EPTAds like this one really hurt.
Business responsibility and anti-Obama are Romney's two selling points. One of those is getting torn apart, so he will be left with only the advantage of being anti-Obama which is not nearly enough to win.
President Obama Re-Elected - Page 182
| 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 | ||
|
Lightwip
United States5497 Posts
Ads like this one really hurt. Business responsibility and anti-Obama are Romney's two selling points. One of those is getting torn apart, so he will be left with only the advantage of being anti-Obama which is not nearly enough to win. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On July 16 2012 02:13 Adila wrote: So the latest excuse for Romney and his tenure at Bain is he retired "retroactively" in 1999. Still trying to figure out how that makes any kind of sense. I don't think it's that hard to understand. He thought the Olympics gig would be temporary and kept his position open at Bain, then changed his mind and went into politics instead. A lot of Obama appointees are professors at Berkeley and it is understood that most of them intend to come back, so their offices are still open. But let's say Stephen Chu (Energy Secretary) decides to take another job in 2012 and not go back to Berkeley. Did he retire from Berkeley in 2009 or 2012? From his perspective, he would probably say 2009 since that's when he left. But in terms of the paper trail, Berkeley kept his office open this whole time and technically he's still in charge of his lab. The real purpose of this is twofold. 1) They want to keep Romney on the front pages with Bain in the midst of lots of bad financial shenanigans, making him seem like just another dishonest banker. 2) It's a distraction from economic news and the fact that Obama has severely underperformed. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
| ||
|
SometimesIworkout
Cambodia75 Posts
| ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
On July 15 2012 23:36 DamnCats wrote: I love the polls in the OP, it's almost like the rest of the world doesn't depend on Fox News exclusively for their "news" (opinion). TL=/= the rest of the world. If anything, the community here isn't much more diverse than the Fox News base. On July 16 2012 03:05 SometimesIworkout wrote: If Romney weren't running for Prez and people didn't look at it with a microscope and find all the inevitable unfortunate ethical details, how awesome would it sound: Romney takes some unofficial time off Bain Capital to do THE OLYMPICS. hahaha If anything, it's very odd that someone like himself was selected. I suppose it could be due to the Mormon Church's influence on Utah and Salt Lake City in paticular, but I'd be curious how that was all worked out. Not that he did a bad job though. | ||
|
Epocalypse
Canada319 Posts
On July 15 2012 22:56 Signet wrote: Just fyi, FY 2001 was Clinton's last budget, FY 2009 was Bush's last budget. A fiscal year runs from October of the previous year through September of the current year. So for example FY2012 is Oct 2011 - Sep 2012. You're correct. But the president has the power to change things sometime in January. Most of the time, he will pass something and it takes time to implement. But some things went into effect almost immediately. Smoking Law, Cash for Clunkers, and I don't know what else. How much did that effect the budget? I have no clue. My best guess would be barely, but what else did Obama get implemented before October? And why is the deficit still so high for the remaining two years? Maybe someone has some more insight? I think it's also relevant to note that Obama was part of supercongress that passed TARP and the stimulus. It's also interesting to note that Bush collected the most money in history despite doing his infamous "Bush Tax Cuts" (for the rich). When Obama reverses them, it will be interesting to see how much money is raised yearly. Not that I agree with taxes(theft), but it will serve as a basis for comparison between raising/lowering taxes for the rich and the result in government income. www.whitehouse.gov]Same link to Whitehouse.gov | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On July 16 2012 03:51 Epocalypse wrote: When Obama reverses them, it will be interesting to see how much money is raised yearly. Not that I agree with taxes(theft), but it will serve as a basis for comparison between raising/lowering taxes for the rich and the result in government income. People who refer to taxes as outright theft really need to get out of their magical world and get a clue about the world they actually live in. It's fine to be opposed to taxation, although I'd argue that it's ridiculous and counterproductive in the grand scheme of things, but at the very least, please don't be childish about it. Theft... come on. The public sector in the west plays a big role in the fact that we can be complete imbeciles and still be successful to varying degrees, and smart people can be even more successful here than they could everywhere else. If you were so opposed to it, you'd have found an alternative. The reality of it is, if you're that strongly in opposition to taxation, you're against the very foundations of our society, and what you want is completely different. And that while it may be more "fair", I would say it's also inferior in a world of globalization. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On July 16 2012 03:51 Epocalypse wrote: You're correct. But the president has the power to change things sometime in January. Most of the time, he will pass something and it takes time to implement. But some things went into effect almost immediately. Smoking Law, Cash for Clunkers, and I don't know what else. How much did that effect the budget? I have no clue. My best guess would be barely, but what else did Obama get implemented before October? And why is the deficit still so high for the remaining two years? Maybe someone has some more insight? I think it's also relevant to note that Obama was part of supercongress that passed TARP and the stimulus. True, it's probably most accurate to think of years like 2001 or 2009 as a combination of both presidents' influence/policies. It's also interesting to note that Bush collected the most money in history despite doing his infamous "Bush Tax Cuts" (for the rich). When Obama reverses them, it will be interesting to see how much money is raised yearly. Not that I agree with taxes(theft), but it will serve as a basis for comparison between raising/lowering taxes for the rich and the result in government income. www.whitehouse.gov]Same link to Whitehouse.gov Part of that is also inflation... if you adjust for inflation, only in 2006 and 2007 did federal revenue equal the amount that was brought in in 2000. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200 I doubt that much additional revenue will be brought in if the Clinton-era tax rates are restored only for income over 250k (or whatever the exact threshold is). Maybe people feel like it's more fair, but it's only a small step toward fixing our budget. | ||
|
Epocalypse
Canada319 Posts
On July 16 2012 04:19 Signet wrote: True, it's probably most accurate to think of years like 2001 or 2009 as a combination of both presidents' influence/policies. Part of that is also inflation... if you adjust for inflation, only in 2006 and 2007 did federal revenue equal the amount that was brought in in 2000. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200 I doubt that much additional revenue will be brought in if the Clinton-era tax rates are restored only for income over 250k (or whatever the exact threshold is). Maybe people feel like it's more fair, but it's only a small step toward fixing our budget. Right on, I was looking for something that accounts for inflation. Thanks! | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On July 16 2012 03:51 Epocalypse wrote: You're correct. But the president has the power to change things sometime in January. Most of the time, he will pass something and it takes time to implement. But some things went into effect almost immediately. Smoking Law, Cash for Clunkers, and I don't know what else. How much did that effect the budget? I have no clue. My best guess would be barely, but what else did Obama get implemented before October? And why is the deficit still so high for the remaining two years? Maybe someone has some more insight? I think it's also relevant to note that Obama was part of supercongress that passed TARP and the stimulus. It's also interesting to note that Bush collected the most money in history despite doing his infamous "Bush Tax Cuts" (for the rich). When Obama reverses them, it will be interesting to see how much money is raised yearly. Not that I agree with taxes(theft), but it will serve as a basis for comparison between raising/lowering taxes for the rich and the result in government income. www.whitehouse.gov]Same link to Whitehouse.gov TARP increased the deficits in the early years as money was being spent and then lowered the deficits in the later years as the money was repaid. TARP as a whole would have been profitable if it had remained a bailout for only the financial sector and not extended to certain automakers and homeowners. Right now it is expected to have had a net cost of ~$32B. | ||
|
Shady Sands
United States4021 Posts
Watching the Republican primaries, I thought Romney wanted to the Republican 2012 Candidate almost more badly than he wanted to President--I'm just not sure what he would do once he gets there. That said, I don't think Obama is a good choice for another 4 years, either, since he seems intent on using the current economic malaise to push America further down a statist road... | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On July 16 2012 03:51 Epocalypse wrote: You're correct. But the president has the power to change things sometime in January. Most of the time, he will pass something and it takes time to implement. But some things went into effect almost immediately. Smoking Law, Cash for Clunkers, and I don't know what else. How much did that effect the budget? I have no clue. My best guess would be barely, but what else did Obama get implemented before October? And why is the deficit still so high for the remaining two years? Maybe someone has some more insight? I think it's also relevant to note that Obama was part of supercongress that passed TARP and the stimulus. It's also interesting to note that Bush collected the most money in history despite doing his infamous "Bush Tax Cuts" (for the rich). When Obama reverses them, it will be interesting to see how much money is raised yearly. Not that I agree with taxes(theft), but it will serve as a basis for comparison between raising/lowering taxes for the rich and the result in government income. www.whitehouse.gov]Same link to Whitehouse.gov Depressed economy caused a massive reduction in tax revenue which caused an increase in deficits. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
He's taking a lot of heat -- not just from Democrats, but from high-profile Republicans -- for not doing so. And there really hasn't been another candidate in recent memory that has been less transparent about their finances. So whats the deal? What can possibly be so horrible that Romney is willing to be dragged over the coals for this? | ||
|
Lightwip
United States5497 Posts
On July 16 2012 10:11 Defacer wrote: Does anyone else wonder why Mitt Romney won't release his tax returns? He's taking a lot of heat -- not just from Democrats, but from high-profile Republicans -- for not doing so. And there really hasn't been another candidate in recent memory that has been less transparent about their finances. So whats the deal? What can possibly be so horrible that Romney is willing to be dragged over the coals for this? Probably exactly what Democrats expect to find. He is an extremely wealthy man, after all. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On July 16 2012 10:13 Lightwip wrote: Probably exactly what Democrats expect to find. He is an extremely wealthy man, after all. Seriously, I have no idea. Ideas? Maybe he owns a sweatshop in Pakistan or something mental ... | ||
|
Lightwip
United States5497 Posts
That alone would be enough to sink him. The belief that he does is getting him a lot of flak. If it turns out to be true, then no one will doubt the validity of these claims. I'd say "better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt" applies here. | ||
|
Velocirapture
United States983 Posts
| ||
|
Lightwip
United States5497 Posts
Obama is the first person in this campaign who has had the resources to push back. Now for the first time, there's a serious challenge to his credentials more serious than anything he has on Obama. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On July 16 2012 12:38 Lightwip wrote: I think Romney made a big miscalculation in his campaign. It seems like he thought he would be able to stay on the offensive forever. He even said something along the lines of "if you start having to defend, you're losing, so keep on the offensive." Obama is the first person in this campaign who has had the resources to push back. Now for the first time, there's a serious challenge to his credentials more serious than anything he has on Obama. I wouldn't go that far. But as Obama, Rahm and etc have pointed out ... it's an obvious double-standard that Romney's campaign would hold Obama accountable for the job losses and spending that occurred within his first six months in office -- most of which was a result and response to the economic crisis that was left to him, and put into motion even before he was sworn in -- and then turn around and try to absolve himself of any responsibility at Bain from 1999 to 2003. I don't know what's worse -- being held accountable for Bain's activity during that time, or being wilfully ignorant of Bain's activity while collecting a salary and profiting of their decisions. He was, by definition, the CEO and owner of the company. All leaders are responsible for how their teams do business, whether they're involved on a day-to-day basis or not -- or else they aren't fit to be leaders. | ||
|
Lightwip
United States5497 Posts
| ||
| ||
