• 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.
Romney delivered an excellent performance. There were moments where I wanted him to go into more of a full-throated defense of conservatism, but he had to moderate himself a bit and I think it worked well. I think he delivered exactly the right message when it comes to taxes -- conservatives aren't interested in tax rates and such in an abstract sense; They want to find the best combination of revenue and rates to encourage investment and job growth. Lowering taxes isn't about rubbing the backs of the rich -- it's about putting money back in the economy and therefore increasing revenue. Jacking up rates on stuff like capital gains only encourages investors to shelter their money.

Agree with pretty much everything you said. I think it would have been a mistake to go out full force in defense of conservatism, especially since Romney is a moderate to begin with. I think, more or less, everyone here will agree with you too.


Pre, the guy below you has your back but it won't be easy.
 
Agree with pretty much everything you said. I think it would have been a mistake to go out full force in defense of conservatism, especially since Romney is a moderate to begin with. I think, more or less, everyone here will agree with you too.


Pre, the guy below you has your back but it won't be easy.

Bulboooooooooooooooooo
 
So if PBS is funded through the CPB, does that mean Mitt advocated the government shutting down a corporation?
trollface.jpg

Also, I can't believe how much attention the Big Bird line is getting. Even weirder that this isn't the first time the conservatives have hated on the muppets.

Well they are a bunch of little commies. They are always talking about sharing . . . you know redistributing the wealth. And don't get me started on those flaming-homos Ernie & Bert.
 

Forever

Banned
PBS' official response.

ARLINGTON, VA – October 4, 2012 – We are very disappointed that PBS became a political target in the Presidential debate last night. Governor Romney does not understand the value the American people place on public broadcasting and the outstanding return on investment the system delivers to our nation. We think it is important to set the record straight and let the facts speak for themselves.

The federal investment in public broadcasting equals about one one-hundredth of one percent of the federal budget. Elimination of funding would have virtually no impact on the nation’s debt. Yet the loss to the American public would be devastating.

A national survey by the bipartisan research firms of Hart Research and American Viewpoint in 2011 found that over two-thirds of American voters (69%) oppose proposals to eliminate government funding of public broadcasting, with Americans across the political spectrum against such a cut.

As a stated supporter of education, Governor Romney should be a champion of public broadcasting, yet he is willing to wipe out services that reach the vast majority of Americans, including underserved audiences, such as children who cannot attend preschool and citizens living in rural areas.

For more than 40 years, Big Bird has embodied the public broadcasting mission – harnessing the power of media for the good of every citizen, regardless of where they live or their ability to pay. Our system serves as a universally accessible resource for education, history, science, arts and civil discourse.

Over the course of a year, 91% of all U.S. television households tune in to their local PBS station. In fact, our service is watched by 81% of all children between the ages of 2-8.

Each day, the American public receives an enduring and daily return on investment that is heard, seen, read and experienced in public media broadcasts, apps, podcasts and online – all for the cost of about $1.35 per person per year.

Earlier in 2012, a Harris Interactive poll confirmed that Americans consider PBS the most trusted public institution and the second most valuable use of public funds, behind only national defense, for the 9th consecutive year.

A key thing to remember is that public television and radio stations are locally owned and community focused and they are experts in working efficiently to make limited resources produce results. In fact, for every $1.00 of federal funding invested, they raise an additional $6.00 on their own – a highly effective public-private partnership.

Numerous studies -- including one requested by Congress earlier this year -- have stated categorically that while the federal investment in public broadcasting is relatively modest, the absence of this critical seed money would cripple the system and bring its services to an end.
 

RDreamer

Member
Man, I still can't get over what I overheard at work today. Seriously, since when is wishing your wife a happy anniversary a "go fuck yourself, Obama!" moment?
 
I know I haven't posted much here in a while, but it's still fun to see Diablos doing his thing. I almost feel like visiting hilaryIs44 just for old times sake!
 
I used to debate back in the day (NERD!). With that background, I have to say Obama got annihilated by Romney yesterday. Obama did not even pretend to rebut Romney's claims, no matter how crazy they were. The 716 billion dollar quip? Ignored. Arguments about oil production on private land? Ignored. The claims about 90 billion going into clean energy? Straight up not even mentioned by Obama. Obama didn't mention Romney's taxes, the 47% comments, his flip-flopping, women's rights, or the absolute lunacy of school vouchers even once during this debate about domestic policy.

Hell, Obama was playing defense all night long. He needs to realize that playing nice isn't going to win the media narrative- he needs to call out Romney on a whole host of things. For instance, when asked what programs he'll cut, Romney talks about the litmus test of seeing whether its worth borrowing money to fund it. Now, for a guy who has been RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT for eight years, why can't he name anything more substantive than PBS?

Despite the fact that Romney was just making stuff up and not defending anything, Obama still lost handily. Just because you're a Harvard educated lawyer doesn't mean you are automatically a good debater. Watch JFK or Clinton- those guys were good debaters. Watch Biden- he's a little crass but the guy is a much better debater than Obama.

Now, will this matter? I don't think swing state voters will care who wins or loses the debates. Most voters didn't watch the debate. They really don't mean much in the big scheme of things. I will say that I expected too much from debater Obama- the pedigree just had me expecting him to be a great debater.
 
It would be amazing if the news media picked up on this Bird Bird rally right now.

Also, PBS with more balls than the President. Just sayin'
 

Pre

Member
Who is his tax plan benefiting? The middle class? How can he lower taxes on the middle class while keeping it revenue neutral? There aren't enough loopholes that exclusively affect rich people to do that. I'm asking this seriously.

Also, there has been no evidence that people will stash their money away if capital gains goes back up to 20%. None whatsoever.

Small business owners would be a direct beneficiary of his policies, for one, because of how they are taxed under the individual rate as Romney pointed out last night. The idea behind keeping tax rates low, especially in a globalized economy where nations must compete for businesses, is that you encourage investors to keep their money in the U.S. economy instead of moving to somewhere such as the Caymans. You want to create a tax climate that doesn't make it prohibitive to invest. It's less important that we settle on a specific rate than we pick a rate and stick with it, as predictability is key for investment.

Trickle-down isn't really an economic ideology. The term comes from a 1931 speech by FDR as a slight against the policies of Andrew Mellon, the Secretary of Treasury under Calvin Coolidge. Mellon understood that things such as tax-exempt securities made it possible for the wealthy to shelter their money and therefore not pay taxes on it. Because Congress wouldn't change this, Mellon proposed lowering taxes to bring that money back into the economy, and it worked. Revenue increased because there was more capital being invested and therefore more jobs were created and more people were paying taxes. France is about to experience intense capital flight as a result of the 75% rate on earnings over a million dollars among other things.

Conservative/libertarian economic philosophy is thus about getting people to pay their taxes by not overburdening them. It's somewhat counter-intuitive, but it's not out of a desire to protect the wealthy while flipping the bird to the middle and lower classes.

We must ensure that America is an attractive place to invest. That's what it's all about.
 

Chumly

Member
Not going to lie I was pretty disappointed with how Obama handled himself during the debate. I think we all thought he would be bringing out the zingers like Romney did but after sleeping on it I dont think its going to be that big of a deal. Romney spouts so many lies that its going to be easy to attack him up until election. The one thing Romney didn't do last night which I was worried about was bring up anything of substance. He promised the world but didn't bother to explain anything. I think that is going to be his downfall.
 
Lowering taxes isn't about rubbing the backs of the rich -- it's about putting money back in the economy and therefore increasing revenue.

The government does not have to cut rates, especially on high income earners, to put money back in an economy. It has a spending power, too. In fact, the only way the government can ever put money into an economy is through its spending power. Lowering taxes is not "putting money back" in the economy, it is simply leaving previously spent money there.

Jacking up rates on stuff like capital gains only encourages investors to shelter their money.

What encourages investors to shelter money is deficient aggregate demand for goods and services that makes investment unattractive and risky in the first place.
 
Small business owners would be a direct beneficiary of his policies, for one, because of how they are taxed under the individual rate as Romney pointed out last night. The idea behind keeping tax rates low, especially in a globalized economy where nations must compete for businesses, is that you encourage investors to keep their money in the U.S. economy instead of moving to somewhere such as the Caymans. You want to create a tax climate that doesn't make it prohibitive to invest. It's less important that we settle on a specific rate than we pick a rate and stick with it, as predictability is key for investment.

Trickle-down isn't really an economic ideology. The term comes from a 1931 speech by FDR as a slight against the policies of Andrew Mellon, the Secretary of Treasury under Calvin Coolidge. Mellon understood that things such as tax-exempt securities made it possible for the wealthy to shelter their money and therefore not pay taxes on it. Because Congress wouldn't change this, Mellon proposed lowering taxes to bring that money back into the economy, and it worked. Revenue increased because there was more capital being invested and therefore more jobs were created and more people were paying taxes. France is about to experience intense capital flight as a result of the 75% rate on earnings over a million dollars among other things.

Conservative/libertarian economic philosophy is thus about getting people to pay their taxes by not overburdening them. It's somewhat counter-intuitive, but it's not out of a desire to protect the wealthy while flipping the bird to the middle and lower classes.

We must ensure that America is an attractive place to invest. That's what it's all about.

Ok, I get the basic philosophy (even though Romney intimated last night his main goal was to help the middle class, which is certainly NOT the same thing as you're describing). I get it.

How does he pay for it?

If you answer "well it is going to inevitably raise the deficit" I will gladly accept that. Other than that, I have not heard one plausible answer.
 

Pre

Member
What encourages investors to shelter money is deficient aggregate demand for goods and services that makes investment unattractive and risky in the first place.

The federal government is not a more efficient distributor of capital than the private sector. That's the problem with command economies -- the perfect information that it requires doesn't exist.
 
I used to debate back in the day (NERD!). With that background, I have to say Obama got annihilated by Romney yesterday. Obama did not even pretend to rebut Romney's claims, no matter how crazy they were. The 716 billion dollar quip? Ignored. Arguments about oil production on private land? Ignored. The claims about 90 billion going into clean energy? Straight up not even mentioned by Obama. Obama didn't mention Romney's taxes, the 47% comments, his flip-flopping, women's rights, or the absolute lunacy of school vouchers even once during this debate about domestic policy.

Hell, Obama was playing defense all night long. He needs to realize that playing nice isn't going to win the media narrative- he needs to call out Romney on a whole host of things. For instance, when asked what programs he'll cut, Romney talks about the litmus test of seeing whether its worth borrowing money to fund it. Now, for a guy who has been RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT for eight years, why can't he name anything more substantive than PBS?

Despite the fact that Romney was just making stuff up and not defending anything, Obama still lost handily. Just because you're a Harvard educated lawyer doesn't mean you are automatically a good debater. Watch JFK or Clinton- those guys were good debaters. Watch Biden- he's a little crass but the guy is a much better debater than Obama.

Now, will this matter? I don't think swing state voters will care who wins or loses the debates. Most voters didn't watch the debate. They really don't mean much in the big scheme of things. I will say that I expected too much from debater Obama- the pedigree just had me expecting him to be a great debater.

I agree. The new things Romney said came out of the left field and blindsided Obama. Obama better be fucking prepared about every single point in his administration. Romney will no doubt come back with more "new stuff" like the land permits thing. This was a bad, bad debate performance, something you'd expect from the Republican cartoons who Romney debated during primaries. Thankfully, Obama did land back on his feet and started doing rebuttals. And what the fuck, why bring up Donald Trump into the quagmire when you have fresh material? I cringed when he brought it up, and knew it was an instant flop. The Trump has no mileage left. If he NEEDED to bring him up, bring it in a passing reference, like "like Donald Trump or someone".
Can't wait for Bill Maher to throw a shitfit tomorrow

And Axelrod, Plouffe and other strategists better be fucking watching.
 
Oh man, just finished listening to a day of Rush Limbaugh, Hannity and Ann Coulter circle-jerking on the radio.
Funny thing is if Obama wins the next round, it "won't matter" or some stupid shit.

And Axelrod, Plouffe and other strategists better be fucking watching.


I can't stand those two guys - I truly believe they are the fuck-ups of the Obama team for the last 4 years. They should have been gone after the '08 election was done but they stuck around waaaaaay too long as Obama's advisors.
 

Owzers

Member
The republican argument of "everything must go" regarding government spending would work a lot better if they didn't IMMEDIATELY use trillions of dollars for more tax cuts ( that magically won't be a cut!) and even higher defense increases that aren't asked for. Trillions.


Trillions.


BUT THE DEFICIT GUYS, WE GOTTA CUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Small business owners would be a direct beneficiary of his policies, for one, because of how they are taxed under the individual rate as Romney pointed out last night. The idea behind keeping tax rates low, especially in a globalized economy where nations must compete for businesses, is that you encourage investors to keep their money in the U.S. economy instead of moving to somewhere such as the Caymans. You want to create a tax climate that doesn't make it prohibitive to invest. It's less important that we settle on a specific rate than we pick a rate and stick with it, as predictability is key for investment.

I agree on picking a rate and I agree that marginal rates should be reduced and deductions removed. But Romney isn't proposing any major overhaul of the code, just tinkering with some numbers that mostly help high income earners.

Small business owners would overwhelming get a small tax cut from his policy at best, almost nothing at worst (by reducing deductions).

Lower taxes do not encourage investment at current rates.

Trickle-down isn't really an economic ideology. The term comes from a 1931 speech by FDR as a slight against the policies of Andrew Mellon, the Secretary of Treasury under Calvin Coolidge. Mellon understood that things such as tax-exempt securities made it possible for the wealthy to shelter their money and therefore not pay taxes on it. Because Congress wouldn't change this, Mellon proposed lowering taxes to bring that money back into the economy, and it worked. Revenue increased because there was more capital being invested and therefore more jobs were created and more people were paying taxes. France is about to experience intense capital flight as a result of the 75% rate on earnings over a million dollars among other things.

This did not happen in the 80s or 00s the last time taxes were cut. Especially the capital gains tax cuts.

Again, you have to prove your point. Our economy had the lowest investments after these tax cuts.

Conservative/libertarian economic philosophy is thus about getting people to pay their taxes by not overburdening them. It's somewhat counter-intuitive, but it's not out of a desire to protect the wealthy while flipping the bird to the middle and lower classes.

And it has been proven wrong time and time again in that a continual lower tax rate will drive investment, jobs, revenues, etc. It hasn't happened and it won't happen. It's bullshit.
 

Particle Physicist

between a quark and a baryon
Romney delivered an excellent performance. There were moments where I wanted him to go into more of a full-throated defense of conservatism, but he had to moderate himself a bit and I think it worked well. I think he delivered exactly the right message when it comes to taxes -- conservatives aren't interested in tax rates and such in an abstract sense; They want to find the best combination of revenue and rates to encourage investment and job growth. Lowering taxes isn't about rubbing the backs of the rich -- it's about putting money back in the economy and therefore increasing revenue. Jacking up rates on stuff like capital gains only encourages investors to shelter their money.

Like zero extra revenue? I'm sorry, but that line is absolute horseshit (pardon my french) when it comes to modern republicans. They aren't interested in any balanced approach, they only want and push for a very unbalanced, one sided approach. We had 8 years of lowering the taxes of the rich under Bush, and where exactly did that get us? It's absurd to me that anyone still believes that works.
 
The federal government is not a more efficient distributor of capital than the private sector. That's the problem with command economies -- the perfect information that it requires doesn't exist.

(1) What is your definition of capital?

(2) Where does money come from?

(3) What does distributing capital have to do with aggregate demand?
 

Vahagn

Member
I think the majority of us feel this way, I know I definitely do...



I would have destroyed Romney in that debate last night if I was Obama. Flat out call him a liar immediately. Do whatever it takes, but nip it in the bud so he can't just embrace every popular proposal and reject every unpopular one.



"Governor, when we were having a debate about rescuing the auto industry, you suggested we should let detroit go bankrupt. When we were having a national debate about healthcare, you suggested adopting your policy and putting in an individual mandate. Now you're lying about both your positions, saying you argued for an auto bailout because it's polling well. And saying you didn't support the principles behind the Affordable Care Act because it's polling poorly. You can't just flip flop and lie about your record to score cheap political points. I think the American People deserve someone with convictions and straight forward honesty. But If you must act this way, here's some advice: if you want us to take you seriously - The next time you want to change your positions because you want to be in line with popular polls, don't write the original positions in an national newspaper for everyone to be able to read."


or


"I passed the ACA because it saves lives. Millions upon millions of people who can't get insurance because they can't afford it or because they're sick and can't get covered will now have insurance. We will prevent millions and millions of unnecessary deaths, preventable deaths, treatable and preventable illnesses that are now causing the sick and the poor who don't have quality access to die or be forced to go Bankrupt to live. Now you want to get rid of that, you want to go back to a system where 47 states in the country don't have universal health care. Where unless you live in Mass. or Vermont you can't get quality insurance if you have a pre-existing condition. Where you may die completely unnecessarily because a life-saving law is being repealed. Now I know you have empathy Governor Romney, but your policies will do for the country what you were unwilling to do for your own state as Governor, they will make force millions of Americans who can't get insurance under the old system, to be stuck in that system perpetually. That's not something I believe in. If the Government can do something to save the lives of Millions of Americans, whether it's stamping out terror or extending medical coverage, it has a responsibility to act"

Something like that in a 2 minute position in the middle of the health care section would have destroyed Romney
 

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
no need to circle jerk this so soon.

Pre: you're talking about command economies in the abstract, right? the way you lumped those two sentences together seemed to imply some type of link that doesn't exist in realty.
 

Measley

Junior Member
I can't stand those two guys - I truly believe they are the fuck-ups of the Obama team for the last 4 years. They should have been gone after the '08 election was done but they stuck around waaaaaay too long as Obama's advisors.

Really? Considering the Obama campaign performance in 2008 and 2012, those guys are political geniuses. Obama would have been crazy to get rid of them after 2008 after the way he manhandled Clinton and McCain.

Hell, Obama is poised to actually do BETTER than he did in 2008, and he may even win the House back in the process.

Chicken Little much?
 

markatisu

Member
Wow man those debates really made Obama's day hard lol

548253_10151194151741749_500001423_n.jpg
 

Effect

Member
Was this posted already. From Ipsos/Reuters. Polling post-debate.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...bate-with-Republicans-Obama-with-independents
http://www.ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=12047

The picture of today's rally makes me feel pretty good. It does confirm what I felt. That debate did not turn you against the president or for Romney if you had already made up your mind about both candidates. Enough already have at this point. That doesn't mean he can blow the next one but things aren't doom and gloom. Though that some are feeling this way is enough to remind Obama's camp that they have to keep going full steam.

However those that are really worried I hope you take that energy and put it to good use. You know what you were support Obama. Redouble your efforts and make sure others actually vote as well.
 

Farmboy

Member
I can't stand those two guys - I truly believe they are the fuck-ups of the Obama team for the last 4 years. They should have been gone after the '08 election was done but they stuck around waaaaaay too long as Obama's advisors.

Seriously? Few people deserve as much credit for there being a president Barack Obama as these two. They ran a perfect primary campaign in '08 followed by a very good general election, and have been running a neigh-on perfect campaign this year, up to this debate.

Whether they can be blamed for Obama's performance in Colorado is questionable. It's more likely that they've been involved with Obama's response to the debate loss in his stump speech today, which has been probably the best way to deal with this unfortunate situation available.

I get some of what you're saying. Outside of the presidential election years, some of their influence and ideas have been iffy. But they are exceptionally good at running presidential campaigns.
 

Pre

Member
no need to circle jerk this so soon.

Pre: you're talking about command economies in the abstract, right? the way you lumped those two sentences together seemed to imply some type of link that doesn't exist in realty.

Yes, I was speaking abstractly. EV seems to believe that the government must step in to create demand since capital is being hoarded. I disagree but went into the weeds a bit.
 

markatisu

Member


So check it—Obama's favorables are unchanged from before and after the debate, 56-44. But looking at the crosstabs, Obama stayed solid with Democrats, gained a tiny bit with Republicans, and ... kicked ass among independents. Seriously, flipping his faves among independents from 46-54 to 54-46, a 16-point shift, is a pretty big deal.

Well, Romney improved marginally with Democrats and stayed even with independents. So where did he improve? Among Republicans, where his "very favorable" jumped a solid 10 points, from 36 to 46 percent.

LOL Go Romney Go, get in good with the base that YOU ALREADY HAVE
 

demon

I don't mean to alarm you but you have dogs on your face
Jesus I didn't even know Obama was here in Madison until I got into my car after work and turned the radio on. Oh well, wouldn't have been able to see him anyway.
 

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
Yes, I was speaking abstractly. EV seems to believe that the government must step in to create demand since capital is being hoarded. I disagree but went into the weeds a bit.
Well, a lot of us do here, myself included. Many corporations have been sitting on massive profits while demanding demanding greater efficiencies from their existing labor force. Few are hiring in large numbers or reinvesting and are content to build their cash chest and amass it overseas while waiting for another corporate tax holiday to bring it home and hoard.

It's absolutely the government's role to step in and spur investment where there isn't. Feel free to answer EV's questions when you can, too. I'm interested to see your responses.
 

Effect

Member
LOL Go Romney Go, get in good with the base that YOU ALREADY HAVE

E.J Dionne on The Ed Show was just talking about this as well. Don't know if Sharpton (wasn't home) or Matthews said anything about this. I'm actually going to ignore Matthews for the next few days. Dude lost his mind last night and while I appreciate passion and I know the man loves politics but he was completely unprofessional. He needs to relax and try to look at things objectively.
 
So I'm awesome and just got my absentee voting ballot in motha-fucking Ohio (what's up swing state motivation).

Anyway, there is an issue on the ballot and I wanted to run it by you folks to see what you thought about it.

Here's a nice summary from [url="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Ohio_Constitutional_Convention_Question,_Issue_1_(2012)]ballotpedia[/url], it's not the final ballot language but sums it up nicely.
1. Remove the authority of elected representatives and grant new authority to appointed officials to establish congressional and state legislative district lines.
2. Create a state funded commission of appointed officials from a limited pool of applicants to replace the aforementioned. The Commission will consist of 12 members as follows: four affiliated with the largest political party, four affiliated with the second largest political party and four not affiliated with either of the two largest political parties. Affirmative votes of 7 of 12 members are needed to select a plan.

Now, since Ohio Republicans were more than happy to fuck everything up via redistricting I want to like this (especially since Husted opposes it), but at the same time I'm not super comfortable with the idea of an appointed group deciding on redistricting.

Bonus, the Commission's first priority would be redoing the most recent changes to the district, Kucinich be praised!

As I've put this together I've realized I'm going to vote in favor of this, but all the same it's an interesting issue I thought I might share.

Edit: I was reading the court decision on the ballot language above and found out that what I posted was deemed inaccurate and prejudicial. All the same, it's not much changed on the actual ballot (there is a lot more information on the choosing of officials on the ballot) and gives a good enough idea of how it works.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom