice president — predicting that Democrats will attack him for it anyway.

“Romney, and Republicans, will be running on the Romney-Ryan plan no matter what,” the Weekly Standard wrote. “Having Paul Ryan on the ticket may well make it easier to defend the plan convincingly.”

The not-so-subtle campaign on Mr. Ryan’s behalf may be moot if Mr. Romney has already made up his mind about a running mate, as some political observers believe. It is possible that Mr. Romney could announce his pick as early as this weekend, while on a scheduled bus tour through swing states.

The names on his short list are said to include Mr. Ryan; Senator Rob Portman of Ohio; Tim Pawlenty, the former governor of Minnesota; and perhaps Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey.

But the loud, public calls for Mr. Ryan to emerge as the winner demonstrate again the wariness with which conservatives have always treated Mr. Romney. They suggest that there remains a desire among some conservatives for Mr. Romney to demonstrate that he is, in fact, one of them.

Mr. Romney’s campaign added to that wariness in the last couple of days on the issue of health care — a source of lingering suspicion among conservatives because Mr. Romney championed an individual mandate very similar to the one Mr. Obama pushed.

In defending Mr. Romney against an attack ad highlighting a cancer patient who had no health insurance, the campaign touted the Massachusetts health care plan, coming perilously close in the minds of some conservatives to sounding like the president.

“If people had been in Massachusetts, under Gov. Romney’s health care plan, they would have had health care,” Andrea Saul, a spokeswoman for Mr. Romney, said Tuesday. That prompted Erick Erickson, of the conservative blog, Redstate, to write on Twitter: “OMG. This might just be the moment Mitt Romney lost the election. Wow.”

But in Iowa later, Mr. Romney went out of his way to talk about his health care experience: “We’ve got to do some reforms in health care, and I have some experience doing that, as you know.”

Polls suggest that Mr. Romney’s transition from primary candidate to presumptive nominee has dramatically unified Republicans around his candidacy. Conservative support for Mr. Romney is strong, in part because of a dislike of President Obama.

But some suggest that Mr. Romney could energize conservatives and spur turnout even more by picking someone seen by the most ardent members of that group as someone who will be an uncompromising advocate for conservative principles inside a Romney White House.

The argument is about politics and about governing.

Advocates for Mr. Ryan argue that he would be a boon to Mr. Romney on the ballot by cementing in voters’ minds an economic vision for the country that is very different than Mr. Obama’s.

“The House budget chairman has defined those stakes well as a generational choice about the role of government and whether America will once again become a growth economy or sink into interest-group dominated decline,” The Journal wrote.

But the conservatives are also looking past the November election to the kind of White House they want should Mr. Romney win. For some conservatives — especially those who identify themselves with the Tea Party movement — winning is not enough.

For some of those conservatives, a Romney administration stocked with moderate Republicans is almost as bad as a second term for Mr. Obama.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/10/u...-ryan-to-be-mitt-romneys-running-mate.html?hp

 

[Officerrob]

CNN national poll

Obama 52
Romney 45

Democrats 45
Republicans 39

Economy will get better if Obama is re-elected 48
Economy will get better if Romney is elected 45

63% say Romney should release more tax returns.

"Who do you think will win" - Obama 63 Romney 33

Dooooooooooooooomed!!