PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
With all the hubbub about his taxes, why would Romney file an extension? Put your taxes out as far away from the election and get it over with. Kicking the can down the road is a bad move here in my opinion.
 
Officerrob said:
With all the hubbub about his taxes, why would Romney file an extension? Put your taxes out as far away from the election and get it over with. Kicking the can down the road is a bad move here in my opinion.
Click to expand...

yeah, pretty stupid move. Should have filed day one that he got his financial disclosures info in January
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...-ads/2012/04/13/gIQAzdtdFT_story.html?hpid=z2

An anonymous donor has given $10 million to run ads attacking President Obama and his policies, escalating the money race that is defining the 2012 presidential campaign.
Click to expand...

Crossroads GPS and its sister group, American Crossroads, hope to spend up to $300 million during the 2012 election cycle, promoting conservative ideas and helping elect Republicans up and down the ballot.
Click to expand...

Another news report said Romney and his Super PAC plan to raise 600 million (I am sure they are hoping the conservative grassroots will support the campaign while Super PAC continues to target big money donors)
 
elrechazao said:
Wasn't someone saying a few pages ago that romney will have no money to campaign with?
heh
Click to expand...

Isn't the Obama campaign expected to get around a billion dollars? The point is that Romney won't have the advantage of spending five times as much in ads, as he did on the primaries.

His campaign strategies will be even less effective in the general election, I would guess.
 
What's everyone's thoughts on the Buffett Rule?

Smart political move?

Is its intended consequence anything BUT political?

Would a smarter move, if the customer really is pushing for "fairness" and making everyone pay their fair share, to push for higher tax rates for everyone making 125k+?? Obviously that would not be the smart political thing to do, but he was pushing to be a great one-term president rather than a mediocre two-termer. Higher tax rates for most would do so much to erase the combo-breaking budget deficits the govt has produced since Bush lowered taxes and Obama kept them in place.
 
His first 4 years have been smart, effective compromises.

And the republicans tried to deny all of them.

His goal is to go into election season and show that yes, republicans can get even crazier. Some people may assume this was done just to make voters less trusting of somebody as rich as Romney, but I think the main goal with the Buffett Rule is to affect the congressional elections so that Obama can have a better chance of doing the things that he wants to do for his second term.
 
AlteredBeast said:
Higher tax rates for most would do so much to erase the combo-breaking budget deficits the govt has produced since Bush lowered taxes and Obama kept them in place.
Click to expand...

We don't need to worry about past deficits. The tax rate now should be whatever it needs to be to obtain a net spending that optimizes the economy as it exists now.

Whenever you say "deficit," I think "national bank," because the Congress has a silly law on the books left over from the gold standard days that requires the government to increase deposits at the national bank whenever it positively net spends by the exact size that it net spends, even though the two have nothing to do with each other.
 
elrechazao said:
Wasn't someone saying a few pages ago that romney will have no money to campaign with?

heh
Click to expand...

Whoever said that was foolish, Romney will get boat loads of money to run ads

Most of us are just saying it won't make a difference and Obama has more money he has not had to use.

I still openly LOL at anyone who thinks Romney is going to be some kind of cash cow and Obama will just take it like Santorum or Gingrinch did
 
All these hundreds of millions (billions?) spent on elections, and the vast majority of it is nothing more than overhead spent before anything actually gets governed.
 
Rasmussen has Romney leading Obama by 4% in current daily tracking. Can anyone track down the demographics of who was polled? Gotta be a crazy low amount of independents or something again, right?
 
AlteredBeast said:
Because people should have some added incentive for saving and investing. I am thinking that the first 200k or so should be tax-free or very low taxed, after that, it should go progressively higher, especially to avoid scenarios where people make tens of millions or billions and pay extremely low percentages of their income. In return, mortgage interest deduction should be controlled much better. Millionaires and billionaires don't need added incentives for owning one of their homes.
Click to expand...

That video I posted with Robert Reich shows why lowered capital gains taxes are bullshit, when it comes to private equity investors.
 
AlteredBeast said:
What's everyone's thoughts on the Buffett Rule?

Smart political move?

Is its intended consequence anything BUT political?

Would a smarter move, if the customer really is pushing for "fairness" and making everyone pay their fair share, to push for higher tax rates for everyone making 125k+?? Obviously that would not be the smart political thing to do, but he was pushing to be a great one-term president rather than a mediocre two-termer. Higher tax rates for most would do so much to erase the combo-breaking budget deficits the govt has produced since Bush lowered taxes and Obama kept them in place.
Click to expand...

I don't get how it's being dismissed because "it won't do much to solve the deficit". So? Is it really fair that the super-rich can pay lower tax rates than regular folks in many cases?

Is it political? Sure but that doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do! It won't solve the deficit by itself but it'd be a first step to restoring some fairness to the tax code.

It's also supported by 60% of the public.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/153887/Americans-Favor-Buffett-Rule.aspx

All the people knocking the healthcare law cos it's unpopular by a 47%-44% margin after non-stop attacks by the GOP are exposed as partisan hypocrites if they refuse to follow the so-called "will of the people" here!
 
AlteredBeast said:
Sometimes, you have just gotta love Rush. I would have laughed out loud had I heard that over the radio.
Click to expand...

A more appropriate joke would have been to make one about calling Anne Romney (like Obama did with Fluke). This dismissive attitude over the death of a kid is despicable IMO
 
Cloudy said:
A more appropriate joke would have been to make one about calling Anne Romney (like Obama did with Fluke). This dismissive attitude over the death of a kid is despicable IMO
Click to expand...

appropriate...joke...

That wasn't the point of his joke. Rush lives by his asinine and borderline sexist/racist/bigoted commentaries.
 
Sorry but I don't find flippant comments referencing a kid's death appropriate. I would have laughed if he made the Fluke reference.
 
If Rush had a daughter, she'd look half like Ann Romney, and half like one of the 8 year-old Dominican Republic girls he used Viagra to rape, and medical science would have to be notified because besides the girl being 8, there is no way his oxy-soaked balls work.
 
AlteredBeast said:
What's everyone's thoughts on the Buffett Rule?

Smart political move?

Is its intended consequence anything BUT political?

Would a smarter move, if the customer really is pushing for "fairness" and making everyone pay their fair share, to push for higher tax rates for everyone making 125k+?? Obviously that would not be the smart political thing to do, but he was pushing to be a great one-term president rather than a mediocre two-termer. Higher tax rates for most would do so much to erase the combo-breaking budget deficits the govt has produced since Bush lowered taxes and Obama kept them in place.
Click to expand...

It's nothing more than a political gimmick that would never pass. Obama has no ground on taxes: he doesn't have the votes to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, he doesn't have the votes to pass the Buffet Rule - nor will he have the votes after the election if he's lucky enough to be re-elected.

You're right, a tax increase on those making around 125k would make more sense, as would refusing to extend the Bush tax cuts, letting them expire, and then proposing a tax cut more in line with Clinton's (but lowered for middle and low income families to force republicans to support it due to their alleged "no tax raises" pledge)
 
PhoenixDark said:
It's nothing more than a political gimmick that would never pass. Obama has no ground on taxes: he doesn't have the votes to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, he doesn't have the votes to pass the Buffet Rule - nor will he have the votes after the election if he's lucky enough to be re-elected.

You're right, a tax increase on those making around 125k would make more sense, as would refusing to extend the Bush tax cuts, letting them expire, and then proposing a tax cut more in line with Clinton's (but lowered for middle and low income families to force republicans to support it due to their alleged "no tax raises" pledge)
Click to expand...
...he doesn't have to have the votes to repeal them, they expire on their own. The question with respect to EGTRRA is whether they will be extended or not.
 
PhoenixDark said:
It's nothing more than a political gimmick that would never pass. Obama has no ground on taxes: he doesn't have the votes to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, he doesn't have the votes to pass the Buffet Rule - nor will he have the votes after the election if he's lucky enough to be re-elected.

You're right, a tax increase on those making around 125k would make more sense, as would refusing to extend the Bush tax cuts, letting them expire, and then proposing a tax cut more in line with Clinton's (but lowered for middle and low income families to force republicans to support it due to their alleged "no tax raises" pledge)
Click to expand...

It is better detailed that Ryan's budget plan and offers a good contrast in this season to the differences between the two parties.
 
cartoon_soldier said:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...-ads/2012/04/13/gIQAzdtdFT_story.html?hpid=z2





Another news report said Romney and his Super PAC plan to raise 600 million (I am sure they are hoping the conservative grassroots will support the campaign while Super PAC continues to target big money donors)
Click to expand...

Yeah, this has gotten me worried. With the Buffet Rule in congress, I bet there are a lot of billionaires ready to throw cash to Romney.

I'm gonna be very pissed off if Romney manages to win based only the fact that he managed to outspend and flood the media with attack ads.
 
Obama personally requests Romney to release tax returns

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/obama-calls-on-romney-to-release-tax-returns

President Barack Obama has called on Republican Mitt Romney to release his past tax returns, saying that candidates for office need to be “as transparent as possible.”
Click to expand...

Dem vs Repub Super PACs...Dems catch up a tiny bit but still LAG badly to GOP

The groups, four super PACs and a pair of linked non-profit groups, raised more in the first three months of this year – $7.9 million – than they raised in the last half of last year, though the main pro-Obama super PAC, Priorities USA Action, has yet to release its March fundraising figures.

Still, the running 2012 tally for the Democratic groups – which comes from Federal Election Commission filings and voluntary disclosures released Friday evening – is dwarfed by the $21.5 million raised in the first two months of the year alone by the two main GOP super PACs. Those groups are the Karl Rove-linked American Crossroads and the pro-Mitt Romney Restore Our Future.

Those groups had $34.1 million in the bank as of their most recent reports, while the Democratic ones showed about $8.3 million on hand after Friday’s reports.
Click to expand...

That's just 2 GOP Super PACs. And doesn't count donors like Freiss and Adelson that will switch donations to ROF. Priorities USA has lagged badly till now, let's see if they can pick up in March.
 
Diablos said:
AB is panicing? Or is it sarcasm?

I can't tell.
Click to expand...

sarcasm_detector.jpg
 
Worth noting as well that Obama is targeting $1b for his campaign fund, in addition to any Super PAC funds. While the GOP has a huge advantage (to date) on their Super PACs, Obama will offset some of that on his own due to how wide his donor base is. Romeny's is going to be tapped out early.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
Football Thread 2017/18 |OT| Relegated to Community
397 398 399 400 401
20K
1M
D4Danger replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
UK PoliGAF |OT3| - Strong and Stable Government? No. Coalition Of Chaos!
37 38 39 40 41
2K
259K
firehawk12 replied
Top Bottom