Support NeoGAF

[Tamanon]

So, when did Mitt Romney think that using Hillary Clinton in his ads would be a good idea?

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

So, when did Mitt Romney think that using Hillary Clinton in his ads would be a good idea?

When he found out he needed more white women or the Blue Dogs that backed her in 2008. She did win Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Edit: I did post an article some pages back about how he needs to win over 2/3 of both white men and non college whites to win. Or he needs to cut into Obama's margins with white women and minorities. And everyone knows he isn't going for the black/brown vote. In fact, I would like to hear one of our right leaning poster's thoughts on why a minority would vote for Romney?

 

[thatbox]

Now THIS is some cognitive dissonance.

You're forgetting all the other tax hikes that are incorporated into PPACA.

How often do you go to the tanning salon, Kosmo?

 

[Oblivion]

Now THIS is some cognitive dissonance.

You're forgetting all the other tax hikes that are incorporated into PPACA.

What other tax hikes are there? Off the top of my head there's the tax on:

-going to the tanning salons
-cigarettes (I think?)

Both of these are sales taxes, and both are regressive, so Republicans generally like them.

What else is there?

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

Tax on Cadillac plans, but that targets unions with nice benefits. Also some taxes on pharm and medical device companies because that is where all the money goes in our health system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Summary_of_funding

 

[cartoon_soldier]

OK, you two have officially been regulated to PD status when it comes to predictions. (Sorry PD, but a broken clock can be right twice a day you know.)

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=39317404&postcount=1704
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=39320633&postcount=1735

Your lack of faith is disturbing. Also, don't bother looking through my post history. I don't make predictions. =P

Hey, I was right until Roberts decided to change his mind. DAMN IT!

 

[PhoenixDark]

So, when did Mitt Romney think that using Hillary Clinton in his ads would be a good idea?

Well last week he did an "Obama the celebrity" ad so this was the next step in the playbook.

 

[Kosmo]

What other tax hikes are there? Off the top of my head there's the tax on:

-going to the tanning salons
-cigarettes (I think?)

Both of these are sales taxes, and both are regressive, so Republicans generally like them.

What else is there?

Funny, I thought supporters would know what was actually in the bill. Now ask who will be paying these (i.e. taxes always get passed to consumers).

http://news.investors.com/article/6...urt-confirms-obamacare-massive-tax-burden.htm

The new taxes, which cost some $675 billion over the next decade, include:

• A 2.3% excise tax on U.S. sales of medical devices that's already devastating the medical supply industry and its workforce. The levy is a $20 billion blow to an industry that employs roughly 400,000.

Several major manufacturers have been roiled, including: Michigan-based Stryker Corp., which blames the tax for 1,000 layoffs; Indiana-based Zimmer Corp., which cites the tax in laying off 450 and taking a $50 million charge against earnings; Indiana-based Cook Medical Inc., which has scrubbed plans to open a U.S. factory; Minnesota-based Medtronic Inc., which expects an annual charge against earnings of $175 million, and Boston Scientific Corp., which has opted to open plants in tax-friendlier Ireland and China to help offset a $100 million charge against earnings.

• A 3.8% surtax on investment income from capital gains and dividends that applies to single filers earning more than $200,000 and married couples filing jointly earning more than $250,000.

• A $50,000 excise tax on charitable hospitals that fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance" and other rules set by the Health and Human Services Dept.

• A $24 billion tax on the paper industry to control a pollutant known as black liquor.

• A $2.3 billion-a-year tax on drug companies.

• A 10% excise tax on indoor tanning salons.

• An $87 billion hike in Medicare payroll taxes for employees, as well as the self-employed.

• A hike in the threshold for writing off medical expenses to 10% of adjusted gross income from 7.5%.

• A new cap on flexible spending accounts of $2,500 a year.

• Elimination of the tax deduction for employer-provided prescription drug coverage for Medicare recipients.

• An income surtax of 1% of adjusted gross income, rising to 2.5% by 2016, on individuals who refuse to go along with ObamaCare by buying a policy not OK'd by the government.

• A $2,000 tax charged to employers with 50 or more workers for every full-time worker not offered health coverage.

• A $60 billion tax on health insurers.

• A 40% excise tax on so-called Cadillac, or higher cost, health insurance plans.

All told, there are 21 new or higher taxes imposed by Obama's health care law.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Paul Ryan continues his dive of the deep end (when will the Media notice?)

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.c...-obamacare-because-rights-come-from?ref=fpblg

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

Funny, I thought supporters would know what was actually in the bill. Now ask who will be paying these (i.e. taxes always get passed to consumers).

Kosmo why don't you link to your sources man? You seem to do this an awful lot. I don't want to be reading some blaze crap and taking it at face value. You can cry all you like about tpm and thinkprogress links, but at least you know where it comes from. Your quote includes choice lines like these:

• An income surtax of 1% of adjusted gross income, rising to 2.5% by 2016, on individuals who refuse to go along with ObamaCare by buying a policy not OK'd by the government.

All told, there are 21 new or higher taxes imposed by Obama's health care law — and 21 more reasons to repeal it.

Edit: Don't think you can edit out that last part. If you want, then I can provide the screen caps.

 

[Kosmo]

Kosmo why don't you link to your sources man. You seem to do this an awful lot. I don't want to be reading some blaze crap and taking it at face value. You can cry all you like about tpm and linkprogress links, but at least you know where it comes from. Your quote includes choice lines like these:



Edit: Don't think you can edit out that last part. If you want, then I can provide the screen caps.

http://news.investors.com/article/6...urt-confirms-obamacare-massive-tax-burden.htm

You can not like the editorial that was put in there, but point out where the facts are wrong.

 

[Clevinger]

Paul Ryan continues his dive of the deep end (when will the Media notice?)

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.c...-obamacare-because-rights-come-from?ref=fpblg

His whole "No, seriously, I'm a great Christian" shtick since he started pretending he hates/doesn't love Ayn Rand has been hilarious. God, what a wretched human being.

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

http://news.investors.com/article/6...urt-confirms-obamacare-massive-tax-burden.htm

You can not like the editorial that was put in there, but point out where the facts are wrong.

I don't care to point out where it is wrong. Just want you to put links in your posts when you pull information from outside sources. Seems only fair to me and not too much to ask for. Especially if you are going to be using a lot of the content that author created. Got to site your stuff man.

 

[Kosmo]

I don't care to point out where it is wrong. Just want you to put links in your posts when you pull information from outside sources. Seems only fair to me and not too much to ask for. Especially if you are going to be using a lot of the content that author created. Got to site your stuff man.

If you have a problem with the facts, feel free to argue them - the citation has been provided, now go on with your babble.

 

[Jackson50]

i still think there is a point of diminishing returns and this teeth gnashing at how much money Romney has is meaningless.

Indeed, the benefits of campaign fundraising diminishes especially in presidential elections as resources are more balanced. Now, the effects differ slightly depending on what the money produces. Additional campaign advertising is effectively worthless. The public is inundated with advertisements during a presidential election. And additional ads are a mere drop in a vast ocean; that's primarily why the purported effects of SuperPAC advertising have been exaggerated. Conversely, if the money is spent on constructing field offices and canvassing, the additional money can have a small, yet appreciable effect. But as the campaign progresses, even the effects of canvassing are attenuated by temporal constraints. To borrow my response to Romney's fundraising performance in May, the numbers are instructive insofar that they largely disprove the notion of a conservative enthusiasm deficit.

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

If you have a problem with the facts, feel free to argue them - the citation has been provided, now go on with your babble.

Why you so angry man? Spelling was never my forte. I often go back and edit my posts if I find a grammar or spelling mistake. I excelled at History and Math. But this is just me babbling.

 

[Kosmo]

Why you so angry man? Spelling was never my forte. I often go back and edit my posts if I find a grammar or spelling mistake. I excelled at History and Math. But this is just me babbling.

As long as we agree on the tax increases, no problem here.

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

As long as we agree on the tax increases, no problem here.

And that the bill is paid for and won't increase the deficit one cent. Sure thing.

 

[Kosmo]

And that the bill is paid for and won't increase the deficit one cent. Sure thing.

Saving quote for future use.

Ditto.

 

[Oblivion]

Funny, I thought supporters would know what was actually in the bill. Now ask who will be paying these (i.e. taxes always get passed to consumers).

I like how in some instances it mentions the tax rates, while in others it uses whole dollar amounts.

Paul Ryan continues his dive of the deep end (when will the Media notice?)

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.c...-obamacare-because-rights-come-from?ref=fpblg

He's been on a roll today: "Our Cuts to Medicare Go TOWARDS Medicare!"

 

[Oblivion]

Paul Ryan continues his dive of the deep end (when will the Media notice?)

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.c...-obamacare-because-rights-come-from?ref=fpblg

Also, this still brings up the question: even if it is or isn't "God's law", the government is the only one that can enforce it. It's a meaningless statement.

 

[Kosmo]

I like how in some instances it mentions the tax rates, while in others it uses whole dollar amounts.
[/url]

I like how in neither case you've tried to refute them.

 

[Oblivion]

I like how in neither case you've tried to refute them.

Actually, I can accept that those are accurate (even if they're worded to make them sound more ominous than they are), I just thought it was amusing how they described them.

 

[ezekial45]

Like they matter, but a new poll from reuters and ipos shows that support for healthcare reform went up.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/poll-support-for-obamacare-up-after-supreme-court

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

Actually, I can accept that those are accurate (even if they're worded to make them sound more ominous than they are), I just thought it was amusing how they described them.

You should go to the link. The whole thing is suppose to give you the willies. Obama's "hidden" taxes is the title. I mean the whole thing cost 1 trillion dollars to implement. How else are you suppose to insure 30 million people? I'm not too scared that the Republicans are going to paint him as a tax raiser. They were going to do that anyway. I'm just glad Kosmo agreed that Obamacare won't add to the deficit since he paid for everything in it.

 

[sc0la]

Like they matter, but a new poll from reuters and ipos shows that support for healthcare reform went up.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/poll-support-for-obamacare-up-after-supreme-court

my guess is truly undecided folks may continue to shift now that SC has made a ruling. To them this confirms it is constitutional. For certain IiNOs (independents in name only ) it was never going to be "constitutional" for a certain segment regardless of what the SC said.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Like they matter, but a new poll from reuters and ipos shows that support for healthcare reform went up.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/poll-support-for-obamacare-up-after-supreme-court

I won't buy that until more polls reflect similar results. Ultimately I do believe many people became more supportive of the law recently after realizing what benefits could be shitcanned by the SC; just as when the law was passed, the media was actually forced to discuss what the bill actually does instead of focus on the pure politics of it.

I do believe the law will become progressively more popular as time goes by, especially if Obama is re-elected

 

[Cloudy]

Sure, he came around to the right decision. And in my opinion, he was 100% for gay marriage all along. But the point is he supported something, changed his mind because it was "politically convenient", and then shifted it back again when he was forced. I'd say Obama is guilty of this sort of thing on a number of occasions.

Thing is, you didn't see Obama attacking anyone else based on their opposition to gay marriage. That's why Romeny's stance on healthcare is so blatantly bullshit

 

[Averon]

Fascinating article on Roberts' decision to uphold most of ACA. Thanks to Forever from the ACA thread in the OT for posting this.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57464549/roberts-switched-views-to-uphold-health-care-law/

Roberts switched views to uphold health care law

Chief Justice John Roberts initially sided with the Supreme Court's four conservative justices to strike down the heart of President Obama's health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, but later changed his position and formed an alliance with liberals to uphold the bulk of the law, according to two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations.

Roberts then withstood a month-long, desperate campaign to bring him back to his original position, the sources said. Ironically, Justice Anthony Kennedy - believed by many conservatives to be the justice most likely to defect and vote for the law - led the effort to try to bring Roberts back to the fold.

"He was relentless," one source said of Kennedy's efforts. "He was very engaged in this."

But this time, Roberts held firm. And so the conservatives handed him their own message which, as one justice put it, essentially translated into, "You're on your own."

The conservatives refused to join any aspect of his opinion, including sections with which they agreed, such as his analysis imposing limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause, the sources said.

Instead, the four joined forces and crafted a highly unusual, unsigned joint dissent. They deliberately ignored Roberts' decision, the sources said, as if they were no longer even willing to engage with him in debate.

...

But in this closely-watched case, word of Roberts' unusual shift has spread widely within the Court, and is known among law clerks, chambers' aides and secretaries. It also has stirred the ire of the conservative justices, who believed Roberts was standing with them.

After the historic oral arguments in March, the two knowledgeable sources said, Roberts and the four conservatives were poised to strike down at least the individual mandate. There were other issues being argued - severability and the Medicaid extension - but the mandate was the ballgame.

Over the next six weeks, as Roberts began to craft the decision striking down the mandate, the external pressure began to grow. Roberts almost certainly was aware of it.

...

But Roberts pays attention to media coverage. As Chief Justice, he is keenly aware of his leadership role on the Court, and he also is sensitive to how the Court is perceived by the public

It was around this time that it also became clear to the conservative justices that Roberts was, as one put it, "wobbly," the sources said.


...

In hind sight Kennedy was never a swing vote. And if this article is anything to go by, it look like Roberts did switch because of legacy concerns. There's much more in the article.

 

[Oblivion]

As some Breitbrat mentioned the other day, Roberts is the worst thing to come out of the Bush legacy.

 

[Amir0x]

I can't believe he went that far to save the ACA. I guess legacy really MUST have been a factor, in some sense.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Funny, I thought supporters would know what was actually in the bill. Now ask who will be paying these (i.e. taxes always get passed to consumers).

So I decided to look some of this stuff up. I randomly chose one of them.. the Black Liquor tax and began my search. So far it has been incredibly difficult to find any information regarding this this supposed tax without being overwhelmed by tea party and other crap blogs, but I eventually found this link: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/06/29/the_coming_obamatax_bomb

Which finally sourced where in the bill the tax was.

3. “Black liquor” tax hike (Tax hike of $23.6 billion). This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 105

Page 105 of the Reconciliation Act.

I then went over to: http://www.healthcare.gov/law/full/

and downloaded the reconciliation Act. It's only 55 pages. Crap. Is this not the full version? Anyone have it? I'm having trouble finding anything on Black liquor. I tried searching the full pdf of the ACA and I can't seem to find a mention of black liquor on there either. Is there another term for black liquor? Anyone have the exact text for this tax?

I did seem to find some info on Wikipedia that mentioned how "[t]he bio-fuel credit for Black Liquor ended on Jan 1, 2010." Is this the new tax that is being referenced? An end to a tax credit?

EDIT

I think I found the full pdf of the Reconciliation Act.. scanning now.


EDIT2

Never mind, not the right bill.

I tried searching here: http://www.gpo.gov/ and I can only find the same 55 page bill. Anyone have an idea where this Black liquor tax increase can be found?

 

[Doc Holliday]

Stupid question..GOP are saying they can use reconciliation to repeal. But didn't the bill pass the first time with a 60 seat majority?

 

[GaimeGuy]

As long as we agree on the tax increases, no problem here.

Who gives a shit if it increases taxes? Taxing money and spending money are mechanisms through which government achieves goals.

Why are the bank deposits and withdrawal transactions the only damn thing conservatives care about when it comes to fiscal policy?

 

[Particle Physicist]

Ok. I found more info on this Black Liquor stuff. As far as I can find, pulp and paper industries (including Koch Industries .......), had a nice little tax loophole that was closed by the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act in 2010.

So Kosmo, your source is either mixing a bunch of stuff up, or there is something else I am missing, because I cannot seem to find it in the actual PPACA or Reconciliation Act.

 

[dramatis]

...I then went over to: http://www.healthcare.gov/law/full/...

Is it this?

SEC. 1408. ELIMINATION OF UNINTENDED APPLICATION OF CELLULOSIC BIOFUEL PRODUCER CREDIT.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 40(b)(6)(E) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new clause:

(iii) EXCLUSION OF UNPROCESSED FUELS.—The term ‘cellulosic biofuel’ shall not include any fuel if—

(I) more than 4 percent of such fuel (determined by weight) is any combination of water and sediment, or
(II) the ash content of such fuel is more than 1 percent (determined by weight).’’.​

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by this section shall apply to fuels sold or used on or after January 1, 2010.

It's under Title I, Subtitle E of the 2010 Reconciliation Act.

Ironically, it's not a tax increase, but a bit of a closing of a loophole, so to speak. Redefining what a 'cellulosic biofuel' is, in order to avoid giving out as many tax credits.

So Kosmo, your source is either mixing a bunch of stuff up, or there is something else I am missing, because I cannot seem to find it in the actual PPACA or Reconciliation Act.

I'm curious about his source too, since his original post lacked a link.

 

[Kosmo]

EDIT: missed post above.

To be fair, I am not for corporate tax credits, such as this and others that the oil industry, big agriculture, etc. benefit from. Eliminating them, however, is a tax increase, not matter how you slice it.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Come on Kosmo lol

 

[kehs]

EDIT: missed post above.

To be fair, I am not for corporate tax credits, such as this and others that the oil industry, big agriculture, etc. benefit from. Eliminating them, however, is a tax increase, not matter how you slice it.

I was gonna give you some money earlier, but I decided not too.

That means I stole from you.

Makes sense if you really think about it.

 

[ezekial45]

http://healthreform.kff.org/quizzes/health-reform-quiz/results-page.aspx

Just for fun, have you done this? I got 8/10. I'm tempted to post this on my FB page.

 

[Atilac]

EDIT: missed post above.

To be fair, I am not for corporate tax credits, such as this and others that the oil industry, big agriculture, etc. benefit from. Eliminating them, however, is a tax increase, not matter how you slice it.

Negative; eliminating a corporate tax credit is removing a government expenditure.

 

[GhaleonEB]

True about barring insurance companies from participating in exchanges, but that is more of denying them an incentive than actually punishing them and altering their behavior.

Locking companies out of the exchanges, and thus access to millions of new customers, is a pretty strong incentive.

I wouldn't call 1) How it is funded 2) The authority to punish individuals and companies that don't comply 3) the amount of money that poor people will actually have to pay as topics that are "on the edges". They are pretty large differences that effect both the scope and effectiveness of the overall plan.

I would, actually. The overall scheme provides for many levers and knobs that can be adjusted, and the two systems are broadly similar. They do have some different settings for things like subsidy levels and incentives for the insurance companies, but I'd argue they will end up arriving at similar results, but with what I expect to be better cost controls and delivery system reforms in the ACA.

 

[Kosmo]

I was gonna give you some money earlier, but I decided not too.

That means I stole from you.

Makes sense if you really think about it.

That's ok.

I kept my money. That means I'm FORCING you to run a bigger deficit because you can't find politically palatable cuts in spending.

 

[RoninChaos]

EDIT: missed post above.

To be fair, I am not for corporate tax credits, such as this and others that the oil industry, big agriculture, etc. benefit from. Eliminating them, however, is a tax increase, not matter how you slice it.

Yes. Making sure corporations actual pay what they should instead of using a loop hole to pay less than they should is a tax increase. C'mon son. The fact that you'd even categorize it as such speaks quite a bit about you.

 

[Kosmo]

Yes. Making sure corporations actual pay what they should instead of using a loop hole is a tax increase. C'mon son.

Sorry, we have differing views on taxes. Corporations have been paying what they should, according to the law - those loopholes exist for a reason and unless we are willing to get down to a simplified corporate tax system, we're spinning our wheels. No tax breaks for Big Ag, no tax breaks for solar and wind, etc.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Sorry, we have differing views on taxes. Corporations have been paying what they should, according to the law - those loopholes exist for a reason and unless we are willing to get down to a simplified corporate tax system, we're spinning our wheels. No tax breaks for Big Ag, no tax breaks for solar and wind, etc.

And when the tax breaks are eliminated, they'll be paying what they should according to the law.

What are you trying to argue? That what is, must always be?

 

[Mario]

http://healthreform.kff.org/quizzes/health-reform-quiz/results-page.aspx

Just for fun, have you done this? I got 8/10. I'm tempted to post this on my FB page.

"You answered 10 out of 10 questions correctly, better than 99.6% of Americans."

Wow.

I don't even live in the US.

 

[Kosmo]

And when the tax breaks are eliminated, they'll be paying what they should according to the law.

What are you trying to argue? That what is, must always be?

The law stated that they didn't have to pay those taxes because they met certain conditions - what the fuck are you talking about? This is no different than people not paying taxes because the "condition" they meet is they don't make enough money.

The law is the law - or are you suggesting there are a whole bunch of companies that qualified for these tax breaks/credits that we should be prosecuting?

 

[Oblivion]

I got 10 out of 10 too. Go me!

"You answered 10 out of 10 questions correctly, better than 99.6% of Americans."

Wow.

I don't even live in the US.

That's why you got them all right.

 

[Mario]

That's why you got them all right.

To be fair, I watch Fox News on occasion for the lulz (Daily Show and Colbert Report not currently airing here), so had every chance of being misinformed by osmosis

But seriously, I am astonished by how misinformed the US public seems to be on this topic along with tax "increases", Obama's religion, details/effectiveness of bailouts etc.

I mean, I got 10 out of 10 here and I have barely looked at the details of Health Care Reform. I only really have a cursory understanding, and that of an outsider at that.