EPTPresident Obama Re-Elected - Page 1418
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16123 Posts
How is that a party of work? You can be a party of industry sure, a party of business, no problem. But how can you be a party of work if all of your policies are meant to take away all of the power of working class Americans? That article does a good job of just showing how much the current Republican message isn't resonating with a large portion of the American populace. The one point it makes that I find interesting is when he calls out big business and challenges them to invest rather than spend towards political contributions. Basically, challenging the job creators to actually BE job creators. It's hard to get the trickle down message across when so many Americans believe big business isn't actually interested in creating American jobs. | ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16123 Posts
David, it's good to see you throwing this Protestant dissenter framing under the bus. It was bogus from the very beginning - as too many of these self-righteous dissenters had absolutely no problem either owning slaves (and later, ruthlessly exploiting segregated African-Americans) or perpetually plotting to steal as many Native American lands as they could possibly get their hands on. There's no form of theft more pernicious than the theft of another man's freedom, dignity, ancestral lands, or labor - and this kind of theft was a huge part of the American narrative right up until the Civil Rights era. Where you get it wrong once again, however, is by suggesting that the Democratic Party is not a party that celebrates the work ethic. The modern Democratic Party has always emphasized work. For instance, getting people back to work after an orgy of creative destruction left an entire world in ruins was the whole point of FDR's WPA program. Democrats understand that the vast majority of Americans feel better about themselves for having received an honest day's pay for an honest day's work. We're not the party pushing for tax policies that make it possible for a millionaire's or billionaire's descendants to never have to work a single day in their lives. We're not the party attempting to create new generations of high-net worth wastrels and slackers - by opposing every attempt to restore the estate tax. That's your party, David. Time to look in the mirror. - Matthew Carnicelli | ||
|
xNSwarm
155 Posts
Would wiki be the best bet? So many distributors of information like to lean the points toward their own interests. By unbiased I don't want something that one would necessarily think is logically correct because it aligns with their party's interests, but something that places both parties in equal light without putting down certain issues. | ||
|
DanceSC
United States751 Posts
LMAO, now to answer "What was the biggest reason Obama won?" Cause Americas got its head shoved up its ass. Dear America, Vote Obama. Sincerely, Rest of the fucking world. Totally would side with you, if I didn't live in America  | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
Your candidate couldn't answer simple policy questions with consistent, honest answers. His tax policy was "whatever the audience wants to hear today!" That's why he lost. It isn't any bit more complicated or convoluted than that. edit: For example, the latest Fox News reasoning behind Obama's victory is the Hurricane Sandy. But the most accurate daily tracking poll (Reuters) showed that the Hurricane had absolutely no effect on Obama's numbers -- in fact, he actually dropped a point during the last week. There are a lot of little factors that you can point to, but in the end, your candidate could not make a clear case for himself. Obama's past four years were not great -- I'll admit that. They weren't great for either side. Dems wanted him to do more, Repubs hated what little he did accomplish. You had a window to take back the presidency. But all you offered was a convoluted, dishonest sales pitch of the same economic policies that America rejected when they elected Barack the first time. But instead of genuflecting, it seems the GOP is more interested in maintaining their losing, unpopular positions by finding anything else to blame for their loss. | ||
|
Tewks44
United States2032 Posts
On November 09 2012 14:04 Leporello wrote: I really think Republicans need to stop making excuses for this. Your candidate couldn't answer simple policy questions with consistent, honest answers. His tax policy was "whatever the audience wants to hear today!" That's why he lost. It isn't any bit more complicated or convoluted than that. Romney had a clearly outline tax policy, which most liberals refused to acknowledge so they could rely on arguments like "Romney doesn't clearly outline his policy." such an argument had some effect to be sure, but now that the election is over, maybe liberals like yourself will be willing to actually do a minimum amount of research. http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/romney-plan.cfm | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On November 09 2012 14:09 Tewks44 wrote: Romney had a clearly outline tax policy, which most liberals refused to acknowledge so they could rely on arguments like "Romney doesn't clearly outline his policy." such an argument had some effect to be sure, but now that the election is over, maybe liberals like yourself will be willing to actually do a minimum amount of research. http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/romney-plan.cfm Do you even read the things you post? From your link Because Gov. Romney has not specified how he would increase the tax base, it is impossible to determine how the plan would affect federal tax revenues or the distribution of the tax burden. TPC has analyzed instead the effects of the specified proposals in the Romney plan. These estimates provide a guide as to how much the base broadening would need to raise taxes in different income groups to achieve the plan’s targets. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
but that doesn't even matter because no amount of hole closing can pay for his top level cuts. he'd have to physically drag every corporation's cayman accounts back to the u.s. to do that. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On November 09 2012 13:58 xNSwarm wrote: Where can I read an in-depth overview of the political parties from an unbiased source? (unbiased as possible) Would wiki be the best bet? So many distributors of information like to lean the points toward their own interests. By unbiased I don't want something that one would necessarily think is logically correct because it aligns with their party's interests, but something that places both parties in equal light without putting down certain issues. There's a website called politics1 that sorta does this. Although I'm not sure it does a good job explaining the factions part. Basically you have: Democrat (in order from largest to smallest): Moderate (Federalists) Green (Environmentalists) Social Liberals (non-libertarian) Socialist Communist Republican: Moderate (States Rights) Social Conservatives Tea Party (Slash Budget) Libertarian Constitution (super conservatives) | ||
|
Tewks44
United States2032 Posts
On November 09 2012 14:13 Sub40APM wrote: Do you even read the things you post? From your link congrats, you can cherrypick one paragraph out of a deeply involved plan. Here's what I cherrypicked. Governor Romney would permanently extend all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts now scheduled to expire in 2013, repeal the AMT and certain tax provisions in the 2010 health reform legislation, and cut individual income tax rates by an additional 20 percent. He would also expand the tax base by cutting back tax preferences, but has supplied no information on which preferences would be reduced. Tax provisions in the 2009 stimulus act and subsequently extended through 2012 would expire. These include the American Opportunity tax credit for higher education, the expanded refundability of the child credit, and the expansion of the earned income tax credit (EITC). The plan would also eliminate tax on long-term capital gains, dividends, and interest income for married couples filing jointly with income under $200,000 ($100,000 for single filers and $150,000 for heads of household) and repeal the federal estate tax, while continuing the gift tax with a maximum tax rate of 35 percent. sorry if that level of detail isn't clear enough for you based on the fact Romney hasn't specified how he would increase the tax base calculation. I'm sure you are equally critical of Obama's tax policy, so I suppose I'll have to forgive you. | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
On November 09 2012 14:09 Tewks44 wrote: Romney had a clearly outline tax policy, which most liberals refused to acknowledge so they could rely on arguments like "Romney doesn't clearly outline his policy." such an argument had some effect to be sure, but now that the election is over, maybe liberals like yourself will be willing to actually do a minimum amount of research. http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/romney-plan.cfm No. Read the policy report (I posted that same report hundreds of pages ago in this thread). It's been debated extensively, and the report gives its conclusions, plainly, at the start. A) His tax plan mentions numerous deductions without clarifying what they are. B) His tax plan made a gross assumption that it would spur so much monumental economic growth that it would make up for $5 trillion dollar in immediately-lost revenue. But more importanly C) In the debates with Obama, Romney completely and utterly lied about his tax policy. He said he wasn't cutting taxes for the top-earners, which was a flat-out lie that contradicted his own website and everything he had said in the primary election. His plan even eliminates the Estate Tax, and he had the gall to say it wasn't a tax cut for the wealthy. One lady in the 2nd debate asked Romney directly, "What deductions are you eliminating in your tax policy?" Romney didn't answer her question at all, completely dodged it. His tax policy was convoluted and simply dishonest in its assumptions, and then, when forced to sell it to a non-Republican audience, he completely misrepresented it to such a degree that people didn't even know whether to trust his previous tax policy was still his current policy, or whether he decided to invent a new one overnight. You need to rewatch that 2nd debate, and realize what a shameless, audacious liar Romney was. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On November 09 2012 14:18 Leporello wrote: No. Read the policy report (I posted that same report hundreds of pages ago in this thread). A) His tax plan mentions numerous deductions without clarifying what they are. B) His tax plan made a gross assumption that it would spur so much monumental economic growth that it would make up for $5 trillion dollar in immediately-lost revenue. But more importanly C) In the debates with Obama, Romney completely and utterly lied about his tax policy. He said he wasn't cutting taxes for the top-earners, which was a flat-out lie that contradicted his own website and everything he had said in the primary election. One lady in the 2nd debate asked Romney directly, "What deductions are you eliminating in your tax policy?" Romney didn't answer her question at all, completely dodged it. His tax policy was convoluted and simply dishonest in its assumptions, and then, when forced to sell it to a non-Republican audience, he completely misrepresented it to such a degree that people didn't even know whether to trust his previous tax policy was still his current policy, or whether he decided to invent a new one overnight. Obama's plan is just as vague. It's a pointless argument. | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
On November 09 2012 14:20 BluePanther wrote: Obama's plan is just as vague. It's a pointless argument. No, Obama's plan isn't as vague, and more to the point I was actually making (always a challenge with you), Obama didn't misrepresent and obfuscate in the debates. This is why Romney didn't deserve any of your votes, no matter how much you might hate Obama. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On November 09 2012 14:23 Leporello wrote: No, Obama's plan isn't as vague, and more to the point I was actually making (always a challenge with you), Obama didn't misrepresent and obfuscate in the debates. This is why Romney didn't deserve any of your votes, no matter how much you might hate Obama. Yes it is. I had to go through the thing. | ||
|
Tewks44
United States2032 Posts
On November 09 2012 14:18 Leporello wrote: No. Read the policy report (I posted that same report hundreds of pages ago in this thread). It's been debated extensively, and the report gives its conclusions, plainly, at the start. A) His tax plan mentions numerous deductions without clarifying what they are. B) His tax plan made a gross assumption that it would spur so much monumental economic growth that it would make up for $5 trillion dollar in immediately-lost revenue. But more importanly C) In the debates with Obama, Romney completely and utterly lied about his tax policy. He said he wasn't cutting taxes for the top-earners, which was a flat-out lie that contradicted his own website and everything he had said in the primary election. His plan even eliminates the Estate Tax, and he had the gall to say it wasn't a tax cut for the wealthy. One lady in the 2nd debate asked Romney directly, "What deductions are you eliminating in your tax policy?" Romney didn't answer her question at all, completely dodged it. His tax policy was convoluted and simply dishonest in its assumptions, and then, when forced to sell it to a non-Republican audience, he completely misrepresented it to such a degree that people didn't even know whether to trust his previous tax policy was still his current policy, or whether he decided to invent a new one overnight. You need to rewatch that 2nd debate, and realize what a shameless, audacious liar Romney was. I'm sorry, I've googled "policy report" and "romney policy report" and I have no idea where you're getting this information. I was merely responding to your assertion that Romney didn't clearly outline his tax policy. I assumed that the tax policy center would be a legitimate source, but apparently I underestimated the quality of information you expected. I really don't know what kind of source I can post to show you Romney did indeed have a clearly outlined tax policy. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
put it this way, if you are going to tell me, i'll give you 10 million dollars! i'd think you are a nigerian prince. you'll have to provide detailed support for how you'll go about delivering that promise. if you say, let's make a deal and i'll loan you 20 bucks. you are alright. if obama said i'll cut fucking trillions in taxes you should expect that he'll answer the question of how he's going to pay for it all. in any case, this is not very productive discussion. the tax code should be designed for a world of modern finance. in other words, try to target rent seeking at the top, and do not punish industry, entreprenuers and innovation in an effort to tap fair social share of economic activity. i would have a narrow top bracket of say 1m+ that is taxed at above 50%. reduce differential between different forms of income, so less of an incentive to manipulating income structure. distinguish financial capital gains from investment gains, so we have an incentive to store value in real economy and less of a career made from speculatory financial activities, which has the severe side effect of increasing leverage in the economy. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18864 Posts
On November 09 2012 14:26 Tewks44 wrote: I'm sorry, I've googled "policy report" and "romney policy report" and I have no idea where you're getting this information. I was merely responding to your assertion that Romney didn't clearly outline his tax policy. I assumed that the tax policy center would be a legitimate source, but apparently I underestimated the quality of information you expected. I really don't know what kind of source I can post to show you Romney did indeed have a clearly outlined tax policy. By policy report, he is referring to the TPC link you provided. | ||
|
Tewks44
United States2032 Posts
On November 09 2012 14:23 Leporello wrote: No, Obama's plan isn't as vague, and more to the point I was actually making (always a challenge with you), Obama didn't misrepresent and obfuscate in the debates. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFCwwQVxnzg This is why Romney didn't deserve any of your votes, no matter how much you might hate Obama. Romney said he plans on limiting deductions by setting a cap on the amount of deductions one can take. This isn't complicated stuff... | ||
| ||
