-
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
- Thread starter AlteredBeast
- Start date
- Status
It looks like they are already setting Romney up to take all the blame when he fails so they can yell, "He wasn't conservative enough!"
Out of curiosity, whose blog is that?
Yeah. The public has become inured to this form of hypocrisy. Conservatives have fulminated for years about frivolous spending while greedily swilling on "pork." Ron Paul is the standard for this behavior. And his cult has blithely ignored, or disingenuously rationalized, his behavior.
NathanMcMahon
Banned
Will Booker make his move?
RustyNails
Member
Think about it. If Romney becomes president, he's rich AND powerful. If he loses, he's still rich. There is no losing scenario for Romney. In fact, he gets the honors of adding "former presidential contender" to his portfolio. Same with McCain. The night he lost, he probably did a roulette on which summer home he was going to sleep in. These guys weren't running to become President from a deeply held conviction about America or their desire for a better Republic. Heck no. They ran because they could.
CharlieDigital
Banned
I think, though, there is a difference between McCain and Romney.
I can believe that McCain actually gives a fuck about Americans as a general group, but I can't wrap my head around Romney actually caring about the poor, disadvantaged, the middle class, upper middle class -- basically, I can't picture him caring about anyone but himself and the 1%.
I cannot see in him, one ounce of civic virtue.
Black Republican
Member
really gallup?? the same??
But what about their customers who are responsible for sustaining and growing their businesses?
Sirpopopop
Member
He's buddy buddy with Christie, despite what DeathbyVolcano keeps on stating in this thread.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
That would require belief in reality and would prevent him from running in the first place.
el retorno
Member
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/17/romney-adviser-campaign-specifics_n_1797570.html
Romeny advisor: "If we tell people about our plans they won't vote for us"
On the Obama camps letter about Taxes. I think its obvious they know something and it has to do with the 08-09 period.
Romeny advisor: "If we tell people about our plans they won't vote for us"
On the Obama camps letter about Taxes. I think its obvious they know something and it has to do with the 08-09 period.
That's the impression I got. Because they specifically only want three more years of tax returns and the Romney campaign is very defensive and adamant about not even releasing that. I'm guessing something fishy happened during that time. I'd almost be willing to bet that they are sitting on something that involves his taxes that they're just waiting to unleash. They seem to be increasingly specific in what they're focusing on and I don't think they'd do that unless they know something.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Anyone who's still taking Rasmussen seriously - look at their last two polls of WI-SEN and FL-SEN.
Previous WI-SEN:
Baldwin 48
Thompson 41
New WI-SEN:
Thompson 54
Baldwin 43
Wow! An 18 point swing in just one month! Something must have really changed the dynamics of this race!
Let's look at Florida!
Previous FL-SEN:
Connie Mack 46
Bill Nelson 37
New FL-SEN:
Bill Nelson 47
Connie Mack 40
Holy shit! A 16 point swing, again in just one month!
Wow it's like either these Senate contests are incredibly volatile or Rasmussen is a worthless shit pollster.
Previous WI-SEN:
Baldwin 48
Thompson 41
New WI-SEN:
Thompson 54
Baldwin 43
Wow! An 18 point swing in just one month! Something must have really changed the dynamics of this race!
Let's look at Florida!
Previous FL-SEN:
Connie Mack 46
Bill Nelson 37
New FL-SEN:
Bill Nelson 47
Connie Mack 40
Holy shit! A 16 point swing, again in just one month!
Wow it's like either these Senate contests are incredibly volatile or Rasmussen is a worthless shit pollster.
el retorno
Member
My guess it has they have some information that is public but it can by tied to Romney.
My guesses are TARP money, or Swiss Account amnesty.
You know its the latter.
Just wait for some other polls to come out and then like MAGIC Rasmussen sees a wave that makes them fall in line lol
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Rasmussen is a joke. I call for a moratorium on ALL Rasmussen numbers, favorable or antagonistic towards our party affiliations.
speculawyer
Member
Look at it this way . . . if he loses then he will be forced to kick back and relax enjoying his multiple millions of dollars.
I'd like to say the GOP fucked up by nominating a guy who wasn't willing to disclose his taxes before the primary. But the thing is, just about every other candidate save Huntsman was even worse than Romney.
Barring a huge game-changer event, this election is so over. The multi-millionaire who pays 13.9% on his taxes and wants to lower his taxes to less than 1% WHILE RAISING YOUR TAXES is just not going to win. Even some dim-witted rump-base GOPers may figure out that they are being fucked. He is just not going to win on that platform.
speculawyer
Member
I tend to agree. It is one thing to be an affiliate pollster. But I get a feeling that the polls they release are merely trying to push a narrative of some form or another by raising or lowering expectations. They seem like worthless numbers to look at other than to try to figure out the game they are playing.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I'll second this. Their numbers are junk.
Romney's phrasing, and his mom's, sorry, I mean his wife's are very specific.
"Paid" a certain amount of taxes. And "did nothing illegal."
I think the "paid" part is most telling. I think he's saying that over and over again because it ignores refunds and reallocations of payments. There are a number of ways to reduce tax impact AFTER you've "paid" and of course even more before. A tax specialist should give us some more color on this, since I am speaking from my own position and experience which isn't in the same galaxy as Romney's.
Agreed, I just ignore his numbers.
speculawyer
Member
Dude. Rich people don't get refunds. Poor people get refunds because they have their taxes automatically taken out of their paychecks. Rich people make quarterly payments of taxes. If they ever get a refund it is because they fucked up and over-paid on a quarterly payment. And they don't tend to do that.
When you get a refund, it means you gave the government an interest-free loan. Rich people don't do that. Only little people do that.
There are a couple of advanced tax things I do that require an initial over or unavoidable upfront payment. I imagine rich people sometimes have to do awful stuff like paying some taxes but then getting them back.
But let's say you're right - that means:
a. Romney is telling the trith and has paid more than 13% taxes every year (which is still a damning statement he was an idiot to make)
b. He lied straight to our faces in a way even he can't walk back.
cartoon_soldier
Member
Excellent Article by Ezra Klein.
It talks about how Obama and his campaign worked on elevating Paul Ryan and his budget to have something to campaign against. How they actually managed to do it after an year of trying and how if the strategy fails...well let's hope it doesn't fail.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...17/the-white-houses-huge-gamble-on-paul-ryan/
That last part should be scaring democrats right now. Over confidence has no place in the race right now.
It talks about how Obama and his campaign worked on elevating Paul Ryan and his budget to have something to campaign against. How they actually managed to do it after an year of trying and how if the strategy fails...well let's hope it doesn't fail.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...17/the-white-houses-huge-gamble-on-paul-ryan/
That last part should be scaring democrats right now. Over confidence has no place in the race right now.
speculawyer
Member
No, as I pointed out above, there are other ways he can technically be telling the truth but still seriously misleading people. He said he paid "more than 13% taxes" Well . . . what taxes? More than 13% Federal income taxes? Or is more than 13% your total tax bill including Federal income taxes, gift taxes, state taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, foreign taxes. He may have paid 3% or 5% federal income taxes but is adding all those other taxes to say it is over 13%.
But yeah . . . to some degree this is all needless badgering. I think the fact that a guy who makes $20 Million and pays a 13.9% tax rate is crazy. And the fact that the Ryan plan would lower his bill to less than 1% should sink his campaign to a sane electorate. Why don't we just call him a King? After all, we are building roads, bridges, FAA, etc. that he and his businesses use but he pays nothing for them. The military that he will pay almost nothing for (under the Ryan plan) will protect his hundreds of millions. The rest of us have to pay to protect his multi-hundreds of millions. King Mitt.
speculawyer
Member
Meh. If they win then they can go ahead and try to enact it. The people will eventually figure out that they are being fucked.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
He still would have been super rich even if he had paid those taxes, he is probably an egomaniac though.
Black Republican
Member
We can't create a large tax burden on job creators.
Scaring? Not really. If they win, and enact their agenda, America gets what it voted for. As it should. This is not to say we will like it when we get it, but that makes us fools.
They only amplified the message with the Ryan pick. When enough suffer under Romney-Ryan-style austerity, maybe they'll remember next election. And the next one after that.
el retorno
Member
You missed SS reform in 2005? Once the AARP gets involved they're not getting this through.
Phoenician_Viking
Banned
Today i watched on CNN Romney speak about his taxes. He said he pays 13-13.5% taxes and if you count charities it´s up to 20%. 13.5% is way too low of a tax for rich people. Romney was saying that he pays 13.5% like it´s a big number or something.
el retorno
Member
Not directly. I just assumed you were agreeing with him that these changes are actually passing. And that there's not THAT much of a chance of it
You don't get to count charities either as your effective tax rate. He just wants to toss that in to seem like he is paying more than he really is.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Well, of course.
Byakuya769
Member
He's appears to be a better Randite than a Catholic. That wasn't even close to 10%.
Why the FUCK would we count charities? I cannot wait for the debates. Obama better lay him out.
So boy genius, Paul Ryan's trying to blame his staff for requesting stimulus funds doesn't make much sense. Even if we agree that he was just rubber stamping every written request, that wouldn't explain why his own staff members requested the stimulus money, or the fact that it states in several of those letters the job growing impacts of the stimulus.
Seems one of his aides snuck in some reading time for the Communist Manifesto in between readings of Atlas Shrugged.
Seems one of his aides snuck in some reading time for the Communist Manifesto in between readings of Atlas Shrugged.
titiklabingapat
Member
I don't even understand why he brought it up in the first place when we are supposed to be talking about his VP pick this week. Not the topic he was supposed to gloss over by picking Ryan.
We've been there before, twice no less, and not seen fit to repair our election system.
Maybe the third time's the charm for public outrage.
DeathbyVolcano
Banned
Hey now
He's buddy buddy with Christie because he has to be. He's the mayor of one of the biggest cities in NJ. It's like Carcetti's relationship with the governor of Maryland and and Clay Davis.
Booker differs greatly from Christie in social reform.
speculawyer
Member
Bill maher as a good rant on this. His church should not be considered "charity". Paying to build castles and get more followers of your superstition is not "charity". It may be tax deductible but it is not fucking "charity".
Byakuya769
Member
Hey now
He's buddy buddy with Christie because he has to be. He's the mayor of one of the biggest cities in NJ. It's like Carcetti's relationship with the governor of Maryland and and Clay Davis.
Booker differs greatly from Christie in social reform.
But Carcetti turns out to be a scapegoating prick in the end.
DeathbyVolcano
Banned
Phoenician_Viking
Banned
He is trying to inflate how much he pays. I think it´s way to ridiculous to include charities. He also accused Harry Reid of lying and not having any kind of evidence about Romney´s taxes. Romney said if Reid has an informant, why does he not just show him? Ridiculous.
So I just finished reading The New New Deal. It's the second book I've read looking into the Obama presidency. The first was Confidence Men. I really like and recommend both.
Despite both having a very different focus, I feel like they actually complement one another well. The reason I say that is that in my eyes the central story of Obama's first two years in office is the disconnect between the excitement of far-reaching progress and the disappointment of failing to meet higher and further-reaching expectations. New New Deal thus does a good job of playing glass half full to Confidence Men's glass half empty.
I still remember when the stimulus was coming out and reading through how far reaching it was. For someone who followed Obama's campaign closely, it was a pretty overwhelming payday. Health Care IT, smart grid investments, energy R&D, Race to the Top, Making Work Pay, superfund sites, high speed rail, all at once, all within a month of coming into office. Which is of course super awkward when you want to list the reasons you like Obama so much, and say "the stimulus" referring to like 18 different things, not one of which is know to low information voters.
Anyway, what I liked about this book:
1) Digs into the "reinvestment" portion of the stimulus in a fair amount of detail, looking at what its accomplished. Particularly detailed on the energy front.
2) Lot of analysis in the "good governance" angle of the stimulus. Given the enormous surge of funds relative to the various department's administrative capacities, Biden's relentless focus on this issue, and the positive results, this is a really cool and under-reported story.
3) Thoughtful recounting of events to help explain how Obama lost the messaging on the stimulus so completely. The public's inability to distinguish between ARRA and TARP, combined with Republican pummelling, an almost incoherent mess of programs, and the white house's insistence that good policy speaks for itself all play various roles.
4) Nice to hear Rahm and Biden's take on what was going down when the Senate demanded a pound of flesh for cloture. Interesting look at how that played out and caused tension between the white house, senate and house.
What I did not like about this book:
1) Description of programs too focused on absolute effects rather than relative. The only reasons for a journalist to do this is because they don't understand why the latter is more important or because they just want to say the thing that sounds better.
2) More partisan dogma than I'd have hoped for. Not that I disagree with Grunwald when he goes this route, it just wasn't what I wanted to get out of the book. Presumably he simply knew who his target audience was going to be on this one and wanted to slap them on the back a few times.
3) Would have been nice had Grunwald trimmed down the history a bit, and dug into some of the other programs and thoroughly as he did energy.
Overall, I think this book in interesting, informative, and recommend it to anyone. Forceful and genuine defense of a great bill that deserves forceful and genuine defenders.
Despite both having a very different focus, I feel like they actually complement one another well. The reason I say that is that in my eyes the central story of Obama's first two years in office is the disconnect between the excitement of far-reaching progress and the disappointment of failing to meet higher and further-reaching expectations. New New Deal thus does a good job of playing glass half full to Confidence Men's glass half empty.
I still remember when the stimulus was coming out and reading through how far reaching it was. For someone who followed Obama's campaign closely, it was a pretty overwhelming payday. Health Care IT, smart grid investments, energy R&D, Race to the Top, Making Work Pay, superfund sites, high speed rail, all at once, all within a month of coming into office. Which is of course super awkward when you want to list the reasons you like Obama so much, and say "the stimulus" referring to like 18 different things, not one of which is know to low information voters.
Anyway, what I liked about this book:
1) Digs into the "reinvestment" portion of the stimulus in a fair amount of detail, looking at what its accomplished. Particularly detailed on the energy front.
2) Lot of analysis in the "good governance" angle of the stimulus. Given the enormous surge of funds relative to the various department's administrative capacities, Biden's relentless focus on this issue, and the positive results, this is a really cool and under-reported story.
3) Thoughtful recounting of events to help explain how Obama lost the messaging on the stimulus so completely. The public's inability to distinguish between ARRA and TARP, combined with Republican pummelling, an almost incoherent mess of programs, and the white house's insistence that good policy speaks for itself all play various roles.
4) Nice to hear Rahm and Biden's take on what was going down when the Senate demanded a pound of flesh for cloture. Interesting look at how that played out and caused tension between the white house, senate and house.
What I did not like about this book:
1) Description of programs too focused on absolute effects rather than relative. The only reasons for a journalist to do this is because they don't understand why the latter is more important or because they just want to say the thing that sounds better.
2) More partisan dogma than I'd have hoped for. Not that I disagree with Grunwald when he goes this route, it just wasn't what I wanted to get out of the book. Presumably he simply knew who his target audience was going to be on this one and wanted to slap them on the back a few times.
3) Would have been nice had Grunwald trimmed down the history a bit, and dug into some of the other programs and thoroughly as he did energy.
Overall, I think this book in interesting, informative, and recommend it to anyone. Forceful and genuine defense of a great bill that deserves forceful and genuine defenders.
Phoenician_Viking
Banned
The more Romney refuses or delays to reveal his taxes the better the situation is for Obama. I say let him delay it and play it down. It will harm him more the longest it goes on. I can´t believe how dumb Romney has been with regards to his taxes. He could have avoided all this shitstorm or at least contained it. Now he wants to put his taxes off limit for add campaigns LOL.
Catholics in general have a better track record than evangelicals, but who knows.
Black Mamba
Member
He's not releasing them because releasing them means his campaign is dead. I'd bet more than anything his swiss account was illegal and he took the amnesty.
Imagine he released it and they found out he had millions in an illegal off-shore account he hid from the government from 2002-2009 and took an amnesty in which he paid a hefty fine to the IRS for.
His campaign would be finished.
- Status