• 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 |OT3| If it's not a legitimate OT the mods have ways to shut it down

Status
Not open for further replies.

Guevara

Member
Haha, I love when Republicans just project their own issues onto Democrats, no matter how divorced from reality it is.

It's so weird though. The "most extreme" elements of Obama's party would ban guns tomorrow and legalize weed the day after. Oh and immediate close Guantanamo. And then clawback bonuses from bankers during the recession. Which of these things does Obama pander to?
 

ToxicAdam

Member
The only groups big enough to do it are the Libertarians (who were the seeds of the Tea Party) and the Christianists (who's sole focus is on abortion and other "morality" related issues). These two contingents do not share enough in common to bond together, although you can find some people that are both. It's only because of the two party system that they are forced to endure each other. So if either one of these types of Republican decide to break away, they will effectively lose their disproportionate voice in American politics.

I guess that's the allure of Ronald Reagan, he was able to coalesce and pacify both contingents very effectively. Even though a lot of his policy actions weren't always in line with what they wanted.
 

Kosmo

Banned
There were two possible outcomes the media/LibGAF would run with:

"I will lower taxes on middle income families"
"Is $100K middle income?"
"Middle income is anyone making $200-250K or LESS"
"Romney thinks $250K is middle class"

"I will lower taxes on middle income families"
"Is $100K middle income?"
"Yes, according to this plan"
"Romney will raise taxes on those making over $100K, Obama only on those over $250K"
 

TiVo

Member
$200,000 to $250,000 and less.
I say we play dumb just like they did with the "you did not build that" comment. We will just keep repeating the 200 - 250 part.
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
There were two possible outcomes the media/LibGAF would run with:

"I will lower taxes on middle income families"
"Is $100K middle income?"
"Middle income is anyone making $200-250K or LESS"
"Romney thinks $250K is middle class"

"I will lower taxes on middle income families"
"Is $100K middle income?"
"Yes, according to this plan"
"Romney will raise taxes on those making over $100K, Obama only on those over $250K"
Invisible libgaf?
 

Kosmo

Banned
The only groups big enough to do it are the Libertarians (who were the seeds of the Tea Party) and the Christianists (who's sole focus is on abortion and other "morality" related issues). These two contingents do not share enough in common to bond together, although you can find some people that are both. It's only because of the two party system that they are forced to endure each other. So if either one of these types of Republican decide to break away, they will effectively lose their disproportionate voice in American politics.

I guess that's the allure of Ronald Reagan, he was able to coalesce and pacify both contingents very effectively. Even though a lot of his policy actions weren't always in line with what they wanted.

I think the only way we get more than two parties is if we get at least 4. We will first need one party (most likely Republicans) to fracture, which will make the Democrats dominant. The different subgroups of Democrats will then start jockeying for control of their party, since the Republicans would (presumably) be two minor parties. Then you could see a split of the Democrats.

Pretty sure we are stuck with two parties for my lifetime.
 

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
The fallout of an Obama re-election will be a sight to behold. Will GOPers like Boehner and Lindsay Graham be able to swing the party on a more moderate direction, or will people like Bryan Fischer swing the party further and further rightward?

When you are counting on Lindsey Graham from swinging the party back, you know you are in deep crap.
 
There were two possible outcomes the media/LibGAF would run with:

"I will lower taxes on middle income families"
"Is $100K middle income?"
"Middle income is anyone making $200-250K or LESS"
"Romney thinks $250K is middle class"

"I will lower taxes on middle income families"
"Is $100K middle income?"
"Yes, according to this plan"
"Romney will raise taxes on those making over $100K, Obama only on those over $250K"

All lost on this is that he will raise taxes on middle income earners, regardless, in his plan.
 
There were two possible outcomes the media/LibGAF would run with:

"I will lower taxes on middle income families"
"Is $100K middle income?"
"Middle income is anyone making $200-250K or LESS"
"Romney thinks $250K is middle class"

"I will lower taxes on middle income families"
"Is $100K middle income?"
"Yes, according to this plan"
"Romney will raise taxes on those making over $100K, Obama only on those over $250K"

No one under $250k is getting their taxes raised. Upper incomes will have their taxes lowered. This will be revenue neutral based on "loophole closures". SOMEONE is getting their taxes raised. Who are these people? ITS A MYSTERY.

Kosmo, please enlighten us if you know whos taxes are being raised under Romney's plan.
 

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
If only Romney had the balls to come out with a plan that would raise taxes. Beyond all the batshit insane stuff that he has said, I would vote for him if he pledged to do this.
 

kehs

Banned
No one under $250k is getting their taxes raised. Upper incomes will have their taxes lowered. This will be revenue neutral based on "loophole closures". SOMEONE is getting their taxes raised. Who are these people? ITS A MYSTERY.

Kosmo, please enlighten us if you know whos taxes are being raised under Romney's plan.

Quick! Look at that turmoil overseas!

lol Bush won't attend a fundraiser in his own house for Romney. Talk about toxic.

Amazing.
 
Spec, I'm disappointed in you. You're better than this Kosmo stuff.

Yes, it's pretty obviously a flub.

Steph: Is $100,000 middle income? [question inferred by Mittens: Is middle income $100k and under?]
Mittens: No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less. [No, it's not only $100k and under, it's $250k and under]

As a general rule, almost nobody thinks of themselves as being anything less than "middle class." Which is why you'll almost never see a specified lower limit in an answer to this question (and if anything, it'd be the poverty line). It was a flub, pure and simple.

Well here is how the AP reports it:

"No one can say my plan is going to raise taxes on middle-income people, because principle number one is (to) keep the burden down on middle-income taxpayers," Romney told host George Stephanopoulos.

"Is $100,000 middle income?" Stephanopoulos asked.

"No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less," Romney responded.

His campaign later clarified that Romney was referencing household income, not individual income.

The Census Bureau reported this week that the median household income — the midpoint for the nation — is just over $50,000.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/romney-middle-income-200k-250k-152818009.html

So even if one assumes the flub is contorted in the way where Romney is not capable of giving rational yes/no answers, the clarification his campaign gave still didn't fix it! They just pointed out that the number he gave is for household income not individual income. The Romney campaign seems to disagree with you.
 

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
AlteredBeast, I can understand living on commission being way more stressful than a set salary, even if it's currently averaging out to 78K a year.

Yeah, one month pulling in 5 after tax would be great, then the next month it be around 3...not good! Makes it super hard to plan finances and pretty much any necessary big ticket items.
 

kehs

Banned
Well here is how the AP reports it:


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/romney-middle-income-200k-250k-152818009.html

So even if one assumes the flub is contorted way you put where Romney is not capable of giving rational yes/no answers, the clarification his campaign gave still didn't fix it! They just pointed out that the number he gave is for household income not individual income. The Romney campaign seems to disagree with you.

You guys think they'll let Romney's campaign handle rebuttals during the debates?
 
No one under $250k is getting their taxes raised. Upper incomes will have their taxes lowered. This will be revenue neutral based on "loophole closures". SOMEONE is getting their taxes raised. Who are these people? ITS A MYSTERY.

Kosmo, please enlighten us if you know whos taxes are being raised under Romney's plan.

No No No. He said the tax cuts for the rich will pay for itself with reduction in deductions he won't disclose.

Ignoring that it's impossible to do this mathematically and even if it was, it would still take years for it to happen. It would be a massive tax cut in year one..
 

Gotchaye

Member
Well here is how the AP reports it:


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/romney-middle-income-200k-250k-152818009.html

So even if one assumes the flub is contorted way you put where Romney is not capable of giving rational yes/no answers, the clarification his campaign gave still didn't fix it! They just pointed out that the number he gave is for household income not individual income. The Romney campaign seems to disagree with you.

Or Romney means that 250K individual income is above middle income.
 
No No No. He said the tax cuts for the rich will pay for itself with reduction in deductions he won't disclose.

Ignoring that it's impossible to do this mathematically and even if it was, it would still take years for it to happen. It would be a massive tax cut in year one..

If one was to change the tax code in such a way that the same people would pay the exact same amount of taxes.... Why change the code at all? Anyone who thinks about what Romney is saying for more than 20 seconds realizes what hogwash it is.
 

Snake

Member
AB is changing avatars faster than Romney changes positions.

And guys, there's plenty to attack Romney on without reaching. Let's not push this 250k stuff as some huge out-of-touch gaffe. Let us be better than Kosmo-level attacks.
 
Anyone trying to pass off an income of 200k as middle income should be ashamed of themselves, Obama included. That's "but I have to buy new dresses so that I never wear the same as someone else at a cocktail party" territory. I've been all over the income spectrum, and feeling middle class while living in a million half million dollar home us delusional.

Also, is there language from Obama calling 250k middle class? Or are you all inferring that from his proposed tax plan and the "I won't raise taxes on the middle class" language? Cause that's not the same.
 

Jay Carney said:
CARNEY: We also need to understand that this is a fairly volatile situation and it is in response not to United States policy, and not to, obviously, the administration, or the American people, but it is in response to a video, a film that we have judged to be be reprehensible and disgusting. That in no way justifies any violent reaction to it, but this is not a case of protests directed at the United States writ large or at U.S. policy, this is in response to a video that is offensive to Muslims.

hahaha, its funny that Kosmo thinks that the truth is "delusional". It just explains so much.
 

tranciful

Member
Also, is there language from Obama calling 250k middle class? Or are you all inferring that from his proposed tax plan and the "I won't raise taxes on the middle class."? Cause that's not the same.
That's what I'm wondering. But Romney could have had his tax plan context in mind just the same. Still a stupid way to word it though
 
I think the only way we get more than two parties is if we get at least 4. We will first need one party (most likely Republicans) to fracture, which will make the Democrats dominant. The different subgroups of Democrats will then start jockeying for control of their party, since the Republicans would (presumably) be two minor parties. Then you could see a split of the Democrats.

Pretty sure we are stuck with two parties for my lifetime.

We are stuck with two parties until we get rid of our winner take all FPTP system. The way our system is setup it is in a persons best interest to only look at the two people most likely to win and vote against the one you want to win the least. A vote for anyone but those two is a vote wasted.

If I could change the system but keep the positions (President/House/Senate) I'd recomend an Alternative vote system for the President and a proportional vote system for Congress, generally speaking, with some tweaks for the House/Senate.

Proportional Vote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSXU

Alternative Vote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE

Problems with Winner Take All/First Past the Post: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
 
If one was to change the tax code in such a way that the same people would pay the exact same amount of taxes.... Why change the code at all? Anyone who thinks about what Romney is saying for more than 20 seconds realizes what hogwash it is.

For the most part, yeah. Of course, lowering marginal rates does have a benefit even if the taxes were the same.

It is better to have lower marginal rates and less deductions. But by the amount he wants to raise them by, it's not feasible.
 
Kosmo may I suggest turning your argument around on Obama? Instead of saying where Romney considers middle class, ask why does Obama not want to raise taxes for those under $250,000? Maybehe considers those people middle class.
 

Kosmo

Banned
hahaha, its funny that Kosmo thinks that the truth is "delusional". It just explains so much.

It's a video that's offensive to Muslims - a video that we allow in the US because we have freedom of speech and are not populated by a bunch of crazy, kill and riot over a stupid video, fuckheads. Couch it how you will, but it's the fact that we allow such videos to be made that they find offensive instead of killing when someone desecrates the name of the spaghetti monster.
 
Watching this ceremony shows exactly why it's idiotic to politicize such an event before these poor people's bodies are even laid to rest
 

Clevinger

Member
It's a video that's offensive to Muslims - a video that we allow in the US because we have freedom of speech and are not populated by a bunch of crazy, kill and riot over a stupid video, fuckheads. Couch it how you will, but it's the fact that we allow such videos to be made that they find offensive instead of killing when someone desecrates the name of the spaghetti monster.

I still don't see your problem with Carney's statement. You can dislike the video and still say the attack is disgusting, and of course the video is still allowed in the US because of free speech.
 
I was just talking multi-party systems last night.

I don't think we want this in America. I don't think we want to see what kind of parties we end up with and just how many seats they're capable of winning.
 

kehs

Banned
It's a video that's offensive to Muslims - a video that we allow in the US because we have freedom of speech and are not populated by a bunch of crazy, kill and riot over a stupid video, fuckheads. Couch it how you will, but it's the fact that we allow such videos to be made that they find offensive instead of killing when someone desecrates the name of the spaghetti monster.

Yup, that explains why Carney is delusional.
 
I get it . . . you are giving him the benefit of the doubt. But why? Is there any context in that discussion that shows he includes $100K in 'middle income'? Nothing but the "and less" and that is after explicitly saying "no" AND giving a range of $200K to $250K such that 100K is half the lower bound.

This is not the same as Obama talking about teachers, roads, bridges . . . and then saying "If you built a business . . . you didn't build that" which had clear context that made it abundantly clearly, it was a flub. There is no context here showing it is clearly a flub.

Perhaps it is a flub but is not clearly a flub given what we know so far. And when given a chance to clarify, they still haven't fixed it.

The GOP ran their entire convention on a flub that was something clearly taken out of context. This is something that is not clearly a flub given the context and not changed after given a chance to clarify it. Are we just supposed to vote just assuming Romney knows things even though he can't say them nor can his team fix them given ample time? Why even have a campaign?

Giving them the absolute best interpretation for Romney . . . Romney flubs simple yes/no questions and has a campaign that is so incompetent they can't even clarify such things.
 

Drek

Member
Hilary looks very "presidential". If Obama wins, I wonder if she'll run in 2016

Of course she will.

Bill has long argued that it is the RESPONSIBILITY of those capable of steering this country in what he considers the "right" direction to take the reigns and do so. Do you really think he's going to let off of that when he knows that:

1. she's a lock to win if Obama is remotely successful.

2. she'd make a damn good POTUS.

She'll be 68 by then, but lets be honest she's more of a Margret Thatcher/Madeline Albright at this point and is largely viewed without recognition of gender.

This is why Bill is pushing for Obama. If Hillary can't run until 2016 no matter what it'll be far easier to be a dem following a relatively successful dem than battling an incumbent rep who will likely see the economy rebound in the next four years. Obama winning is the path to Hillary winning in 2016.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom