• 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 2014 |OT| Kay Hagan and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad News

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think Obamacare attack viability will depend by state. It's hard to see it working in Kentucky for instance, where the law is doing great. On the flip side, it's going to hurt in NC where it's a disaster (high premiums on the exchanges and no Medicaid expansion); same applies to Texas.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Dems need a +6.8% margin to get back the house according to the Cook Political Report.

Also in 2012, the 17th smallest margin of victory for republicans was +6.1%, meaning if you simply gave every single district an exact democrat swing of +6.1% in 2012 the democrats would have won the majority. Add that to their +1.2% nationwide margin they already had and you'd need +7.3% if that change in margin was spread out exactly evenly across all districts.

I would guess that the swing districts would, on average, swing harder than the rest of the country given any national trend, so I would say needing anything over a +7.3% seems unlikely to me.
 

Chumly

Member
It's basically a "Fuck you, got mine" philosophy.

At least FYIGM is something I can see someone rationalizing. This is more "Fuck you, I might get mine one day, probably not, but in the meantime fuck me too!"

That really is amazing. Unless they are very wealthy people,they are completely advocating against their own interest.

But forget about what is their own interest . . . is it country's best interest? Nope. If that type of policy really was economic magic then we should be swimming in jobs. Compared to the 50s, 60s, and 70s, the tax rates (and especially capital gains rates) are so low.

As always these guys are probably making 50-70k a year. Not spring chickens either. All they can think about is how SOME people don't pay any taxes. I mean if your too focused on the people below you then the people on top are just laughing.
 
My brother just forwarded me an email about summer internships in Washington DC.

I was looking forward to see what they would offer until I found out who I could intern for..

Rep. Justin Amash (MI-03)
Sen. Rand Paul (KY)
Rep. Thomas Massie (KY-04)
Rep. Kerry Bentivolio (MI-11)
Rep. Tom McClintock (CA-04)
Rep. Walter Jones (NC-03)

smh
 
Dems need a +6.8% margin to get back the house according to the Cook Political Report.

Also in 2012, the 17th smallest margin of victory for republicans was +6.1%, meaning if you simply gave every single district an exact democrat swing of +6.1% in 2012 the democrats would have won the majority. Add that to their +1.2% nationwide margin they already had and you'd need +7.3% if that change in margin was spread out exactly evenly across all districts.

I would guess that the swing districts would, on average, swing harder than the rest of the country given any national trend, so I would say needing anything over a +7.3% seems unlikely to me.
So we're only two points away!
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
My brother just forwarded me an email about summer internships in Washington DC.

I was looking forward to see what they would offer until I found out who I could intern for..



smh

Dude, if they don't make you sign confidentiality agreements then you have to do it. We need a mole. A GAFmole!
 
Someone on hannity asked if anyone has actually seen a hungry child in the US. claimed there is no such thing as a poor and skinny child in America.

Oh boy.
 

FyreWulff

Member
My brother just forwarded me an email about summer internships in Washington DC.

I was looking forward to see what they would offer until I found out who I could intern for..



smh

Will you really interact with the rep often anyway?

I imagine you're mostly going to be taking care of documents and doing stuff for their staff
 
Will you really interact with the rep often anyway?

I imagine you're mostly going to be taking care of documents and doing stuff for their staff

Yeah but I'm gonna be working in a staff filled with true believers.

For the sake of my sanity I think I'm gonna pass up on the offer.
 
Yeah but I'm gonna be working in a staff filled with true believers.

For the sake of my sanity I think I'm gonna pass up on the offer.

Whilst I don't doubt that it would be beneficial, I would probably do the same thing as you. I don't think I could go through with that without blowing my brains out or something
 
My brother just forwarded me an email about summer internships in Washington DC.

I was looking forward to see what they would offer until I found out who I could intern for..

Rep. Justin Amash (MI-03)
Sen. Rand Paul (KY)
Rep. Thomas Massie (KY-04)
Rep. Kerry Bentivolio (MI-11)
Rep. Tom McClintock (CA-04)
Rep. Walter Jones (NC-03)

smh
LOL. What terrible list.

Then again, some of them are so weird that they would be hilarious. You can cut & paste things off Wikipedia for Rand Paul. And the Reindeer herder & Santa Claus from Michigan who is in a 9/11 conspiracy movie . . . now that would be hoot.
 
Full list

Rep. Justin Amash (MI-03)
Rep. Kerry Bentivolio (MI-11)
Rep. Paul Broun (GA-10)
Rep. John Campbell (CA-45)
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (UT-03)
Rep. Tom Cotton (AR-04)
Rep. Jeff Duncan (SC-03)
Rep. John Duncan (TN-03)
Rep. Paul Gosar (AZ-04)
Rep. Trey Gowdy (SC-04)
Rep. Tom Graves (GA-14)
Rep. Morgan Griffith (VA-09)
Rep. Vicky Hartzler (MO-04)
Rep. Tim Huelskamp (KS-01)
Rep. Walter Jones (NC-03)
Rep. Raul Labrador (ID-01)
Rep. Thomas Massie (KY-04)
Rep. Tom McClintock (CA-04)
Rep. Mick Mulvaney (NC-04)
Rep. Reid Ribble (WI-08)
Rep. Todd Rokita (IN-04)
Rep. David Schweikert (AZ-06)
Rep. Steve Stockman (TX-36)
Rep. Rob Woodall (GA-07)
Rep. Ted Yoho (FL-03)
Sen. Ted Cruz (TX)
Sen. Ron Johnson (WI)
Sen. Mike Lee (UT)
Sen. Rand Paul (KY)

A few are off limits because they require four or more undergrad semester completed or require some connection to the state, but I could apply to most.

My brother said his friend who graduated with a Poli Sci major interned with them, I wonder how crazy he is.

btw anyone can apply to them I only got some forward they spam to all college students so I can post the link if anyone's interested.
 
My brother just forwarded me an email about summer internships in Washington DC.

I was looking forward to see what they would offer until I found out who I could intern for..



smh
Lol
Will you really interact with the rep often anyway?

I imagine you're mostly going to be taking care of documents and doing stuff for their staff
You don't want to work for someone you don't agree with. It'd make life miserable


Where do you live statewise Wayne?
 
Ask around at all the dems house offices or Brown's office. You might even try the dems in Indiana, KY, Penn or MI if you want to do something in Washington on the hill.Its not a bad place to be. If your persistent, getting a hill internship is easy.

I know some people in Joyce's office but I know he's republican.
 
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/poll-kay-hagan-slight-lead-american-insights

Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC) holds a very slight lead over all her possible challengers in the Republican primary, according to a new poll.

The poll, from American Insights, however founded a high number of undecided voters. Against House Speaker Thom Tillis (R-NC), Hagan leads 38 percent to 35 percent. In a matchup with Rev. Mark Harris, Hagan leads 39 percent to 35 percent and against tea partier Greg Brannon Hagan gets 38 percent while Brannon gets just 36 percent.

This poll's findings might come as good news to Hagan after a significant amount of spending attacking Hagan on Obamacare and other issues, and she's actually holding a better lead than in other surveys of the North Carolina Senate race.

Still, the poll wasn't all good news for Hagan. The poll also found that 37 percent of North Carolinians approve of the job Hagan is doing while 20 percent said they are undecided. A total of 39 percent said they disapprove of the job Hagan is doing.

The poll was conducted among 611 North Carolina registered voters from February 11 to February 15. It had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

DOOMED
 

Tamanon

Banned
Man, and you guys have no idea how much money they are pouring into NC against Hagan. I see that stupid "I don't like political ads, but here's one against Hagan" every day. It's gotten to the point where my girl will just mute the TV since she hates hearing it.
 

Wilsongt

Member
Just heard about the gop tax reform... LOLOLOL lowering the top tax rate to 25% yet applying a 10% tax to couples making over450k who file jointly. Lololol
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Wow...apparently the tax reform bill actually has a tax HIKE on Wall Street banks. How the fuck did that go through?
 
Guessing Hagan, Landrieu, and Begich will win (or at least in Landrieu's case be ahead on election night). Pryor might lose. Dems lose MT, WV, SD though MT could be saved and WV is looking closer. KY and GA remain as possible pickups - I think Kentucky at least is a legitimate tossup at this point.

Pryor's numbers are improving, last time I checked he was only down 4 percent to Cotton with most being undecided.

You really think the Dems can pull off WV? They've been trending hard right since 2009 and Capito is considered a "moderate."
 
Pryor's numbers are improving, last time I checked he was only down 4 percent to Cotton with most being undecided.

You really think the Dems can pull off WV? They've been trending hard right since 2009 and Capito is considered a "moderate."
There was a Dem internal from January that had Capito only leading by 6. The DSCC hasn't given up on it like they have in South Dakota, either, so I could see it being a single-digit race at this point.

Rasmussen had a poll with Capito up 15 but lol rasmussen.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
If that is a truly a completely flat tax, why the hell wouldn't we want the democrats to jump all over that? On average anyone making more than $450,000 is paying an effective tax lower than 20% anyway. In effect it could be an even more progressive tax than we have now. And it is ridiculous how much time and money is wasted every year just filling our taxes.

I have reservations in making sure it's truly budget neutral, and that no one below 100,000 is paying more taxes than before. Otherwise if we can get this now, then do it now, or at least change it to make sure my two reservations are accounted for and throw it back in the republican's faces to make them have to be the ones to deny it.

Don't do a knew jerk reaction just because the the up front number is lower when it's really higher than the effective number we have now. He'll we should be happy that those numbers would be put up front so that it can be more easily changed later.
 
If that is a truly a completely flat tax, why the hell wouldn't we want the democrats to jump all over that? On average anyone making more than $450,000 is paying an effective tax lower than 20% anyway. In effect it could be an even more progressive tax than we have now. And it is ridiculous how much time and money is wasted every year just filling our taxes.

I have reservations in making sure it's truly budget neutral, and that no one below 100,000 is paying more taxes than before. Otherwise if we can get this now, then do it now, or at least change it to make sure my two reservations are accounted for and throw it back in the republican's faces to make them have to be the ones to deny it.

Don't do a knew jerk reaction just because the the up front number is lower when it's really higher than the effective number we have now. He'll we should be happy that those numbers would be put up front so that it can be more easily changed later.

Capital gains and other things are still not subjected to it.

It will raise taxes on doctors and lawyers and athletes while ignoring farmers and manufacturers and will not do anything to almost all the super elite.

Furthermore, it does not mention which tax breaks will go away to account for the rate reductions.

It's another faux-plan. It's an outline with no real meat. Furthermore, it has zero chance in the House.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Capital gains and other things are still not subjected to it.

It will raise taxes on doctors and lawyers and athletes while ignoring farmers and manufacturers and will not do anything to almost all the super elite.

Furthermore, it does not mention which tax breaks will go away to account for the rate reductions.

It's another faux-plan. It's an outline with no real meat. Furthermore, it has zero chance in the House.

Capital gains would be taxed at the same rate as income under his reform according to the LA Times.

And I would point out that it's practically 3 tax brackets, the with the third bracket at supposedly 35%. It's not counted as a third tax bracket because that 10% increase on some amount earned in the first 450,000, which still doesn't make sense to me exactly but is at least worth noting.

In any case I'm not saying the dems have to take this plan straight up. I know theres plenty of time left to discover some hidden bombs in this initial proposal, but I would at least like to try to treat it as a discussion worth having. There's no reason a compromise couldn't be reached that doesn't mess with revenue or the progressiveness of the system while still simplifying it.

It'd be nice to see something positive get done on a true compromise for once.
 
Capital gains would be taxed at the same rate as income under his reform according to the LA Times.

And I would point out that it's practically 3 tax brackets, the with the third bracket at supposedly 35%. It's not counted as a third tax bracket because that 10% increase on some amount earned in the first 450,000, which still doesn't make sense to me exactly but is at least worth noting.

In any case I'm not saying the dems have to take this plan straight up. I know theres plenty of time left to discover some hidden bombs in this initial proposal, but I would at least like to try to treat it as a discussion worth having. There's no reason a compromise couldn't be reached that doesn't mess with revenue or the progressiveness of the system while still simplifying it.

It'd be nice to see something positive get done on a true compromise for once.

The author in your link is confused. The article to which he links claims it will cut capital gains and dividend taxes.

The plan’s provision for capital gains and dividends – while not its centerpiece – would amount to an effective tax reduction.

It would start by eliminating the current top rate of 20% on long-term capital gains and dividends. Capital gains and dividends would be taxed like ordinary wage income. But 40% would be excluded from income for tax purposes, meaning that taxpayers generally would see an effective rate cut on their investment income.

The LA Times author claims $40k is exempt, but the WSJ article says 40%. That's a huge difference.

Furthermore, it would end the distinction of short-term investments which currently are taxed like wages, so that automatically goes down the 25% for the wealthy from 39.4%.


I don't mind simplifying our taxes and having nobody's taxes change but I have very skeptical of any plan that can pull that off. Almost always a change in how taxes are done means some people pay more and others pay less (if it is revenue neutral at least ignoring economic effects). And I am even more skeptical the GOP would devise a tax plan that doesn't help the super wealthy above everyone else.

The Dems have always said they are open to tax reform. Take Obama's stance on the corporate taxes or even other taxes. Get rid of deductions and lower the rates an appropriate amount.
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
For those interested in more reading--a lot more reading--on the GOP tax reform proposal, here's a good place to start.

EDIT: This website includes a link to this PDF, which estimates the effect of the proposal on federal taxes for members of various income groups for the odd-numbered years between (and including) 2015 and 2023.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
The author in your link is confused. The article to which he links claims it will cut capital gains and dividend taxes.



The LA Times author claims $40k is exempt, but the WSJ article says 40%. That's a huge difference.

Furthermore, it would end the distinction of short-term investments which currently are taxed like wages, so that automatically goes down the 25% for the wealthy from 39.4%.


I don't mind simplifying our taxes and having nobody's taxes change but I have very skeptical of any plan that can pull that off. Almost always a change in how taxes are done means some people pay more and others pay less (if it is revenue neutral at least ignoring economic effects). And I am even more skeptical the GOP would devise a tax plan that doesn't help the super wealthy above everyone else.

The Dems have always said they are open to tax reform. Take Obama's stance on the corporate taxes or even other taxes. Get rid of deductions and lower the rates an appropriate amount.

I guess you're right about the Capital gains. I didn't think I would have had to check the source on an LA times article. You're right that someone is going to pay more and someone is going to pay less, but if for instance the too big to fail tax is making big banks paying more to make individual investors are pay less, that's a fine trade as far as I'm concerned.

You start sounding exactly like the tea party when you say that you're against something simply because a republican proposed it. I would at least like to have a good reason to hate something before hating on it.

If the JTC says revenue is going to go up 3 billion over the next 10 years, and that the tax rate for every $10,000 bracket from 0 to 100,000 is going to go down what specifically is wrong with it?
 
Camp's tax plan isn't as crazy as I assumed it would be. The short term investment change is a pretty glaring gift to the wealthy though.

And obviously I wouldn't support cutting the top rate nearly 5% either. But there's a lot in there that I would hope could see some compromise. I'd want more information on exactly what types of domestic manufacturing will get a 25% rate. I'd love for it to be 25% for all manufacturing, personally, instead of seemingly helping oil companies while ignoring others.
 
Republicans are in a stronger position than Democrats for this year’s midterm elections, benefiting from the support of self-described independents.

Republicans are in a stronger position than Democrats for this year’s midterm elections, benefiting from the support of self-described independents, even though the party itself is deeply divided and most Americans agree more with Democratic policy positions, the latest New York Times/CBS News poll shows.

The independents in the poll — a majority of whom were white or male or under age 45 — continued to sour on President Obama’s job performance. Republicans hold their edge despite the fissures within their party over whether it is too conservative or not conservative enough, and many are discouraged about the party’s future.

Democrats, in turn, are more optimistic and relatively united on major issues. Nonetheless, they too are held in low regard over all by a public fed up with Washington’s failure to compromise, and they have failed so far to energize a broader segment of the public.

A majority of Americans surveyed also said they wanted both parties to do more to address the concerns of the middle class, reduce the budget deficit with both tax increases and spending cuts, and let illegal immigrants stay in the country and apply for citizenship. Mr. Obama shares those positions on the budget and immigration.

Those stances among voters have not translated into support for the president’s party, as 42 percent say they will back Republicans in November, and 39 percent indicate that they will back Democrats, a difference within the poll’s margin of sampling error.

There is a sense of foreboding in the public as well, with 63 percent of Americans saying the country is on the wrong track, and 57 percent indicating that they disapprove of Mr. Obama’s handling of the economy. In addition, eight in 10 Americans are dissatisfied or angry with the way things are going in Washington.

More credence to the theory that "independents" are really conservative white middle class people who want to feel like they're "above" partisan politics, and oh so more intelligent than everyone else.
 

Karakand

Member
I read an article that said that tax plan would more or less make the U.S. a territorial corporate tax regime but didn't see that in the section-by-section summary, did anyone see the specifics of that?
 
Republicans are in a stronger position than Democrats for this year’s midterm elections, benefiting from the support of self-described independents.

More credence to the theory that "independents" are really conservative white middle class people who want to feel like they're "above" partisan politics, and oh so more intelligent than everyone else.
Is that 42-39 number among independents, or overall? If it's the former that doesn't mean shit, the number of Independents has grown on the back of former Republicans who are predictably voting Republican. Romney won independents by a decent margin but Democrats dwarf Republicans to such a point that it doesn't really matter. Of course, that strength isn't as prominent in midterms.

Also frustrating when you see voters with moderate to liberal stances on immigration or the budget but they support the Republicans anyway. I know there are some voters who prefer split congresses because they think it'll force the parties to compromise yet all you need to do is look at the last four years to see how well that's worked out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom