Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
Derp, I was referring to how every long quote seems to have bolded lines, like we can't read.
-
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
- Thread starter AlteredBeast
- Start date
- Status
Derp, I was referring to how every long quote seems to have bolded lines, like we can't read.
Invisible_Insane
Member
Not typically an issue I see in this thread, though, which is why the joke fell a little flat.
Dude Abides
Banned
But what does Ja Rule think?
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
Your ritalin edit was a real zinger
Invisible_Insane
Member
True. It was good and subtle. Like a lot of trolls, but this was actually positive. Nice.
Also, I just re-watched Lawrence of Arabia Rusty, nice avatar.
RustyNails
Member
A documentary about Obama's first term is going to be released on the 15th. Here is the trailer, which is narrated by Tom Hanks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXtJhLUOFXE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXtJhLUOFXE
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
OOPS! Romney Lets Slip An Uncomfortable Truth About His Tax Plan
BRIAN BEUTLER MARCH 7, 2012, 10:06 AM
On CNBC Wednesday morning, Mitt Romney was given a breather from political questions about his appeal to GOP primary voters and allowed to discuss substance. When it was all over, he probably wished it had been the other way around. Brushing back a question about independent analyses, which conclude his plan will blow a huge hole in the budget, Romney accidentally hinted at a key fact about his fiscal policy: he left out all the hard stuff.
I think its interesting for the groups to try and score it because it cant be scored because those kind of details have to be worked out with Congress and we have a wide array of options, Romney said.
To the extent that this is true, its because Romneys been intentionally vague about the politically challenging parts of his plan.
Because Gov. Romney has not specified how he would increase the tax base, it is impossible to determine how the plan would affect federal tax revenues or the distribution of the tax burden, noted the Tax Policy Center, in their analysis of his proposal.
In a narrower, heavy-on-the-Beltway-jargon sense, Romney is correct. In Washington parlance, a score is a cost-estimate provided by official government analysts of fully fleshed out legislation not a preliminary analysis of a policy white-paper.
But think tanks can get very close to the mark when candidates and lawmakers put forward plain-language proposals, as Romney has. And contrary to his claims, what they say is that his plan to give every taxpayer a 20 percent rate cut, eliminate the estate tax, and exempt investment income will dig the government into a huge cash hole hell have to fill with unpopular cuts to federal programs like Medicare, and by eliminating popular tax benefits. That is, if he wants to make good on his promises to keep defense spending high, and to improve the countrys fiscal imbalances.
Romney glossed over this.
[W]ere going to cut the top marginal rate across the board by 20% and at the same time, were going to limit the deductions and exemptions to pay for most of that, Romney said. And then additional growth will pay for the rest of that such that our plan does not increase the deficit. And then combine that with the savings I just described with Tom in terms of cutting back several government programs or eliminating some of those programs and we finally get america to a balanced budget.
This rests on the widely disputed assumption that his tax cut plan will spur enough economic growth to significantly offset its own costs. And it lacks any specificity about what popular programs and tax benefits Medicare? The home mortgage interest deduction? he plans to cut or eliminate to offset the massive revenue reduction.
Absent the tax reforms Romneys promised, but not specified, TPC estimates that on a static basis, the Romney plan would lower federal tax liability by about $480 billion in calendar year 2015, compared to current policy. Its probably impossible to fill a gap of that size which calls into question his revenue neutrality claim.
And his other claim that the plan doesnt make the tax code less progressive? Also dubious.
According to the liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, even if the tax changes themselves managed not to make the tax code less progressive a goal that the Romney plan would be hard-pressed to achieve, given its proposals to cut tax rates across the board, abolish the estate tax and the AMT, and retain the current low rate for capital gains spending cuts of the magnitude needed to offset the revenue losses would necessarily have to hit hard at Medicare, Medicaid, and/or Social Security and at programs for people with low or moderate incomes. It is hard to imagine that the net effect would not be to shift income up the income scale and widen after-tax income inequality.
To boil it all down, the federal government by and large spends money on national security, popular programs for the poor and old, and on broader benefits via expenditures in the tax code. Romney wants to shrink the pool of money dramatically, without cutting spending on that first big category. Thats consistent with the conservative movements goal of starving the beast and phasing out domestic support programs. But their leading candidate wont say thats what he plans to do.
########################
So his tax plan can't be scored? Doesn't Romney need to care about that in the GE if he's going to claim that his budget will lower the deficit and it better than Obama's?
BRIAN BEUTLER MARCH 7, 2012, 10:06 AM
On CNBC Wednesday morning, Mitt Romney was given a breather from political questions about his appeal to GOP primary voters and allowed to discuss substance. When it was all over, he probably wished it had been the other way around. Brushing back a question about independent analyses, which conclude his plan will blow a huge hole in the budget, Romney accidentally hinted at a key fact about his fiscal policy: he left out all the hard stuff.
I think its interesting for the groups to try and score it because it cant be scored because those kind of details have to be worked out with Congress and we have a wide array of options, Romney said.
To the extent that this is true, its because Romneys been intentionally vague about the politically challenging parts of his plan.
Because Gov. Romney has not specified how he would increase the tax base, it is impossible to determine how the plan would affect federal tax revenues or the distribution of the tax burden, noted the Tax Policy Center, in their analysis of his proposal.
In a narrower, heavy-on-the-Beltway-jargon sense, Romney is correct. In Washington parlance, a score is a cost-estimate provided by official government analysts of fully fleshed out legislation not a preliminary analysis of a policy white-paper.
But think tanks can get very close to the mark when candidates and lawmakers put forward plain-language proposals, as Romney has. And contrary to his claims, what they say is that his plan to give every taxpayer a 20 percent rate cut, eliminate the estate tax, and exempt investment income will dig the government into a huge cash hole hell have to fill with unpopular cuts to federal programs like Medicare, and by eliminating popular tax benefits. That is, if he wants to make good on his promises to keep defense spending high, and to improve the countrys fiscal imbalances.
Romney glossed over this.
[W]ere going to cut the top marginal rate across the board by 20% and at the same time, were going to limit the deductions and exemptions to pay for most of that, Romney said. And then additional growth will pay for the rest of that such that our plan does not increase the deficit. And then combine that with the savings I just described with Tom in terms of cutting back several government programs or eliminating some of those programs and we finally get america to a balanced budget.
This rests on the widely disputed assumption that his tax cut plan will spur enough economic growth to significantly offset its own costs. And it lacks any specificity about what popular programs and tax benefits Medicare? The home mortgage interest deduction? he plans to cut or eliminate to offset the massive revenue reduction.
Absent the tax reforms Romneys promised, but not specified, TPC estimates that on a static basis, the Romney plan would lower federal tax liability by about $480 billion in calendar year 2015, compared to current policy. Its probably impossible to fill a gap of that size which calls into question his revenue neutrality claim.
And his other claim that the plan doesnt make the tax code less progressive? Also dubious.
According to the liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, even if the tax changes themselves managed not to make the tax code less progressive a goal that the Romney plan would be hard-pressed to achieve, given its proposals to cut tax rates across the board, abolish the estate tax and the AMT, and retain the current low rate for capital gains spending cuts of the magnitude needed to offset the revenue losses would necessarily have to hit hard at Medicare, Medicaid, and/or Social Security and at programs for people with low or moderate incomes. It is hard to imagine that the net effect would not be to shift income up the income scale and widen after-tax income inequality.
To boil it all down, the federal government by and large spends money on national security, popular programs for the poor and old, and on broader benefits via expenditures in the tax code. Romney wants to shrink the pool of money dramatically, without cutting spending on that first big category. Thats consistent with the conservative movements goal of starving the beast and phasing out domestic support programs. But their leading candidate wont say thats what he plans to do.
########################
So his tax plan can't be scored? Doesn't Romney need to care about that in the GE if he's going to claim that his budget will lower the deficit and it better than Obama's?
RustyNails
Member
Good stuff. My only issues with Obama are his civil liberties record: NDAA, extension of Patriot Act, FISA bill, etc. I also severely dislike his groveling to Israel at every opportunity, but that's like a built-in feature with every President. Other things I'm cool with.
Invisible_Insane
Member
His campaign tax plan is literally bullshit, but I don't see how that's particularly scandalous. It just means that he and Obama are both free to decide what it means. Besides, Romney would have appealed to dynamic scoring, just like Paul Ryan, since it's likely that the only way his plan makes any sense is with manifestly absurd assumptions.
Also I don't quite understand how revenue-neutrality became a virtue. The problem is that we're not raising enough money.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Only issues? His record on civil liberties is worse than Bush's.
Invisible_Insane
Member
Cool with expanding the war on drugs and cracking down on whistleblowers? I'm going to vote for the man but there's a lot not to like.
Not to defend some of this awful shit, but aren't some of these things just becoming built-in features to any politician now? I mean the NDAA wasn't exactly a hard bill to get through congress. Didn't it barely get any votes against it at all?
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Very well put together. Will they run this trailer in real movie theaters?
RustyNails
Member
I'm not realllly up in arms about war on drugs/legalize marijuana debates. It's an issue that's just not dear to me. Didn't hear about whistleblower rules, but again, I suppose it comes under civil liberties as well.
You're not missing anything.
Surprisingly, portraying a president on TV did not grant Mr. Sheen amazing insight about politics.
But he did bring the hilaristupid -
"I wonder how many of those progressives are black? How many of those progressives understand historically what happened?"
p.s.
The West Wing sucks.
The special that came on after was interesting. I had no idea Peter O'Toole spent two years with the director in the desert filming it. Then when Dean went on to cast Dr. Zhivago he asked O'Toole to lead it. Add he turned it down so Sharif got it. O'Toole was sick of spending so much time together and the prospect of two years in the Russian tundra was not appealing.
RustyNails
Member
As much as I think Peter O' Toole was magnetic in Lawrence, Omar Sharif was tailor made for Dr Zhivago. I can't imagine anyone else in that role. And yeah, you can't really blame O Toole for not wanting to spend another two years in an essentially ice desert.
speculawyer
Member
They should just score it using the parts that he concretely specifies. He concretely specifies a 20% across tax cut . . . put that in the score. He fails to specify what deductions or exemptions will be limited . . . doesn't get in the score. He fails to specify what programs will be cut and how much . . . doesn't get in the score.
The net score result: massive deficit growth. If he doesn't like that score, then he is free to start giving additional specific details on what programs are cut and what deductions will be eliminated. But you can't get away with just claiming you'll cut taxes and have the deficit shrink.
RustyNails
Member
speculawyer
Member
His civil liberties record does suck. But he did eliminate torture, so I don't think it is fair to call it worse than Bush's. That is a big step up in that area even though he has made things worse in other areas.
I'm a little surprised by that. Granted, they haven't had a field of inspiring candidates. However, I thought the hatred of Obama was strong enough to drive some enthusiasm. I guess not. I guess a lot of people have just gotten used to him and the crappy GOP candidates don't inspire people enough to boot him out. Maybe all of Obama's cross-aisle efforts were not in vain. Although he hasn't gotten people to like him, he has diffused the hatred it seems.
And things like this are why Obama is going to have a gigantic edge in the election.
Mitt is spending millions to take out Santorum and Gingrinch and saying crazy shit to pander to the right, meanwhile Obama is releasing Documentaries basically unchallenged about what he has done
Mitt cannot fight a war on two fronts, he needs the GOP nomination to be overwith and his money directed for the GE
Not that I think Mitt has a snowballs chance in hell if the Economy stays stable, but how the GOP cannot see the bloodbath that is awaiting him just amazes me
So even though voting was up in Ohio over when McCain took it, Romney still basically split the state. That has to hurt
I've really got to buy some stock in tin foil...
speculawyer
Member
Yeah, I read through that a bit thinking it was about Bruce Barlett who's been saying some interesting stuff lately . . . then I realized it was stuff from a fictional character. Who cares?
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Uh oh?
Rocket Scientist
Member
I posted Gallup numbers once before and I think everyone said they're not that reliable or didn't mean that much.
LOL the fact Hannity is saying with a straight face that people have kept it under lock and key to avoid it getting out is great. I guess racism and tinfoil hats keep you from watching PBS or youtube
Yeah, pretty sure Gallup's unemployment numbers are shit.
cartoon_soldier
Member
A reuters survey today morning did talk about economists feeling UE increasing over summer due to seasonal adjustments.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
As an aside, regarding the Obama/radical liberal nonsense:
The worst part of the Republican strategy in trying to paint Obama (a completely mundane, if rhetorically effective centrist) as a radical because he associated with well-known professors overlooks the entire counter-culture movement of which they were previously part!
Clearly, the hypocrisy works. I personally know former hippies and vietnam vets that have completely forgotten what they fought for back then, only to claim that someone as generic and safe as a Harvard Grad could be some crazy revolutionary.
The other thing is that it just makes them look so silly to educated elites, because they know what the fuck was happening at the time. Reminds me of the Henry Louis Gates controversy. HLG is one of the most respected historians alive, and here FOXNEWS was trying their damnedest to make it an overt racial, radical issue. Just bizarre.
The worst part of the Republican strategy in trying to paint Obama (a completely mundane, if rhetorically effective centrist) as a radical because he associated with well-known professors overlooks the entire counter-culture movement of which they were previously part!
Clearly, the hypocrisy works. I personally know former hippies and vietnam vets that have completely forgotten what they fought for back then, only to claim that someone as generic and safe as a Harvard Grad could be some crazy revolutionary.
The other thing is that it just makes them look so silly to educated elites, because they know what the fuck was happening at the time. Reminds me of the Henry Louis Gates controversy. HLG is one of the most respected historians alive, and here FOXNEWS was trying their damnedest to make it an overt racial, radical issue. Just bizarre.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Not seasonally adjusted. UE might rise slightly in tomorrow's numbers, who knows. But at least 200k jobs will be in the report
This is why Gallup's numbers are a poor metric: employment and the seasonal adjustment.
Click on the graph.
Actually, there are several reasons. But the fact that they don't seasonally adjust means there's no good way to read their data. It will be noisy and not correlated with adjusted data.
Click on the graph.
Actually, there are several reasons. But the fact that they don't seasonally adjust means there's no good way to read their data. It will be noisy and not correlated with adjusted data.
How long until the government unemployment data has to be doubted and only Gallup's poll matters?
Looks pretty fucking awesome.
BUT...there's something kinda iffy about the Chairman producing his own documentary about himself.
Looks pretty good, and the production seems awesome, but man the right is going to run with this and paint it as propaganda...
SouthernDragon
Member
Meanwhile, they are resorting to *snicker* calling a Harvard Law Professor radical and a simple hug an endorsement of radicalism.
SteveWinwood
Member
empty vessel
Member
I love how it is just presumed that Derrick Bell is bad. No argument necessary. I had a textbook written by Bell in law school. In Texas. Not exactly a hotbed of radicalism. One of the best textbooks I read, too.
RobotMafia
Banned
Oh man the two dude Hannity had on are just huge douches aren't they? That guy on the left has such a smug little grin.
how can you just ignore the fact that he isn't white!?
empty vessel
Member
Seriously.
Rocket Scientist
Member
I don't get how the documentary is being released. I know they're doing that email thing only so they can spam people and tell them to vote, but is this going to be a publicly available doc or in theatres?
PhoenixDark
Banned
Which is why I'm confident Obama will not be re-elected
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...for-the-worst/2012/03/08/gIQA36cAzR_blog.html
The recovery is too weak, and there are too many potential land mines for democrats. Today the house put us steps closer to another govt shut down, gas prices are still ridiculous, Iran/Israel are a major problem, etc.
As UE rises again I expect people to turn on Obama. He's had his four years and didn't get it done - at least, that's what most voters will argue
gutter_trash
Banned
plus he spawned Charlie
We have conflicting data on this front. Presently, many economists are revising their expectations for the unemployment rate down and job gains up. Depending on tomorrow's number (I'm guessing 200-250k) we might see another round. I know you are doing your thing, but it is too early to sound such alarm bells.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked