2012 Presidential Campaign

[JPhillips]

And bizarro world Jim Lehrer.

[sterlingice]

I hate the internet sometimes

SI

[Julio Riddols]

I wish the world was like this in reality. Our political leaders are clowns and should be treated as such.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Music just seemed silly because if I was a musician, I would be thrilled that people like my work. Sure I'd want to make sure it's licensed properly and I'm being compensated for it. But being upset that another political stance likes my music seems petty and attention whoring

I can understand their response, because most of the time the song/whatever is being co-opted to deliver a certain message for political purposes, not just saying, "Isn't this a great song." And more often than not that message is directly in opposition to what the songwriter meant. The classic example is Reagan using Born in the U.S.A. in his political stuff, implying that the song and Springsteen were supporting the idea of Reagan as an uber-patriot. When in fact the song is a pretty dark critique of American government. So it's not like Springsteen takes something like that as, "Great Reagan loves my song." It's, "Christ, that's not at all what I meant, and now people are less likely to understand my song, more likely to equate it with something the opposite of what I meant, and probably assume I'm a Reagan supporter too." I can see being frustrated at that. A political slogan carries a lot of baggage, it's not like playing a song when someone walks on the stage on Letterman or something.

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

WELL PLAYED!! Kenny Powers best represents what the average American today probably (sadly) is.

Nah. If it was true then USA's drug laws would not be so ridiculous.

[CrimsonFox]

The Vice Presidential Debate: Joe Biden Was Right to Laugh | Matt Taibbi | Rolling Stone

No, they don't want bipartisan agreements, otherwise they wouldn't be filibustering everything that has to do with the economy.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

The Vice Presidential Debate: Joe Biden Was Right to Laugh | Matt Taibbi | Rolling Stone

No, they don't want bipartisan agreements, otherwise they wouldn't be filibustering everything that has to do with the economy.

You're assuming that Congress doing something with the economu would not produce negative results (or expensive results that benefits only the few). Congress doing nothing is better than Congress doing something.

[Dutch]

Rolling Stone also reporting now that Romney hates babies!

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

You're assuming that Congress doing something with the economu would not produce negative results (or expensive results that benefits only the few). Congress doing nothing is better than Congress doing something.

Congress could create a program that would put people to work doing lead abatement. That would give people jobs, raise test scores and lower crime.

There are ways to make things better.

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Rolling Stone also reporting now that Romney hates babies!

Babies don't even pay federal income tax. Parasites.

[JediKooter]

And they can't work overseas.

[Shkspr]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

And they can't work overseas.

Can't, or won't?

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Shkspr

Can't, or won't?

Can't, until they are teens and then won't.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Congress could create a program that would put people to work doing lead abatement. That would give people jobs, raise test scores and lower crime.

There are ways to make things better.

Until you get into the details of such a program then it is not a solution at all. First would be the severe restrictions of who would actually be qualified to work at such a government job. Then the few that end up hired have to go through many months (probably years) of training, including sexual harrasment and teambuilding, not to mention union orientations. Once on the job, they would be constrained by OSHA and environmental regulations as well as union rules to show progress of the work. So after years and hundreds of millions of dollars spent, not a single measurable results are shown, including the abatement of lead, employment numbers, test scores or crime rates. Then it becomes outsourced to favored companies based on campaign contributions and at even more expenditures without the job being completed. The program then lives in perpetuity on the government roles because someone will scream that reducing/cutting their budget would be an evil thing to do.

But you can go on believing that such programs would actually work in reality instead of on paper.

[JPhillips]

And I thought I was cynical.

[Dutch]

Wall Street Journal now reporting that Obama will make babies pay federal income taxes or be shipped off to sweat shops in Columbia.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

And I thought I was cynical.

And that is why doing nothing is better than doing something (as evident in the past 12 years) and people needs to stop believing, advocating and voting for those that think creating a new government program would actually be a good thing.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Wall Street Journal now reporting that Obama will make babies pay federal income taxes or be shipped off to sweat shops in Columbia.

Hey, life begins at conception and so does fiscal responsibility.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

And that is why doing nothing is better than doing something (as evident in the past 12 years) and people needs to stop believing, advocating and voting for those that think creating a new government program would actually be a good thing.

I'm not blind to the corruption, but I don't buy into the notion that we can never collectively solve any problems. The single most important improvement in the lives of the poor would be a large scale lead abatement program. I don't think the government will act, but i refuse to be cynical enough to believe the government shouldn't act.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Wall Street Journal now reporting that Obama will make babies pay federal income taxes or be shipped off to sweat shops in Columbia.

Everybody needs to have some skin in the game. I'm pro-life, because embryos shouldn't be allowed to be takers.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm not blind to the corruption, but I don't buy into the notion that we can never collectively solve any problems. The single most important improvement in the lives of the poor would be a large scale lead abatement program. I don't think the government will act, but i refuse to be cynical enough to believe the government shouldn't act.

But they already do - many states and cities have such a program, as well as a number of private companies certified to do such work. Why look to the federal government for a solution when you and I know very well that it would get nowhere?

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Until you get into the details of such a program then it is not a solution at all. First would be the severe restrictions of who would actually be qualified to work at such a government job. Then the few that end up hired have to go through many months (probably years) of training, including sexual harrasment and teambuilding, not to mention union orientations. Once on the job, they would be constrained by OSHA and environmental regulations as well as union rules to show progress of the work. So after years and hundreds of millions of dollars spent, not a single measurable results are shown, including the abatement of lead, employment numbers, test scores or crime rates. Then it becomes outsourced to favored companies based on campaign contributions and at even more expenditures without the job being completed. The program then lives in perpetuity on the government roles because someone will scream that reducing/cutting their budget would be an evil thing to do.

But you can go on believing that such programs would actually work in reality instead of on paper.

I'm pretty sure this is exactly how the TSA operates.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

But they already do - many states and cities have such a program, as well as a number of private companies certified to do such work. Why look to the federal government for a solution when you and I know very well that it would get nowhere?

It's still a huge problem for poor kids. I'm fine for block grants for this sort of thing and letting states administer the programs. I don't want to leave it entirely to states because implementation will be spotty. IMO the federal government has an obligation to protect vulnerable citizens, and it has the benefits of putting people to work, improving education and lowering crime.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Wall Street Journal now reporting that Obama will make babies pay federal income taxes or be shipped off to sweat shops in Columbia.

That's what happens when you get bought by News Corp

SI

[Dutch]

Well, sure, that's the point. The Rolling Stone and WSJ are just two more examples of politcal party "house organs".

[mauchow]

So I'll have nearly 2500 more in taxes to pay next year under Obama while no real good idea what it will change under Romney. Obama says I'll pay 2000 more under Romney. 2000 more than what? Than last year? If so that's less than Obama's plan. Tax increases blow when ya make under 100k as family.

[Julio Riddols]

It blows even more when you make about 20k.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by mauboy1

So I'll have nearly 2500 more in taxes to pay next year under Obama while no real good idea what it will change under Romney. Obama says I'll pay 2000 more under Romney. 2000 more than what? Than last year? If so that's less than Obama's plan. Tax increases blow when ya make under 100k as family.

Why will you have 2.5k more in taxes?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Why will you have 2.5k more in taxes?

Expiration of the Bush tax cuts?

[stevew]

Even if the Clinton Tax rates expire on Dec 31, they have 12 more months(at least) to revert ther rates before most normal people have to pay more. Adjust your withholding.

And anyways due to tiered rates, the amount extra you'd pay is ymmv.

[mauchow]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Expiration of the Bush tax cuts?

According to this site:

Who is fighting for the middle class? President Obama versus Mitt Romney. — Barack Obama

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by mauboy1

So I'll have nearly 2500 more in taxes to pay next year under Obama while no real good idea what it will change under Romney. Obama says I'll pay 2000 more under Romney. 2000 more than what? Than last year? If so that's less than Obama's plan. Tax increases blow when ya make under 100k as family.

In fairness to Obama, he did put forth a plan to extend the tax cuts for anyone making under $250k a year. The Republicans shot that down. So Obama's plan isn't to eliminate the tax cuts for people like you. It's what will happen most likely, but that has more to do with Congress.

Romney has stated he would cut everyones rate 20%. He says he will make up for the loss in revenue by eliminating some of the deductions that are out there (although he hasn't specified). The Democrats have claimed this will cost middle class families more, mainly because the deductions would hit them much harder than wealthier individuals. But since Romney hasn't said what deductions he's talking about, no one really knows for sure. We kind of all have to guess.

My concern with Romney's plan is that there is no way to close enough loopholes to make up for the massive cuts he wants. I don't want us to become like Greece where we have a culture of no one paying taxes (not comparing the financial situation, just the culture). We've sort of fallen into this trap of everyone wanting to pay less taxes, running up a ton of debt, and then just leaving it for the next generation to worry about (who will likely also kick the can farther down the road).

Neither side seems terribly interested in getting our debt under control. I support Obama's plan more because it would provide more revenues. I'd support Romney's plan if it included cuts to something like defense where we can actually make a dent in the deficit. But that's not going to happen because Republicans like spending a ton too.

It's basically spend and borrow vs spend and tax. Neither is ideal but I'll choose the tax side because at least we are being somewhat responsible instead of fucking over our kids.

[molson]

Originally Posted by mauboy1

According to this site:

Who is fighting for the middle class? President Obama versus Mitt Romney. — Barack Obama

That gives a sense of what their alleged ideal plans are, but presidents don't set tax rates. Obama's been in there for 4 years and he obviously hates the tax rates we have, so the power is limited. It's harder to find analysis about what is actually likely to happn to tax rates should either be elected, which of course has to be blended with predictions of Congressional races.

[JPhillips]

If Obama is elected and the Senate stays Dem I expect this is what will happen.

After negotiations in December the GOP won't budge on taxes.

All the Bush rates expire Jan 1.

The Dems introduce a bill to lower tax rates on everyone under 250k.

After a lot of sturm und drang the GOP relents due to bad publicity.

The tax cuts are passed retroactive to Jan 1 2013.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by mauboy1

According to this site:

Who is fighting for the middle class? President Obama versus Mitt Romney. — Barack Obama

I still don't get how you'd be paying 2500 more under Obama's plan.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

In fairness to Obama, he did put forth a plan to extend the tax cuts for anyone making under $250k a year. The Republicans shot that down. So Obama's plan isn't to eliminate the tax cuts for people like you. It's what will happen most likely, but that has more to do with Congress.

Romney has stated he would cut everyones rate 20%. He says he will make up for the loss in revenue by eliminating some of the deductions that are out there (although he hasn't specified). The Democrats have claimed this will cost middle class families more, mainly because the deductions would hit them much harder than wealthier individuals. But since Romney hasn't said what deductions he's talking about, no one really knows for sure. We kind of all have to guess.

My concern with Romney's plan is that there is no way to close enough loopholes to make up for the massive cuts he wants. I don't want us to become like Greece where we have a culture of no one paying taxes (not comparing the financial situation, just the culture). We've sort of fallen into this trap of everyone wanting to pay less taxes, running up a ton of debt, and then just leaving it for the next generation to worry about (who will likely also kick the can farther down the road).

Neither side seems terribly interested in getting our debt under control. I support Obama's plan more because it would provide more revenues. I'd support Romney's plan if it included cuts to something like defense where we can actually make a dent in the deficit. But that's not going to happen because Republicans like spending a ton too.

It's basically spend and borrow vs spend and tax. Neither is ideal but I'll choose the tax side because at least we are being somewhat responsible instead of fucking over our kids.

To clarify, Romney's plan is to make the Bush cuts permanent and then pass an additional 20% cut. That's 5 trillion(over ten years) on top of where we're at now. He also wants to spend 2 trillion more on defense. And he wants to add a few hundred trillion by repealing the ACA.

There's no way that can happen without massive(75% or more) cuts to everything the government does besides SS/Medicare/defense or the middle class will end up paying more in taxes or the deficit gets blown further out of the water.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

If Obama is elected and the Senate stays Dem I expect this is what will happen.

After negotiations in December the GOP won't budge on taxes.

All the Bush rates expire Jan 1.

The Dems introduce a bill to lower tax rates on everyone under 250k.

After a lot of sturm und drang the GOP relents due to bad publicity.

The tax cuts are passed retroactive to Jan 1 2013.

+1

[mauchow]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I still don't get how you'd be paying 2500 more under Obama's plan.

2500 more next year compared to this year, not compared to Romney.

If JPhilips is accurate in his assessment as to what will happen then maybe there is no change in the end.

[JPhillips]

I'm just not at all worried about my taxes going up regardless of who wins. There's no way the GOP is going to be responsible for tax increases on everyone under 250k in income. My worry is that they'll be some sort of bargain that doesn't raise any revenue or lowers it.

Personally I think the beginning of a deficit deal is returning to the Clinton rates, but I know that won't happen.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by mauboy1

2500 more next year compared to this year, not compared to Romney.

If JPhilips is accurate in his assessment as to what will happen then maybe there is no change in the end.

Looking at that calculator link, I can't find any way that doesn't end up with a decrease with Obama and an increase under Romney. Are you sure you are reading that right?

[mauchow]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Looking at that calculator link, I can't find any way that doesn't end up with a decrease with Obama and an increase under Romney. Are you sure you are reading that right?

For instance:

$90000

2009-2012 savings: $5200
2013 savings: $2889

Tax increase 2013 under Romney: $884

It looks like Obama's plan is $2300 increase from the prior year and all it says for Romney is $884 increase... and I say to what? I probably don't understand.

Is it $5200 over the course of four years so $1300 per year and now it will be $2889 according to that?

[JPhillips]

The 5200 is spread over three years, so an average of just over 1700 per year.

Now the whole thing is a bit of a put on, as Obama's plan is to keep things the same for those under 250k.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by mauboy1

For instance:

$90000

2009-2012 savings: $5200
2013 savings: $2889

Tax increase 2013 under Romney: $884

It looks like Obama's plan is $2300 increase from the prior year and all it says for Romney is $884 increase... and I say to what? I probably don't understand.

Is it $5200 over the course of four years so $1300 per year and now it will be $2889 according to that?

Well first of all, the Romney figure isn't $884 increase from last year's savings, it's an $884 increase without the any of the included savings. So that's $3600 more you're paying under Romney's plan than under Obama.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Well first of all, the Romney figure isn't $884 increase from last year's savings, it's an $884 increase without the any of the included savings. So that's $3600 more you're paying under Romney's plan than under Obama.

[JPhillips]

Ezra Klein provides a nice summation of the election:

At this point, Romney and Obama are running almost perfectly opposite campaigns. Romney can tell you exactly what he wants to do, but barely a word about how he’ll do it. Obama can’t describe what he wants to achieve, but he can tell you everything about how he’ll get it done. It’s a campaign without real policies against a campaign lacking a clear vision.

[Kodos]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/k...-election.html

What a douche.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Koch Industries, other CEOs warn employees of layoffs if Obama is reelected | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

What a douche.

They're starting to worry about their chosen candidate - you had to figure this would be the next step...knuckle down on the employees to try to control their votes.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

To clarify, Romney's plan is to make the Bush cuts permanent and then pass an additional 20% cut. That's 5 trillion(over ten years) on top of where we're at now. He also wants to spend 2 trillion more on defense. And he wants to add a few hundred trillion by repealing the ACA.

There's no way that can happen without massive(75% or more) cuts to everything the government does besides SS/Medicare/defense or the middle class will end up paying more in taxes or the deficit gets blown further out of the water.

And yet every time Romney is asked whether he's going to cut something it seems he says no, or that he's going to increase it. I can't imagine where he thinks he's getting that $5 trillion from, unless he's just eliminating personal exemptions or something insane.

[Easy Mac]

the caymans

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Autumn

And yet every time Romney is asked whether he's going to cut something it seems he says no, or that he's going to increase it. I can't imagine where he thinks he's getting that $5 trillion from, unless he's just eliminating personal exemptions or something insane.

I'd expect the tax cut bill would be passed first and it would sail through easily. The closing loopholes part may never happen or if it does it will face extreme opposition as it would be classified as tax increases.

The resulting deficit projections would provide the excuse to privatize SS, which would make the deficit worse. But at least the GOP is full of very serious persons.