-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hooahguy
How specific? Like naming specific programs?
Yeah. What would he cut, what would he keep, what would he boost. Like boosting the defense budget, how would you justify that?
Quote:
For the record, if it wasnt for the fact that Obamacare would force people to get health insurance, Id be behind it. Its only for that reason I dont like it.
Same here. I'm just saying that Romney has no moral ground to criticize Obama for Obamneycare.
Quote:
Seriously? Is $6+ trillion in 4 years not enough?
Did you expect him to default?
I have yet to hear Romney offer anything worthwhile.
Quote:
Exactly. So why stop a good thing?
Nobody's stopping it. Apparently for Romney 15% is still too high.
Quote:
But would it actually do anything? My bet is on no.
Sure it will. That money will stimulate business because it will be spent immediately.
Quote:
But how much of that would get back to the government? I remind you that not every poor person has the same spending habits. Lets say someone gets a check for $1,000. How much of that do you honestly think would get back to the government? Id say, not that much.
People who have to decide on whether or not pay their power bill or spend money on food will spend every penny of that $1000, i.e. pour all that money directly into small businesses (like grocery stores etc.)
Quote:
Seriously? :wall:
When the stock market is doing well it usually translates to an overall good economy.
DOW today closed at just over 13000. That's pretty high. Yet the economy is not doing so hot.
Quote:
Can you be more specific?
These are the individual Income tax brackets for 2012. Income from investments is taxed at flat 15% (Capital Gains Tax). The only people paying lower rate than Romney are the ones making less than 20k a year. Case closed.
Marginal Tax Rate Single Married Filing Jointly or Qualified Widow(er) Married Filing Separately Head of Household
10% $0 – $8,700 $0 – $17,400 $0 – $8,700 $0 – $12,400
15% $8,701 – $35,350 $17,401 – $70,700 $8,701 – $35,350 $12,401 – $47,350
25% $35,351 – $85,650 $70,701 – $142,700 $35,351 – $71,350 $47,351 – $122,300
28% $85,651 – $178,650 $142,701 – $217,450 $71,351 – $108,725 $122,301 – $198,050
33% $178,651 – $388,350 $217,451 – $388,350 $108,726 – $194,175 $198,051 – $388,350
35% $388,351+ $388,351+ $194,176+ $388,351+
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rvg
Yeah. What would he cut, what would he keep, what would he boost. Like boosting the defense budget, how would you justify that?
Same here. I'm just saying that Romney has no moral ground to criticize Obama for Obamneycare.
Did you expect him to default?
I have yet to hear Romney offer anything worthwhile.
Nobody's stopping it. Apparently for Romney 15% is still too high.
Sure it will. That money will stimulate business because it will be spent immediately.
People who have to decide on whether or not pay their power bill or spend money on food will spend every penny of that $1000, i.e. pour all that money directly into small businesses (like grocery stores etc.)
DOW today closed at just over 13000. That's pretty high. Yet the economy is not doing so hot.
These are the individual Income tax brackets for 2012. Income from investments is taxed at flat 15% (Capital Gains Tax). The only people paying lower rate than Romney are the ones making less than 20k a year. Case closed.
Marginal Tax Rate Single Married Filing Jointly or Qualified Widow(er) Married Filing Separately Head of Household
10% $0 – $8,700 $0 – $17,400 $0 – $8,700 $0 – $12,400
15% $8,701 – $35,350 $17,401 – $70,700 $8,701 – $35,350 $12,401 – $47,350
25% $35,351 – $85,650 $70,701 – $142,700 $35,351 – $71,350 $47,351 – $122,300
28% $85,651 – $178,650 $142,701 – $217,450 $71,351 – $108,725 $122,301 – $198,050
33% $178,651 – $388,350 $217,451 – $388,350 $108,726 – $194,175 $198,051 – $388,350
35% $388,351+ $388,351+ $194,176+ $388,351+
I LIEK WHEN PEOPLE WHO NO NOTHING A BOWT THE MARKETS TLK ABOWT THM!!!
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Centurion1
I LIEK WHEN PEOPLE WHO NO NOTHING A BOWT THE MARKETS TLK ABOWT THM!!!
Ur caps is on btw.
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rvg
Did you expect him to default?
True, but I didnt expect him to spend that much money either.
I was going to keep arguing, but then I realized that I dont know very much about the economy, so Im going to concede this argument on the basis of ignorance.
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lemur
Best
takedown of the Ryan speech I've read (at lunch):
Incredibly, the larger theme of Ryan’s speech was to assail Obama for failing to take full responsibilities for this state of affairs — Obama is “shifting blame,” “blaming others.” It is the single largest motif of Ryan’s speech. Let’s review: Ryan helps to create a massive structural deficit, repeatedly and almost single-handedly prevents a solution, then runs for vice-president, blaming Obama for the structural deficit and further blaming him for his unwillingness to agree that this is all his own fault. The really amazing thing is that it could possibly work.
The BBC contributed this:
Republican vice-presidential nominee Paul Ryan has come under fire for alleged inaccuracies during his convention debut in Tampa, Florida.
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
My imaginary girlfriend really liked the imaginary suit imaginary Obama wore during Eastwood's speech
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lemur
Best
takedown of the Ryan speech I've read (at lunch):
Incredibly, the larger theme of Ryan’s speech was to assail Obama for failing to take full responsibilities for this state of affairs — Obama is “shifting blame,” “blaming others.” It is the single largest motif of Ryan’s speech. Let’s review: Ryan helps to create a massive structural deficit, repeatedly and almost single-handedly prevents a solution, then runs for vice-president, blaming Obama for the structural deficit and further blaming him for his unwillingness to agree that this is all his own fault. The really amazing thing is that it could possibly work.
Almost single-handedly prevents a solution? :inquisitive: :rolleyes:
My prefered column about the speech, media, and political process:
Quote:
Wednesday night, the GOP's nominee for vice-president, Paul Ryan, delivered a speech loaded with pure, fundamental deceit on its core claims. The New Republic's Jonathan Cohn has the clearest and most concise explanation of those falsehoods.
Reflecting the pure worthlessness and chronic failure of CNN, however, here is how that network's lead anchor, Wolf Blitzer, reacted after the speech was finished:
"So there he is, the Republican vice-presidential nominee and his beautiful family there. His mom is up there. This is exactly what this crowd of Republicans here, certainly Republicans all across the country, were hoping for. He delivered a powerful speech, Erin, a powerful speech. Although I marked seven or eight points, I'm sure the fact-checkers will have some opportunities to dispute if they want to go forward; I'm sure they will. As far as Mitt Romney's campaign is concerned, Paul Ryan on this night delivered."
Blitzer's co-anchor, Erin Burnett – who, the night before, described how she "had a tear in [her] eye" as she listened to Ann Romney's convention speech – added this journalistic wisdom:
"That's right. Certainly so. We were jotting down points. There will be issues with some of the facts. But it motivated people. He's a man who says I care deeply about every single word. I want to do a good job. And he delivered on that. Precise, clear, and passionate."
As Gawker's Louis Peitzman wrote:
"'A powerful speech' with only 'seven or eight' facts to dispute? Sounds like a winner … [I]n the end, isn't 'precise, clear, and passionate' more important than truthful?"
...
The election process is where American politicians go to be venerated and glorified, all based on trivial personality attributes that have zero relationship to what they do with their power, but which, by design, convinces Americans that they're blessed to be led by people with such noble and sterling character, no matter how much those political figures shaft them. (Wednesday, President Obama, during his highly-touted "Ask Me Anything" appearance on Reddit, predictably ignored the question from Mother Jones's Nick Baumann about Obama's killing of the American teenager Abdulrahman Awlaki, in favor of answering questions about the White House beer recipe and his favorite basketball player.)
The election process is where each political party spends hundreds of millions of dollars exploiting the same trivial personality attributes to demonize the other party's politicians as culturally foreign, all to keep their followers in a high state of fear and thus lock-step loyalty.
It's the supreme propaganda orgy, devoted to aggressively reinforcing the claim to American exceptionalism: the belief that even when things look grim, America will forever be that special God-favored land of freedom, opportunity, and prosperity, and all citizens should therefore be deeply grateful – quietly and passively so – for the privilege of residing in such a land, no matter how wretched are their circumstances and how pervasive is the corruption.
CR
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Crazed Rabbit
Almost single-handedly prevents a solution?
The attempt by Obama and the Congress to achieve a "Grand Bargain" on the deficit, with a mix of spending cuts and tax raises, was torpedoed by the House. This is a matter of record. Who led the opposition to the Grand Bargain in the house? I'll give you a hint ...
President Obama and John Boehner had struck a deal, one that was far more favorable to Republicans than either Bowles-Simpson or the Senate plan — a horrible deal, I would say. Guess who stuck in the knife? [...]
Mr. Ryan’s enormous influence was apparent last summer when Representative Eric Cantor, the second most powerful House Republican, told Mr. Obama during negotiations over an attempted bipartisan “grand bargain” that Mr. Ryan disliked its policy and was concerned that a deal would pave the way for Mr. Obama’s easy re-election, according to a Democrat and a Republican who were briefed on the conversation.
A little more detail (including Ryan not only acknowledging but justifying his active opposition to a Grand Bargain):
Speaking on CNN, Paul appeared to implicitly criticize House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) for having engaged in secretive deficit talks with President Obama last year.
Ryan characterized the talks as leading to a “backroom deal” and blasted Obama’s role.
Negotiations take two, however, so the comment appears to also hit at Boehner, who tried to craft a “grand bargain” on taxes and spending with the president.
“Cutting a backroom deal that gives you plausible deniability is not leadership. Offering a plan, submitting a budget to Congress that fixes the problem is leadership. And we haven’t seen it for four years from President Obama,” Ryan said.
The talks blew up over the issue of raising taxes on the wealthy, and Ryan was seen as instrumental in scuttling the deal.
“That wasn’t even close to fixing the problem. That was a medium-sized deal,” Ryan said of the effort.
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
the first one was the best
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rvg
These are the individual Income tax brackets for 2012. Income from investments is taxed at flat 15% (Capital Gains Tax). The only people paying lower rate than Romney are the ones making less than 20k a year. Case closed.
Marginal Tax Rate Single Married Filing Jointly or Qualified Widow(er) Married Filing Separately Head of Household
10% $0 – $8,700 $0 – $17,400 $0 – $8,700 $0 – $12,400
15% $8,701 – $35,350 $17,401 – $70,700 $8,701 – $35,350 $12,401 – $47,350
25% $35,351 – $85,650 $70,701 – $142,700 $35,351 – $71,350 $47,351 – $122,300
28% $85,651 – $178,650 $142,701 – $217,450 $71,351 – $108,725 $122,301 – $198,050
33% $178,651 – $388,350 $217,451 – $388,350 $108,726 – $194,175 $198,051 – $388,350
35% $388,351+ $388,351+ $194,176+ $388,351+
Romney pays an effective federal tax rate of 13% per year. Marginal tax rates really are useless when debating this issue as one has to take into account deductions, exemptions, credits, and additional taxes (ex payroll taxes) to see how much tax a individual pays out of pocket. State taxes also add to the burden ranging from 0% in Florida to a high of 11% in California. An argument for the 15% tax rate (0% for low earners) on dividends is that it prevents heavy double taxation (corporation distributes its already taxed earnings to its shareholders where they are taxed again). As for capital gains, well they probably should be taxed at ordinary rates as many of our tax laws are in place to deter people from abusing the 15% dividend rate and classifying something as a "dividend".
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
I wish this system was more friendly to third party candidates. If it was Id totally be voting for Gary Johnson.
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
All the arguments in favor of the two party system are deemed invalid the more and more each of the two current parties exploit public funding.
Kill public funding, and open it up. Tree will be shaken. This is ridiculous. I cannot stand either candidate for the last 4 elections now
Oh, and Ross Perot was right. Suck on that. Too late to go back now
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
According to Nielsen, viewership of the Repub convention was down 23% or so. Does this signify anything?
Personal theory: Cord-cutters like me are slicing into ratings everywhere. Secondary theory: Political conventions are relics from another age, and people are kinda done with 'em.
-edit-
Pretty much how I imagine political conventions:
https://i.imgur.com/x6qzm.jpg
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lemur
According to Nielsen, viewership of the Repub convention was down 23% or so. Does this signify anything?
Personal theory: Cord-cutters like me are slicing into ratings everywhere. Secondary theory: Political conventions are relics from another age, and people are kinda done with 'em.
It might mean that we are just sick of the charade. Candidates announced in what, February 2011? Primaries/caucuses from January to July, but everything was decided by April. It's been 5 months of blathering since, with 2 more months to go. With today's tech and media, is there any reason why the schedule for primaries to the convention couldn't be compressed into about 4 months? Waste of time and money, and a great way to turn off the voting public.
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lemur
According to Nielsen, viewership of the Repub convention was down 23% or so. Does this signify anything?
Maybe people have already decided? It is either Romney or thousand years of darkness! Maybe people were just busy registering or buying food and ammo.
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
NOOOOOOOOOOOOO THEY GOT CHUCK
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tiaexz
The Romney campaign will continue to lie for one main reason: they have discovered that there are absolutely no consequences for doing so. A good article about "post-trust" politics:
http://grist.org/politics/as-romney-...ruth-politics/
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
This convention is a dud so far. I have to admit, if Mayor Castro wasn't so obviously parroting the platform he would be an interesting player. O'Malley is going nowhere, Ed Rendell should run in 2016
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
When do we get to see Betty White?????
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
You people are watching one big infomercial. I am disappointed.
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Quote:
Originally Posted by
a completely inoffensive name
You people are watching one big infomercial. I am disappointed.
Michelle's speech sucked and did nothing for me. I'm glad that they are deciding to overplay their hand on the abortion issue. It will give us an opportunity to hammer the President on his positions on infanticide during the debate. Romney takes a centrist position on abortion, clearly attempting to balance the rights of women with the rights of the unborn. Obama believes that an abortion Dr should be the one to decide whether a child who survives even a late term abortion gets life saving treatment or not. Barack Obama was an IS against a ban on late term abortions. As "detached" as Mitt Romney is, his abortion position is much closer to the position of most Americans and is much more humane than Obama's
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ICantSpellDawg
Michelle's speech sucked and did nothing for me. I'm glad that they are deciding to overplay their hand on the abortion issue. It will give us an opportunity to hammer the President on his positions on infanticide during the debate. Romney takes a centrist position on abortion, clearly attempting to balance the rights of women with the rights of the unborn. Obama believes that an abortion Dr should be the one to decide whether a child who survives even a late term abortion gets life saving treatment or not. Barack Obama was an IS against a ban on late term abortions. As "detached" as Mitt Romney is, his abortion position is much closer to the position of most Americans and is much more humane than Obama's
Not to turn this into an abortion argument, but you brought it up, so.....:
There are no "rights" for the unborn. There are, however, constitutionally enshrined rights for women (as they are actually, beyond a shadow of a doubt, human beings). I would suggest that any president who, as the sworn defender of the constitution tries to balance (and by "balance" I mean "infringe upon") the legitimate constitutional rights of women by placing them on the same level as the in no way legal "rights of the unborn" has broken his promise to defend the constitution by putting his personal beliefs before the law of the land.
If he wants to infringe upon womens' rights so much, he should have the balls to propose a constitutional amendment and put his money where his mouth is. Who knows, he might even win. You guys did a pretty good job getting the hate vote out against teh gheys in a bunch of constitutional amendment votes at the state level, maybe you can roust up the same brown-shirt base to take down teh chix at the federal level.
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ICantSpellDawg
Michelle's speech sucked and did nothing for me. I'm glad that they are deciding to overplay their hand on the abortion issue. It will give us an opportunity to hammer the President on his positions on infanticide during the debate. Romney takes a centrist position on abortion, clearly attempting to balance the rights of women with the rights of the unborn. Obama believes that an abortion Dr should be the one to decide whether a child who survives even a late term abortion gets life saving treatment or not. Barack Obama was an IS against a ban on late term abortions. As "detached" as Mitt Romney is, his abortion position is much closer to the position of most Americans and is much more humane than Obama's
humane to you
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
So... What does that mean to the uninitiated?
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Greyblades
So... What does that mean to the uninitiated?
It means that the Dems now recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Mitt Romney would be proud.
-
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
I believe it means that the Democrats have now taken the same "stand with Israel" position that the Republicans have, in a reversal of their earlier reversal. Is that really how they do that? That seemed more like how to get kindergartners to choose what they wanted for lunch than how to decide the fate of nations.
