• 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.
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Amir0x said:
His tactic in the debates with McCain seemed to be 'do no harm, pass the "look presidential" test'.

He was very reserved, hardly went for the jugular, but always calm and collected, leading many media pundits to consistently remark positively about how he seems completely calculated and informed on the subjects. He appeared very even handed and respectful in his approach to McCain. At the end puntis would say things like "if anyone was expecting the polling landscape to radically change with a debate, this debate was certainly not the one that will do it for McCain." McCain didn't do awful, relatively speaking, but since the expectations game was a certain way, Obama made the right moves for the right time.

The goal during that year was to seem even-tempered and like he knew his stuff, since the "inexperienced" thing was the main attack if we ignore Palin's 'friends with terrorist' attack stuff. And he did it.

I suspect this year, the viciousness of Obama's attacks are going to be far less passive aggressive. He doesn't like Mitt Romney in the least, it has been widely reported, and there is so many ripe low hanging fruit to pick from that the harvest can pretty much be nothing but bountiful for an even half-on-his-game Obama.

And considering that the second debate is a townhall, and how Romney suffers painfully even when he's alone on stage during such a format, and Obama has always been a natural crowd worker, it's going to be a brutalizing.
Click to expand...

That's kinda the impression I got. Seemed like Obama held back sorta in the same way Biden did, so he didn't get any knockout punches, but still won nonetheless.

Hopefully he goes for the jugular this time around. I'm not sure how his relationship to McCain was in the senate, but with Romney, as you said, Bams says he doesn't like him very much, so hopefully he won't have to treat him with kid gloves.
 
C

Cloudy

Banned
ToxicAdam said:
What exactly is Romney going to 'do what they have stated' with a slim House majority and a Senate minority? I thought the big knock on the Romney campaign was that they haven't stated shit?


What's the big fear? Households making less than 200k might have to pay less capital gains?
Click to expand...

Umm, there is NO WAY Romney wins without the GOP taking the Senate. I am most worried about them trying to sabotage Obamacare
 
A

AntoneM

Member
ToxicAdam said:
What exactly is Romney going to 'do what they have stated' with a slim House majority and a Senate minority? I thought the big knock on the Romney campaign was that they haven't stated shit?


What's the big fear? Households making less than 200k might have to pay less capital gains?
Click to expand...

Seriously?

Don't mean that most of those households will be paying MORE taxes?
 
S

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
ToxicAdam said:
What exactly is Romney going to 'do what they have stated' with a slim House majority and a Senate minority? I thought the big knock on the Romney campaign was that they haven't stated shit?


What's the big fear? Households making less than 200k might have to pay less capital gains?
Click to expand...
I think part of the fear is that since Romney has shown no conviction or platform of his own that he will simply rubber stamp the agenda of the establishment.

See Norquist's "we just need someone with a pulse who can sign his name"
 
T

ToxicAdam

Member
max_cool said:
Seriously?

Don't mean that most of those households will be paying MORE taxes?
Click to expand...

Why would they be paying more taxes if they don't have to pay capital gains taxes?



Stinkles said:
I'm not saying any of these things will come to pass, I'm talking about motivation and fear. Can you imagine what would happen to the repubs if Roe v Wade got overturned? Supreme Court is the only realistic and well understood 'danger.'
Click to expand...

It's the same bullshit that was spread when Bush got re-elected in 2004. So, you initially chide the right for 'making stuff up' and go and do the same the shit. Hypocrite.
 
S

Snake

Member
iDmsH32CAsFT7.png
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Btw, what's all this hooplah I'm hearing about Mittens not getting as much monies in campaign donations as everyone was expecting?

He only needs a handful of billionaires to surpass Obama, I'd imagine.
 
P

Paches

Member
Oblivion said:
Btw, what's all this hooplah I'm hearing about Mittens not getting as much monies in campaign donations as everyone was expecting?

He only needs a handful of billionaires to surpass Obama, I'd imagine.
Click to expand...

I'd imagine rich people don't like to throw cash at a campaign that is just going to lose.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
Black Mamba said:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444165804578006340735101824.html

Karl Rove thinks Obama's campaign isn't working.

This election must be killing him.
Click to expand...

Team Obama planned to use its big financial edge to bury Mr. Romney under negative ads over the summer. From April 15 to Labor Day, they spent an estimated $215 million on TV. But this was more than offset by conservative groups (principally American Crossroads, which I helped found).
Click to expand...
I like how he contradict himself within 1 sentence.
 
Z

Zzoram

Member
ToxicAdam said:
Why would they be paying more taxes if they don't have to pay capital gains taxes?
Click to expand...

Romney wants to increase military spending, cut capital gains taxes and balance the budget. He also said he will get rid of some tax exemptions to make up the difference.

The only possible way he can do all that is to get rid of tax exemptions that benefit the majority of people to cover the revenue loss from cutting the capital gains tax cut. Since the vast majority of capital gains is earned by rich people, they would benefit the most from that tax cut, and everyone else would benefit very little and potentially pay more tax due to the loss of certain exemptions. Considering how Romney and the RNC feel about 47% of people not paying federal income tax (they still pay payroll and sales tax), it's likely he'd try to get rid of tax exemptions that the poorest benefit from the most to get them to pay more tax.

The other possibility is that Romney cuts taxes, increases military spending, and doesn't get rid of any exemptions. That would just create an even bigger deficit, and is basically the way G. W. Bush ran the country.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
ToxicAdam said:
Why would they be paying more taxes if they don't have to pay capital gains taxes?





It's the same bullshit that was spread when Bush got re-elected in 2004. So, you initially chide the right for 'making stuff up' and go and do the same the shit. Hypocrite.
Click to expand...

Romney's tax plan is to cut all marginal rates by 20% and then make up the money lost by cutting deductions.

Unfortunately for him, the only way this mathematically works is if they cut the deductions for everyone.

Either he's raising taxes on the non-rich or he's ballooning the deficit. Only way it works, mathematically.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
G

googleplex

Member
ToxicAdam said:
Why would they be paying more taxes if they don't have to pay capital gains taxes?





It's the same bullshit that was spread when Bush got re-elected in 2004. So, you initially chide the right for 'making stuff up' and go and do the same the shit. Hypocrite.
Click to expand...

Bull FUCKING shit! The republican have made their desire of over turning Roe v Wade very god damn clear!

I'd like to think your better then this Toxic.
 
T

ToxicAdam

Member
I thought the framework of the discussion was specific stated policy proposals, not what others have done by filling in the blanks of their platitudes?



I want to make sure people understand, despite what the Democrats said at their convention, I am not reducing taxes on high-income taxpayers,” the Republican nominee said on NBC.
Click to expand...
http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloo...With-Assumptions-by-3853357.php#ixzz274hQAbBr


Etch a Sketch fiscal policy. Now you see it, now you don't.


googleplex said:
Bull FUCKING shit! The republican have made their desire of over turning Roe v Wade very god damn clear!

I'd like to think your better then this Toxic.
Click to expand...

showmethereceipts.jpg


No I'm far, far worse than this. I just temper myself here for soft-skinned nancy boys like yourself.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
Paches-EJ- said:
Bill O's new theory: Everyone is on the internet and is dumbed down, so that is why Obama is in the lead in polls.
Click to expand...

Anyone that doesn't have a clue as to how tides work has no fucking authority to talk about things being 'dumbed down'. Bill O is the KING of dumbing things down. Everything is some stupid simple black or white answer is his dumbed down world.

I don't know how this works . . . GOD DID IT!
 
C

Cloudy

Banned
ToxicAdam said:
I thought the framework of the discussion was specific stated policy proposals, not what others have done by filling in the blanks of their platitudes?


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloo...With-Assumptions-by-3853357.php#ixzz274hQAbBr
Click to expand...

Romney's tax plan has been studied by non-partisan groups and they have all concluded that there is no way he can close loopholes w/o raising taxes on the middle-class

Also, you never responded to my earlier reply. Again, Romney CANNOT win the presidency without the GOP gaining control in the Senate. I do not want to see Obamacare sabotaged
 
W

watershed

Banned
Romney saying he's not gonna cut taxes for the rich is the problem with his candidacy. His big money supporters are banking on him cutting their taxes yet he publicly says the opposite despite suggesting (saying?) he would during the primary. He's trying to have it both ways and getting neither.
 
M

Mike M

Nick N
SvmhX.jpg


Apparently my wife is identified in this letter as "one of our Party's most prominent members" despite never having registered as Republican. I guess they just got a list of small business owners? Idunno.

Sent them a picture of a check to the Obama campaign.
 
T

ToxicAdam

Member
Cloudy said:
Romney's tax plan has been studied by non-partisan groups and they have all concluded that there is no way he can close loopholes w/o raising taxes on the middle-class
Click to expand...

Congress closes loopholes, not Romney. He merely suggests them.


Also, you never responded to my earlier reply. Again, Romney CANNOT win the presidency without the GOP gaining control in the Senate.
Click to expand...

Based on what information? Romney could still win Ohio and Sherrod Brown could still win re-election. Romney will win Missouri and Akin could still lose. on and on.


Forever said:
What's wrong with effeminate men?
Click to expand...

I'm just jealous they get all the best deals on the clearance clothing racks.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Durask said:
Plenty of doctors are salaried and still do it. Public is brought to think that more = better, as such when a doctor does more, his or her life is easy. When they do less, they get to deal with very angry people. Do you like dealing with very angry people who think that you are killing their grandma?
Click to expand...

Great example of the danger of the passive voice. Why is the public "brought to think that more = better"? Who is bringing them to think that, and what do they gain? The answer is that, in a fee-for-service system, providers are heavily incentivized to teach them that. A big part of why the medical industry doesn't work in the free market in the first place is because almost nobody is actually an informed consumer -- if they ask for chemotherapy or for extra antibiotics or whatever, it's because somewhere along the line some doctor convinced them or somebody they knew that it was a good idea. They don't come up with these things themselves.

Durask said:
So let us say someone with advanced cancer wants Avastin and you tell them "sorry, it is not cost efficient". I think the usual American response in this situation is "GRAA LAWYER SHOTGUN KILL SUE GRAAA" - something along these lines, anyway. Do you plan to empower doctors to deliver such decisions and put the power of the state behind them. Or do you plan something along the lines of "bah these docs get paid too much anyway they should just go do it, snap-snap". Just curious.
Click to expand...

You're simply jumping to conclusions here and attributing things to me I never suggested -- but this is a pretty dumb response in any case. As Cyan has pointed out before (along with actual pundits, I guess, but Cyan came to mind first), somebody is ALREADY doing this rationing. Tomorrow it might be a bureaucrat, sure, but today it's an actuary. The difference is that the bureaucrat is employed to produce positive outcomes (or, worst-case scenario, they're employed to be employed by the government and have no particular motivation in any direction), and the actuary is employed to spend as little money as possible on patient care. I think the difference is pretty clear.
 
S

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
ToxicAdam said:
Why would they be paying more taxes if they don't have to pay capital gains taxes?





It's the same bullshit that was spread when Bush got re-elected in 2004. So, you initially chide the right for 'making stuff up' and go and do the same the shit. Hypocrite.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry. I had this crazy dream last night that most republicans had stated either strong pro life positions or more specifically that they wanted to overturn Roe Vs Wade and that the republican platform didn't even contain exceptions for rape or incest. I must have mixed it up with real life. My apologies for my Walter Mitty hypocrisy.
 
C

Cloudy

Banned
Congress closes loopholes, not Romney. He merely suggests them.
Click to expand...

Well that's the only plan he has now and it maintains a tax cut for the rich on the backs of the middle-class

Based on what information? Romney could still win Ohio and Sherrod Brown could still win re-election. Romney will win Missouri and Akin could still lose. on and on.
Click to expand...

I assume most folks vote a straight party-line. A Romney win from where he's at now in the state polls = Brown, Baldwin, Kaine and McCaskill losing
 
T

ToxicAdam

Member
There is also "socialist policies" in the DNC platform, so I guess it's true that Obama wants to make America a socialist country. derp derp



Cloudy said:
I assume most folks vote a straight party-line. A Romney win from where he's at now in the state polls = Brown, Baldwin, Kaine and McCaskill losing
Click to expand...

Almost 10 percent of registered Republicans voted for Obama in 2008.

'Coattails' happen when a large amount of new voters come to the polls. If Romney wins, it's going to be because of a depressed Democrat turnout in a few key areas of the country (like Cuyahoga County in Ohio).. not a bevy of new voters coming out to support Mitt.
 
Z

Zzoram

Member
pigeon said:
Great example of the danger of the passive voice. Why is the public "brought to think that more = better"? Who is bringing them to think that, and what do they gain? The answer is that, in a fee-for-service system, providers are heavily incentivized to teach them that. A big part of why the medical industry doesn't work in the free market in the first place is because almost nobody is actually an informed consumer -- if they ask for chemotherapy or for extra antibiotics or whatever, it's because somewhere along the line some doctor convinced them or somebody they knew that it was a good idea. They don't come up with these things themselves.



You're simply jumping to conclusions here and attributing things to me I never suggested -- but this is a pretty dumb response in any case. As Cyan has pointed out before (along with actual pundits, I guess, but Cyan came to mind first), somebody is ALREADY doing this rationing. Tomorrow it might be a bureaucrat, sure, but today it's an actuary. The difference is that the bureaucrat is employed to produce positive outcomes (or, worst-case scenario, they're employed to be employed by the government and have no particular motivation in any direction), and the actuary is employed to spend as little money as possible on patient care. I think the difference is pretty clear.
Click to expand...

1) That's why medical advertisements are banned in Canada. Drug companies are the ones telling Americans to keep getting unnecessary procedures and medications. Remove that from the equation and suddenly healthcare costs drop because patients aren't pressuring their doctors for as many unnecessary things.

2) It boggles my mind that people are scared of a government panel of doctors rationing healthcare with cost-benefit to the public in mind and would prefer a private panel of business executives rationing healthcare with more profit for shareholders in mind.
 
C

Cloudy

Banned
It boggles my mind that people are scared of a government panel of doctors rationing healthcare with cost-benefit in mind and would prefer a private panel of business executives rationing healthcare with more profitable health insurance in mind.
Click to expand...

The Republicans and their corporate partners have been very successful at demonizing the federal government
 
P

pigeon

Banned
ToxicAdam said:
It's the same bullshit that was spread when Bush got re-elected in 2004. So, you initially chide the right for 'making stuff up' and go and do the same the shit. Hypocrite.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't think it's unreasonable to think that if Romney got elected, he's quite likely to implement policies along the lines described in the Republican Party platform. That's a pretty long list! Passing a personhood amendment to repeal Roe v. Wade is in there. The revenue-neutral 20% tax cut across the board is in there, as is a California-style act that would require an amendment-level majority to ever raise taxes again. Cutting off all government purchases of Chinese goods and services until they comply with WTO regulations is in there. Block granting unemployment is in there. Vouchercare is in there. Rejecting the UN Conventions on Women's Rights, Rights of Children, Rights of People with Disabilities, and of course the Law of the Sea Treaty are all in there. Eliminating federal student loans entirely -- that's in there, as is making sure our public universities are "places of learning and the exchange of ideas, not zones of intellectual intolerance favoring the Left." Elimination of all family planning education in favor of abstinence education. School vouchers. Oh, and they want to close down Amtrak.

I mean, sure, Romney might not end up doing all these things, but if you can't look at his party platform for a list of policies he might implement, where exactly can you look?

edit: Sorry, didn't see that you already talked about the DNC platform.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Eurogamer: Assassin's Creed boss discusses "devastating" impact of Shadows' diversity and inclusivity backlash
Drama 3 4 5 6 7
316
23K
EN250 replied
"We observed Nvidia and decided to wait" (Chief Architect of Gaming at AMD)
2
64
4K
Kataploom replied
[GI.biz] The future of storytelling with Ken Levine
27
1K
mitch1971 replied
[GI.biz] Cheap money and bad bets: How the games industry turned pandemic success into disaster
2
75
4K
sharp weiner replied
  • Poll
Palworld has, once again, highlighted the on going deficiencies in PC Game Pass and the Xbox app on Windows 11 (Windows Central)
Hardware Platform 2 3
111
14K
Unknown Soldier replied
Top Bottom