• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 03:08
CEST 09:08
KST 16:08
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Serral wins EWC 202519Tournament Spotlight: FEL Cracow 20259Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202580RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15
Community News
[BSL 2025] H2 - Team Wars, Weeklies & SB Ladder2EWC 2025 - Replay Pack2Google Play ASL (Season 20) Announced33BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams10Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0
StarCraft 2
General
#1: Maru - Greatest Players of All Time Greatest Players of All Time: 2025 Update Serral wins EWC 2025 Power Rank - Esports World Cup 2025 EWC 2025 - Replay Pack
Tourneys
TaeJa vs Creator Bo7 SC Evo Showmatch Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $10,000 live event Esports World Cup 2025 $25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 484 Magnetic Pull Mutation #239 Bad Weather Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune
Brood War
General
Help: rep cant save Shield Battery Server New Patch Google Play ASL (Season 20) Announced [G] Progamer Settings StarCraft & BroodWar Campaign Speedrun Quest
Tourneys
[BSL] Non-Korean Championship - Final weekend [Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China CSL Xiamen International Invitational
Strategy
Does 1 second matter in StarCraft? Simple Questions, Simple Answers Muta micro map competition [G] Mineral Boosting
Other Games
General Games
Nintendo Switch Thread Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Total Annihilation Server - TAForever [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread UK Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine
Fan Clubs
INnoVation Fan Club SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Gtx660 graphics card replacement Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
TeamLiquid Team Shirt On Sale The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Eight Anniversary as a TL…
Mizenhauer
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 585 users

President Obama Re-Elected - Page 234

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 232 233 234 235 236 1504 Next
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
HunterX11
Profile Joined March 2009
United States1048 Posts
August 01 2012 18:43 GMT
#4661
On August 01 2012 22:28 sunprince wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 01 2012 21:58 DoubleReed wrote:
On August 01 2012 14:14 Signet wrote:
On August 01 2012 13:03 DoubleReed wrote:
Eh, the fact is that race is a biological myth. There's no real basis for race in biology or genetics. The genetic distance between 'races' is smaller than the genetic variability within a 'race.' So the delineation is basically meaningless. It would be like organizing people by eye color, facial structure, height, or skin pigmentation. A white person has something like a 10% chance to be closer to the average African than the average European. That's pretty high, when you think about it. I found a source that was really good at explaining the race myth, but I can't seem to find it at the moment.

But yea, the belief that race is genetically insignificant actually has a huge basis in science. It is much more surprising than you would initially suspect.

How are you defining "race," if not by skin pigmentation?


Well, skin pigmentation doesn't make sense. Island tribes and aboriginese can have similar skin pigmentation but be genetically further from one another and such. Typically race refers to several features rather than just skin pigments. Facial and body types and such are usually grouped in there.

Oh and sunprince, if you make it more specific than race then yes sure it works better. But even at it's height racial features are something like 4% or something. These are more like genetic markers than serious scientific racism or anything. There's really nothing to support that kind of thing. So I'm not really sure why you're acting as if what you're saying is offensive. Because the actual science really isn't.

Like you're being all like "neener neener truth hurts" but either you don't understand it yourself or you're terrible at explaining to others. Because it really isn't offensive. There's really no political correctness going on at all. People are just better at describing things now.


In this thread, we have two people accusing me of racism because I presented a coherent, logical explanation for some of the disparities between different American ethnic groups. That's pretty much the epitome of polical correctness gone awry.

I certainly don't find the science offensive, but they apparently do.


What science? I don't see any science in your posts, just conjecture which begs that question that African-Americans are inferior in the first place. Who cares if it is politically incorrect to be racist? More significant than "political correctness" is that racism is immoral and tremendously odious and has real-life consequences. Just because your story is coherent and logical does not make it true or scientific or even worthy of discussion, any more than Nazi racial science--which despite being obviously wrong (in case you need a reminder) is actually LESS asinine than your assertion that those who found themselves enslaved lacked skills to succeed in a future capitalist society compared to slavers, not to mention the suggestion that people were bred to be stupid in just a few generations despite no evidence for it.

TL;DR: racism is bad.
Try using both Irradiate and Defensive Matrix on an Overlord. It looks pretty neat.
WniO
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
United States2706 Posts
August 01 2012 18:43 GMT
#4662
Seriously theyoungturks...? Come on now, I know some of you are smarter than to watch that toxic waste. On topic Romney will do fine after that trip, but I still can't see him beating Obama, can't imagine even watching a debate between the two.
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
August 01 2012 18:44 GMT
#4663
The dedicated fans of Rep. Ron Paul are determined to make a big noise at the Republican National Convention, and the Texas Republican is raising money to get them there. Mr. Paul says he’s told his campaign staff to offer financial assistance to “pro-liberty delegates” who can’t afford to journey to Tampa, Fla., at month’s end; the lawmaker has sent out an impassioned plea for contributions to help with their travel and lodging.

“This is incredibly important for a number of reasons. First, the convention is our opportunity to plant our flag and show that our Liberty movement is the future of the GOP,” Mr. Paul says. “Second, we’re expecting a credentials battle at the convention to ensure the national GOP doesn’t just ‘look the other way’ at some of the dirty tricks my supporters had to deal with in many states.”

The lawmaker also has his eye on the party platform, despite suspending his “active” presidential campaign in May. Among his causes: Internet freedom, an audit of the Federal Reserve and “the indefinite detention of American citizens.” Mr. Paul also anticipates a possible “battle over a plank opposing the so-called Patriot Act and undeclared wars.”


Source
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
Saryph
Profile Joined April 2010
United States1955 Posts
August 01 2012 18:52 GMT
#4664
Study: Romney Plan Would Raise Taxes On 95% Of Americans

Mitt Romney’s tax plan would be a boon for the wealthy, but a tax hike for 95% of Americans, according to a new nonpartisan study.

The report, by researchers from both the Brookings Institution and Tax Policy Center, examined Romney’s suggestion of an across-the-board 20% income tax cut financed by closing existing loopholes and concluded there was no way to make the numbers work without burdening the vast majority of Americans with higher taxes.

...


Source
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
August 01 2012 19:05 GMT
#4665
On August 02 2012 02:58 kwizach wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 02 2012 02:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On August 01 2012 22:58 kwizach wrote:
On August 01 2012 13:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On August 01 2012 12:48 kwizach wrote:
On August 01 2012 12:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On August 01 2012 11:23 kwizach wrote:
On August 01 2012 08:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On August 01 2012 08:03 Adila wrote:
Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney hailed Poland's economy Tuesday as something akin to a Republican dream: a place of small government, individual empowerment and free enterprise.

While it's true that Poland is one of Europe's fastest-growing economies and boasts dynamic entrepreneurs, Romney's depiction of Poland as a place of small government is debatable. Even 23 years after throwing off a communist command economy, the Polish government continues to have a strong presence in people's lives: it gives women $300 for each baby they have, doubling that sum for poor families; it fully funds state university educations; and it guarantees health care to all its 38 million citizens.

And while Poland's economic growth has certainly been impressive in recent years, this is partly the result of economic redistribution in the form of subsidies that have been flowing in from the European Union since it joined the bloc in 2004...


Source

Oh Mitt... just shut up, smile, and wave.


That article wasn't very good. Just because Poland has a slightly larger government than the US doesn't mean you can't praise them for their success. They used to be communists, now they are capitalists - other communist countries have had a much tougher time with the transition. That is worthy of praise, is it not?

Sounds like reporters are playing the game of "give us more news or we'll make up our own".

In his praise of Poland, Romney conveniently forgets to mention the important role of the government in the economic success the country is enjoying. Why would it be bias or distortion to notice this? Imagine a candidate X is advocating policy A and criticizing policy B. Policy A & B together bring success to another country. Candidate X visits the country and says the success of the country is owed to policy A, which he happens to also advocate at home, and does not mention the role of policy B. It would be bias to mention that he conveniently left out the role of policy B?

I also like how this is in direct succession to his praise of the Israeli healthcare system, which happens to work thanks to heavy government intervention.


Romney is not advocating that government offers zero benefits to society. So he doesn't need to mention that government offers benefits to society.

Romney was using Poland as an example of an economy that grew during a period of declining government involvement. Romney also used Poland as an example of an economy that is growing without ballooning government debt. These two points are in line with Romney's platform (smaller government, smaller deficits).

The size of Poland's government is irrelevant to either point.

No, the size of Poland's government is certainly not irrelevant. When you say Romney advocates "smaller government", he advocates "smaller government" than what is currently found in the United States. Since in some ways the Polish government is actually bigger (proportionately) than its US counterpart (see the article) and has played a considerable role in the current economic situation of the country, it would be disingenuous to defend the idea (as Romney is implicitly doing in his speech, as was pointed out in the article) that Poland's story indicates that "smaller government" is the way to go for the US. In fact, it would indicate the opposite, namely that bigger government would be the way to go for the US.

You can't simply say "hey look, this economy grew during a period of declining government involvement, this is in line with my platform", when the points of departure in terms of government involvement are completely different. In fact, if we look at total government expenditure as a percentage of GDP, the point of arrival for Poland (44 percent of GDP) is higher than the point of departure for the US (41 percent).

On August 01 2012 12:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
As for Israel's health care - Romney's point was to praise Israel's lower health care costs.

Lower health care costs is not what Obamacare provides. Obamacare is about increasing coverage but will do little to lower costs. The fact that government is involved in lowering healthcare costs is irrelevant because Romney is not advocating zero government involvement in healthcare.

Lower health costs are in Israel notably the result of the role the country's national government plays in healthcare. Romney has advocated going in the opposite direction (less national government in healthcare). Can't you see the contradiction in him praising the Israeli healthcare system?


His only point was that Poland grew while the government shrunk and debt was kept in check. He was NOT using Poland as an example of a small government.

If you want to argue that points of departure matter than you are making a counter argument - and a debatable one at that. Just because you don't agree with his point doesn't mean that he can't make it. Nor is he required to list all possible criticisms to his point in the middle of the speech.

At this point I'm going to need you to go read Romney's comments again. He was very clearly using Poland as an example that limiting government intervention in the economy brings success, and implicitly drawing a parallel with his own platform. I explained why this was disingenuous - government plays in some respects a bigger role in the economy in Poland than in the US, and government intervention played a role in Poland's economic success.


No, I'm not going to read his comments again. I read the entire speech. You seem to be hung up on an article that is taking certain comments out of context. He pointed out in his speech that the private sector was 65% of the economy. The "heavy hand of government" and the "government dominated economy" he referred to was a communist government that controlled 85% of the economy.

No, the article analyzes his comments pertaining to the Polish economy, it certainly does not take them out of context. You said yourself that the points he was making about Poland were in line with his platform for the US (notably his push for "smaller government"). What I and the article are arguing is that he conveniently left out of his assessment of what contributed to making Poland's economy successful what is NOT in his platform, namely government intervention. If he was simply saying "hey, good job for moving from communism to capitalism", you'd have a point. But he wasn't, so you don't. He very clearly identified several factors that contributed to Poland's success not just as opposed to communist states but as opposed to other states in general, communist or not. And he purposively left out the factors that contradict his own platform.

Yes he left out other factors - of course he did. But there is nothing contradictory about that. Specific points can stand on their own.

A shrinking government is a specific point.
Fiscal responsibility is a specific point.

When making a speech you can make specific points. Romney didn't need to cite each of a million factors that contributed to Poland's economic growth. There is nothing wrong with choosing a couple points and bringing them to light. This isn't a 200 page academic thesis we're talking about - it's a political speech.

If his argument was that Poland was successful because it had a small government than it would be contradictory - but he didn't, so it's not.

Show nested quote +
On August 02 2012 02:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On August 01 2012 13:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
As for healthcare, just because Romney is advocating against a specific form of government involvement (Obamacare) doesn't mean that he has to advocate against all government forms of government involvement.

In case you haven't been following the campaign, Romney has very clearly put the emphasis on denouncing "socialized healthcare" and government intervention in healthcare. That he would praise a healthcare system that is socialized and that features government intervention in healthcare is therefore contradictory, as is correctly pointed out in Ezra Klein's article.


The debate over healthcare is more than just "private" vs "socialized" (two extremely generalized terms) healthcare - it is about fixing a healthcare system that doesn't work too well. The two main issues are coverage and cost. Obamacare (mostly) solves the coverage issue but does little on the cost side.

"We have to find ways, not just to provide health care to more people, but to find ways to finally manage our health care costs."

He was pointing out that healthcare costs in the US are too high. How we lower those costs is up for debate - there are MANY different healthcare systems around the world that we can emulate to make that happen (some 'socialized', some not). But Obamacare itself won't make that happen.

Is it a little wonky to use Israel as the example? Sure... but he was there. If this was in the middle of a debate it would be a bad example - and Obama would call him out on it. But since he was in Israel, the comparison is fine and the criticism is over the top.

I know the debate over healthcare is more than just "private" vs "socialized". The point is that Romney has been pushing in the direction OPPOSED to the direction the Israeli healthcare system that he's praising took. Do you understand this, yes or no?

Yes.

Do you understand that Romney's praise of the Israeli system was limited? Yes or no?
kwizach
Profile Joined June 2011
3658 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-08-01 19:20:38
August 01 2012 19:18 GMT
#4666
On August 02 2012 04:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 02 2012 02:58 kwizach wrote:
On August 02 2012 02:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On August 01 2012 22:58 kwizach wrote:
On August 01 2012 13:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On August 01 2012 12:48 kwizach wrote:
On August 01 2012 12:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On August 01 2012 11:23 kwizach wrote:
On August 01 2012 08:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On August 01 2012 08:03 Adila wrote:
[quote]

Source

Oh Mitt... just shut up, smile, and wave.


That article wasn't very good. Just because Poland has a slightly larger government than the US doesn't mean you can't praise them for their success. They used to be communists, now they are capitalists - other communist countries have had a much tougher time with the transition. That is worthy of praise, is it not?

Sounds like reporters are playing the game of "give us more news or we'll make up our own".

In his praise of Poland, Romney conveniently forgets to mention the important role of the government in the economic success the country is enjoying. Why would it be bias or distortion to notice this? Imagine a candidate X is advocating policy A and criticizing policy B. Policy A & B together bring success to another country. Candidate X visits the country and says the success of the country is owed to policy A, which he happens to also advocate at home, and does not mention the role of policy B. It would be bias to mention that he conveniently left out the role of policy B?

I also like how this is in direct succession to his praise of the Israeli healthcare system, which happens to work thanks to heavy government intervention.


Romney is not advocating that government offers zero benefits to society. So he doesn't need to mention that government offers benefits to society.

Romney was using Poland as an example of an economy that grew during a period of declining government involvement. Romney also used Poland as an example of an economy that is growing without ballooning government debt. These two points are in line with Romney's platform (smaller government, smaller deficits).

The size of Poland's government is irrelevant to either point.

No, the size of Poland's government is certainly not irrelevant. When you say Romney advocates "smaller government", he advocates "smaller government" than what is currently found in the United States. Since in some ways the Polish government is actually bigger (proportionately) than its US counterpart (see the article) and has played a considerable role in the current economic situation of the country, it would be disingenuous to defend the idea (as Romney is implicitly doing in his speech, as was pointed out in the article) that Poland's story indicates that "smaller government" is the way to go for the US. In fact, it would indicate the opposite, namely that bigger government would be the way to go for the US.

You can't simply say "hey look, this economy grew during a period of declining government involvement, this is in line with my platform", when the points of departure in terms of government involvement are completely different. In fact, if we look at total government expenditure as a percentage of GDP, the point of arrival for Poland (44 percent of GDP) is higher than the point of departure for the US (41 percent).

On August 01 2012 12:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
As for Israel's health care - Romney's point was to praise Israel's lower health care costs.

Lower health care costs is not what Obamacare provides. Obamacare is about increasing coverage but will do little to lower costs. The fact that government is involved in lowering healthcare costs is irrelevant because Romney is not advocating zero government involvement in healthcare.

Lower health costs are in Israel notably the result of the role the country's national government plays in healthcare. Romney has advocated going in the opposite direction (less national government in healthcare). Can't you see the contradiction in him praising the Israeli healthcare system?


His only point was that Poland grew while the government shrunk and debt was kept in check. He was NOT using Poland as an example of a small government.

If you want to argue that points of departure matter than you are making a counter argument - and a debatable one at that. Just because you don't agree with his point doesn't mean that he can't make it. Nor is he required to list all possible criticisms to his point in the middle of the speech.

At this point I'm going to need you to go read Romney's comments again. He was very clearly using Poland as an example that limiting government intervention in the economy brings success, and implicitly drawing a parallel with his own platform. I explained why this was disingenuous - government plays in some respects a bigger role in the economy in Poland than in the US, and government intervention played a role in Poland's economic success.


No, I'm not going to read his comments again. I read the entire speech. You seem to be hung up on an article that is taking certain comments out of context. He pointed out in his speech that the private sector was 65% of the economy. The "heavy hand of government" and the "government dominated economy" he referred to was a communist government that controlled 85% of the economy.

No, the article analyzes his comments pertaining to the Polish economy, it certainly does not take them out of context. You said yourself that the points he was making about Poland were in line with his platform for the US (notably his push for "smaller government"). What I and the article are arguing is that he conveniently left out of his assessment of what contributed to making Poland's economy successful what is NOT in his platform, namely government intervention. If he was simply saying "hey, good job for moving from communism to capitalism", you'd have a point. But he wasn't, so you don't. He very clearly identified several factors that contributed to Poland's success not just as opposed to communist states but as opposed to other states in general, communist or not. And he purposively left out the factors that contradict his own platform.

Yes he left out other factors - of course he did. But there is nothing contradictory about that. Specific points can stand on their own.

A shrinking government is a specific point.
Fiscal responsibility is a specific point.

When making a speech you can make specific points. Romney didn't need to cite each of a million factors that contributed to Poland's economic growth. There is nothing wrong with choosing a couple points and bringing them to light. This isn't a 200 page academic thesis we're talking about - it's a political speech.

If his argument was that Poland was successful because it had a small government than it would be contradictory - but he didn't, so it's not.

I didn't say it was contradictory from him to leave out contradictory factors. I said it was disingenuous from him to leave out contradictory factors, and it was, and there is therefore no bias in pointing it out. Like you said, it's a political speech, and it deserves to be analyzed as such.

On August 02 2012 04:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 02 2012 02:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On August 01 2012 13:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
As for healthcare, just because Romney is advocating against a specific form of government involvement (Obamacare) doesn't mean that he has to advocate against all government forms of government involvement.

In case you haven't been following the campaign, Romney has very clearly put the emphasis on denouncing "socialized healthcare" and government intervention in healthcare. That he would praise a healthcare system that is socialized and that features government intervention in healthcare is therefore contradictory, as is correctly pointed out in Ezra Klein's article.


The debate over healthcare is more than just "private" vs "socialized" (two extremely generalized terms) healthcare - it is about fixing a healthcare system that doesn't work too well. The two main issues are coverage and cost. Obamacare (mostly) solves the coverage issue but does little on the cost side.

"We have to find ways, not just to provide health care to more people, but to find ways to finally manage our health care costs."

He was pointing out that healthcare costs in the US are too high. How we lower those costs is up for debate - there are MANY different healthcare systems around the world that we can emulate to make that happen (some 'socialized', some not). But Obamacare itself won't make that happen.

Is it a little wonky to use Israel as the example? Sure... but he was there. If this was in the middle of a debate it would be a bad example - and Obama would call him out on it. But since he was in Israel, the comparison is fine and the criticism is over the top.

I know the debate over healthcare is more than just "private" vs "socialized". The point is that Romney has been pushing in the direction OPPOSED to the direction the Israeli healthcare system that he's praising took. Do you understand this, yes or no?

Yes.

Do you understand that Romney's praise of the Israeli system was limited? Yes or no?

Yes, it was limited to the costs. Guess how the costs are being kept down in Israel? Government intervention, the very thing Romney has been railing against.
"Oedipus ruined a great sex life by asking too many questions." -- Stephen Colbert
aksfjh
Profile Joined November 2010
United States4853 Posts
August 01 2012 19:22 GMT
#4667
On August 02 2012 03:52 Saryph wrote:
Show nested quote +
Study: Romney Plan Would Raise Taxes On 95% Of Americans

Mitt Romney’s tax plan would be a boon for the wealthy, but a tax hike for 95% of Americans, according to a new nonpartisan study.

The report, by researchers from both the Brookings Institution and Tax Policy Center, examined Romney’s suggestion of an across-the-board 20% income tax cut financed by closing existing loopholes and concluded there was no way to make the numbers work without burdening the vast majority of Americans with higher taxes.

...


Source

I imagine the rebuttal is along the lines of promoting massive cuts in government spending.
darthfoley
Profile Blog Joined February 2011
United States8003 Posts
August 01 2012 19:23 GMT
#4668
On August 02 2012 03:43 WniO wrote:
Seriously theyoungturks...? Come on now, I know some of you are smarter than to watch that toxic waste. On topic Romney will do fine after that trip, but I still can't see him beating Obama, can't imagine even watching a debate between the two.


lol it isn't toxic waste
watch the wall collide with my fist, mostly over problems that i know i should fix
JinDesu
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States3990 Posts
August 01 2012 19:29 GMT
#4669
On August 02 2012 04:22 aksfjh wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 02 2012 03:52 Saryph wrote:
Study: Romney Plan Would Raise Taxes On 95% Of Americans

Mitt Romney’s tax plan would be a boon for the wealthy, but a tax hike for 95% of Americans, according to a new nonpartisan study.

The report, by researchers from both the Brookings Institution and Tax Policy Center, examined Romney’s suggestion of an across-the-board 20% income tax cut financed by closing existing loopholes and concluded there was no way to make the numbers work without burdening the vast majority of Americans with higher taxes.

...


Source

I imagine the rebuttal is along the lines of promoting massive cuts in government spending.


I am not sure how that changes anything..

"Hey, look, you're paying more taxes, but we're cutting government spending so our debt is decreasing! But you're still being taxed more. Unless you make more than $500k."
Yargh
aksfjh
Profile Joined November 2010
United States4853 Posts
August 01 2012 19:31 GMT
#4670
On August 02 2012 04:29 JinDesu wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 02 2012 04:22 aksfjh wrote:
On August 02 2012 03:52 Saryph wrote:
Study: Romney Plan Would Raise Taxes On 95% Of Americans

Mitt Romney’s tax plan would be a boon for the wealthy, but a tax hike for 95% of Americans, according to a new nonpartisan study.

The report, by researchers from both the Brookings Institution and Tax Policy Center, examined Romney’s suggestion of an across-the-board 20% income tax cut financed by closing existing loopholes and concluded there was no way to make the numbers work without burdening the vast majority of Americans with higher taxes.

...


Source

I imagine the rebuttal is along the lines of promoting massive cuts in government spending.


I am not sure how that changes anything..

"Hey, look, you're paying more taxes, but we're cutting government spending so our debt is decreasing! But you're still being taxed more. Unless you make more than $500k."

Yea, just read the full thing. At best, he'd have to tweak the overall number to be roughly 20%
coverpunch
Profile Joined December 2011
United States2093 Posts
August 01 2012 19:34 GMT
#4671
On August 02 2012 03:52 Saryph wrote:
Show nested quote +
Study: Romney Plan Would Raise Taxes On 95% Of Americans

Mitt Romney’s tax plan would be a boon for the wealthy, but a tax hike for 95% of Americans, according to a new nonpartisan study.

The report, by researchers from both the Brookings Institution and Tax Policy Center, examined Romney’s suggestion of an across-the-board 20% income tax cut financed by closing existing loopholes and concluded there was no way to make the numbers work without burdening the vast majority of Americans with higher taxes.

...


Source


From the report:
In order to form a revenue neutral plan, the proposed revenue reductions from lower rates must be financed with an equal-value elimination or reduction in available tax preferences. (In our analysis, we assume that eliminating preferences that lower rates on savings and investment is off the table.) Offsetting the $360 billion in revenue losses necessitates a reduction of roughly 65 percent of available tax expenditures. Such a reduction by itself would be unprecedented, and would require deep reductions in many popular tax benefits ranging from the mortgage interest deduction, the exclusion for employer-provided health insurance, the deduction for charitable contributions, and benefits for low- and middle-income families and children like the EITC and child tax credit.

we have not examined whether it would be politically realistic to reduce tax expenditures—provisions like the mortgage interest deduction, charitable giving, the tax benefit for health insurance, the EITC, and the child tax credit, etc,—by 58 percent for those earning less than $200,000, and to eliminate such features entirely for all households earning more than $200,000. These are extremely popular tax breaks, not just for the taxpayers who benefit directly from lower tax bills, but also from other parties who benefit indirectly such as charities and their constituents, or the home building industry.

This is a terrible criticism of Romney's tax plan. The plan has many contradictions and is politically impossible, but attack it on that basis, not by making up other crazy assumptions that can't happen.

In fairness, the report does go on to say that the biggest flaw in Romney's plan is that it relies entirely on future growth. Yes, Romney can cut taxes and make up the revenue if the US economy suddenly jumps to 8% growth and booms its way out of trouble. But the same can be said about Obama's economic platform and tax policy too. The question is whether either man's policy can make that happen or if one is more likely to result in growth than the other.
kwizach
Profile Joined June 2011
3658 Posts
August 01 2012 19:37 GMT
#4672
A good piece in the Economist's blog section on Romney's "culture" comments.

The reason most Palestinians have low third-world income levels is that they are born into impoverished towns or refugee camps inside the gerrymandered Bantustans of the Palestinian Authority, where border crossings are controlled by Israeli military authorities, water sources are tapped to feed Jewish settlements, Israeli-built infrastructure bypasses them, the education system is funded by paltry international contributions and paltrier taxes, agricultural land is periodically taken by Jewish settlers whose illegal seizures are retroactively approved by the government, land values are undermined because of the overhanging threat of expropriation by Israel, and on and on through all the savage indignities and economic violence of a 50-year-long occupation by people whose ultimate goal is to force you off as much of the territory as possible. Obviously, gross corruption by Palestinian officials and counterproductive political and economic attitudes on the part of Palestinian citizens, mainly typical adaptive behaviours that any people tend to develop when they're confined to massive donor-supported detention zones, have made the situation much worse.


Source.
"Oedipus ruined a great sex life by asking too many questions." -- Stephen Colbert
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
August 01 2012 19:42 GMT
#4673
On August 02 2012 04:18 kwizach wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 02 2012 04:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On August 02 2012 02:58 kwizach wrote:
On August 02 2012 02:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On August 01 2012 22:58 kwizach wrote:
On August 01 2012 13:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On August 01 2012 12:48 kwizach wrote:
On August 01 2012 12:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On August 01 2012 11:23 kwizach wrote:
On August 01 2012 08:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]

That article wasn't very good. Just because Poland has a slightly larger government than the US doesn't mean you can't praise them for their success. They used to be communists, now they are capitalists - other communist countries have had a much tougher time with the transition. That is worthy of praise, is it not?

Sounds like reporters are playing the game of "give us more news or we'll make up our own".

In his praise of Poland, Romney conveniently forgets to mention the important role of the government in the economic success the country is enjoying. Why would it be bias or distortion to notice this? Imagine a candidate X is advocating policy A and criticizing policy B. Policy A & B together bring success to another country. Candidate X visits the country and says the success of the country is owed to policy A, which he happens to also advocate at home, and does not mention the role of policy B. It would be bias to mention that he conveniently left out the role of policy B?

I also like how this is in direct succession to his praise of the Israeli healthcare system, which happens to work thanks to heavy government intervention.


Romney is not advocating that government offers zero benefits to society. So he doesn't need to mention that government offers benefits to society.

Romney was using Poland as an example of an economy that grew during a period of declining government involvement. Romney also used Poland as an example of an economy that is growing without ballooning government debt. These two points are in line with Romney's platform (smaller government, smaller deficits).

The size of Poland's government is irrelevant to either point.

No, the size of Poland's government is certainly not irrelevant. When you say Romney advocates "smaller government", he advocates "smaller government" than what is currently found in the United States. Since in some ways the Polish government is actually bigger (proportionately) than its US counterpart (see the article) and has played a considerable role in the current economic situation of the country, it would be disingenuous to defend the idea (as Romney is implicitly doing in his speech, as was pointed out in the article) that Poland's story indicates that "smaller government" is the way to go for the US. In fact, it would indicate the opposite, namely that bigger government would be the way to go for the US.

You can't simply say "hey look, this economy grew during a period of declining government involvement, this is in line with my platform", when the points of departure in terms of government involvement are completely different. In fact, if we look at total government expenditure as a percentage of GDP, the point of arrival for Poland (44 percent of GDP) is higher than the point of departure for the US (41 percent).

On August 01 2012 12:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
As for Israel's health care - Romney's point was to praise Israel's lower health care costs.

Lower health care costs is not what Obamacare provides. Obamacare is about increasing coverage but will do little to lower costs. The fact that government is involved in lowering healthcare costs is irrelevant because Romney is not advocating zero government involvement in healthcare.

Lower health costs are in Israel notably the result of the role the country's national government plays in healthcare. Romney has advocated going in the opposite direction (less national government in healthcare). Can't you see the contradiction in him praising the Israeli healthcare system?


His only point was that Poland grew while the government shrunk and debt was kept in check. He was NOT using Poland as an example of a small government.

If you want to argue that points of departure matter than you are making a counter argument - and a debatable one at that. Just because you don't agree with his point doesn't mean that he can't make it. Nor is he required to list all possible criticisms to his point in the middle of the speech.

At this point I'm going to need you to go read Romney's comments again. He was very clearly using Poland as an example that limiting government intervention in the economy brings success, and implicitly drawing a parallel with his own platform. I explained why this was disingenuous - government plays in some respects a bigger role in the economy in Poland than in the US, and government intervention played a role in Poland's economic success.


No, I'm not going to read his comments again. I read the entire speech. You seem to be hung up on an article that is taking certain comments out of context. He pointed out in his speech that the private sector was 65% of the economy. The "heavy hand of government" and the "government dominated economy" he referred to was a communist government that controlled 85% of the economy.

No, the article analyzes his comments pertaining to the Polish economy, it certainly does not take them out of context. You said yourself that the points he was making about Poland were in line with his platform for the US (notably his push for "smaller government"). What I and the article are arguing is that he conveniently left out of his assessment of what contributed to making Poland's economy successful what is NOT in his platform, namely government intervention. If he was simply saying "hey, good job for moving from communism to capitalism", you'd have a point. But he wasn't, so you don't. He very clearly identified several factors that contributed to Poland's success not just as opposed to communist states but as opposed to other states in general, communist or not. And he purposively left out the factors that contradict his own platform.

Yes he left out other factors - of course he did. But there is nothing contradictory about that. Specific points can stand on their own.

A shrinking government is a specific point.
Fiscal responsibility is a specific point.

When making a speech you can make specific points. Romney didn't need to cite each of a million factors that contributed to Poland's economic growth. There is nothing wrong with choosing a couple points and bringing them to light. This isn't a 200 page academic thesis we're talking about - it's a political speech.

If his argument was that Poland was successful because it had a small government than it would be contradictory - but he didn't, so it's not.

I didn't say it was contradictory from him to leave out contradictory factors. I said it was disingenuous from him to leave out contradictory factors, and it was, and there is therefore no bias in pointing it out. Like you said, it's a political speech, and it deserves to be analyzed as such.

By that standard is any political speech not disingenuous? Can you give an example of a speech Obama has made that passes your standard?

Show nested quote +
On August 02 2012 04:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On August 02 2012 02:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On August 01 2012 13:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
As for healthcare, just because Romney is advocating against a specific form of government involvement (Obamacare) doesn't mean that he has to advocate against all government forms of government involvement.

In case you haven't been following the campaign, Romney has very clearly put the emphasis on denouncing "socialized healthcare" and government intervention in healthcare. That he would praise a healthcare system that is socialized and that features government intervention in healthcare is therefore contradictory, as is correctly pointed out in Ezra Klein's article.


The debate over healthcare is more than just "private" vs "socialized" (two extremely generalized terms) healthcare - it is about fixing a healthcare system that doesn't work too well. The two main issues are coverage and cost. Obamacare (mostly) solves the coverage issue but does little on the cost side.

"We have to find ways, not just to provide health care to more people, but to find ways to finally manage our health care costs."

He was pointing out that healthcare costs in the US are too high. How we lower those costs is up for debate - there are MANY different healthcare systems around the world that we can emulate to make that happen (some 'socialized', some not). But Obamacare itself won't make that happen.

Is it a little wonky to use Israel as the example? Sure... but he was there. If this was in the middle of a debate it would be a bad example - and Obama would call him out on it. But since he was in Israel, the comparison is fine and the criticism is over the top.

I know the debate over healthcare is more than just "private" vs "socialized". The point is that Romney has been pushing in the direction OPPOSED to the direction the Israeli healthcare system that he's praising took. Do you understand this, yes or no?

Yes.

Do you understand that Romney's praise of the Israeli system was limited? Yes or no?

Yes, it was limited to the costs. Guess how the costs are being kept down in Israel? Government intervention, the very thing Romney has been railing against.

So because he is against government intervention in healthcare in general he can never be supportive of any government intervention in healthcare?
coverpunch
Profile Joined December 2011
United States2093 Posts
August 01 2012 19:43 GMT
#4674
The reason most Palestinians have low third-world income levels is that they are born into impoverished towns or refugee camps inside the gerrymandered Bantustans of the Palestinian Authority, where border crossings are controlled by Israeli military authorities, water sources are tapped to feed Jewish settlements, Israeli-built infrastructure bypasses them, the education system is funded by paltry international contributions and paltrier taxes, agricultural land is periodically taken by Jewish settlers whose illegal seizures are retroactively approved by the government, land values are undermined because of the overhanging threat of expropriation by Israel, and on and on through all the savage indignities and economic violence of a 50-year-long occupation by people whose ultimate goal is to force you off as much of the territory as possible. Obviously, gross corruption by Palestinian officials and counterproductive political and economic attitudes on the part of Palestinian citizens, mainly typical adaptive behaviours that any people tend to develop when they're confined to massive donor-supported detention zones, have made the situation much worse.

So...is that culture or not?
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
August 01 2012 19:44 GMT
#4675
On August 02 2012 04:29 JinDesu wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 02 2012 04:22 aksfjh wrote:
On August 02 2012 03:52 Saryph wrote:
Study: Romney Plan Would Raise Taxes On 95% Of Americans

Mitt Romney’s tax plan would be a boon for the wealthy, but a tax hike for 95% of Americans, according to a new nonpartisan study.

The report, by researchers from both the Brookings Institution and Tax Policy Center, examined Romney’s suggestion of an across-the-board 20% income tax cut financed by closing existing loopholes and concluded there was no way to make the numbers work without burdening the vast majority of Americans with higher taxes.

...


Source

I imagine the rebuttal is along the lines of promoting massive cuts in government spending.


I am not sure how that changes anything..

"Hey, look, you're paying more taxes, but we're cutting government spending so our debt is decreasing! But you're still being taxed more. Unless you make more than $500k."


That's not true. The report assumes that Romney will tax the poor more to make up for lost government revenue.

That's a hell of an assumption.
naastyOne
Profile Joined April 2012
491 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-08-01 19:55:07
August 01 2012 19:53 GMT
#4676
On August 02 2012 04:18 kwizach wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 02 2012 04:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On August 02 2012 02:58 kwizach wrote:
On August 02 2012 02:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On August 01 2012 22:58 kwizach wrote:
On August 01 2012 13:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On August 01 2012 12:48 kwizach wrote:
On August 01 2012 12:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On August 01 2012 11:23 kwizach wrote:
On August 01 2012 08:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]

That article wasn't very good. Just because Poland has a slightly larger government than the US doesn't mean you can't praise them for their success. They used to be communists, now they are capitalists - other communist countries have had a much tougher time with the transition. That is worthy of praise, is it not?

Sounds like reporters are playing the game of "give us more news or we'll make up our own".

In his praise of Poland, Romney conveniently forgets to mention the important role of the government in the economic success the country is enjoying. Why would it be bias or distortion to notice this? Imagine a candidate X is advocating policy A and criticizing policy B. Policy A & B together bring success to another country. Candidate X visits the country and says the success of the country is owed to policy A, which he happens to also advocate at home, and does not mention the role of policy B. It would be bias to mention that he conveniently left out the role of policy B?

I also like how this is in direct succession to his praise of the Israeli healthcare system, which happens to work thanks to heavy government intervention.


Romney is not advocating that government offers zero benefits to society. So he doesn't need to mention that government offers benefits to society.

Romney was using Poland as an example of an economy that grew during a period of declining government involvement. Romney also used Poland as an example of an economy that is growing without ballooning government debt. These two points are in line with Romney's platform (smaller government, smaller deficits).

The size of Poland's government is irrelevant to either point.

No, the size of Poland's government is certainly not irrelevant. When you say Romney advocates "smaller government", he advocates "smaller government" than what is currently found in the United States. Since in some ways the Polish government is actually bigger (proportionately) than its US counterpart (see the article) and has played a considerable role in the current economic situation of the country, it would be disingenuous to defend the idea (as Romney is implicitly doing in his speech, as was pointed out in the article) that Poland's story indicates that "smaller government" is the way to go for the US. In fact, it would indicate the opposite, namely that bigger government would be the way to go for the US.

You can't simply say "hey look, this economy grew during a period of declining government involvement, this is in line with my platform", when the points of departure in terms of government involvement are completely different. In fact, if we look at total government expenditure as a percentage of GDP, the point of arrival for Poland (44 percent of GDP) is higher than the point of departure for the US (41 percent).

On August 01 2012 12:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
As for Israel's health care - Romney's point was to praise Israel's lower health care costs.

Lower health care costs is not what Obamacare provides. Obamacare is about increasing coverage but will do little to lower costs. The fact that government is involved in lowering healthcare costs is irrelevant because Romney is not advocating zero government involvement in healthcare.

Lower health costs are in Israel notably the result of the role the country's national government plays in healthcare. Romney has advocated going in the opposite direction (less national government in healthcare). Can't you see the contradiction in him praising the Israeli healthcare system?


His only point was that Poland grew while the government shrunk and debt was kept in check. He was NOT using Poland as an example of a small government.

If you want to argue that points of departure matter than you are making a counter argument - and a debatable one at that. Just because you don't agree with his point doesn't mean that he can't make it. Nor is he required to list all possible criticisms to his point in the middle of the speech.

At this point I'm going to need you to go read Romney's comments again. He was very clearly using Poland as an example that limiting government intervention in the economy brings success, and implicitly drawing a parallel with his own platform. I explained why this was disingenuous - government plays in some respects a bigger role in the economy in Poland than in the US, and government intervention played a role in Poland's economic success.


No, I'm not going to read his comments again. I read the entire speech. You seem to be hung up on an article that is taking certain comments out of context. He pointed out in his speech that the private sector was 65% of the economy. The "heavy hand of government" and the "government dominated economy" he referred to was a communist government that controlled 85% of the economy.

No, the article analyzes his comments pertaining to the Polish economy, it certainly does not take them out of context. You said yourself that the points he was making about Poland were in line with his platform for the US (notably his push for "smaller government"). What I and the article are arguing is that he conveniently left out of his assessment of what contributed to making Poland's economy successful what is NOT in his platform, namely government intervention. If he was simply saying "hey, good job for moving from communism to capitalism", you'd have a point. But he wasn't, so you don't. He very clearly identified several factors that contributed to Poland's success not just as opposed to communist states but as opposed to other states in general, communist or not. And he purposively left out the factors that contradict his own platform.

Yes he left out other factors - of course he did. But there is nothing contradictory about that. Specific points can stand on their own.

A shrinking government is a specific point.
Fiscal responsibility is a specific point.

When making a speech you can make specific points. Romney didn't need to cite each of a million factors that contributed to Poland's economic growth. There is nothing wrong with choosing a couple points and bringing them to light. This isn't a 200 page academic thesis we're talking about - it's a political speech.

If his argument was that Poland was successful because it had a small government than it would be contradictory - but he didn't, so it's not.

I didn't say it was contradictory from him to leave out contradictory factors. I said it was disingenuous from him to leave out contradictory factors, and it was, and there is therefore no bias in pointing it out. Like you said, it's a political speech, and it deserves to be analyzed as such.

Show nested quote +
On August 02 2012 04:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On August 02 2012 02:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On August 01 2012 13:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
As for healthcare, just because Romney is advocating against a specific form of government involvement (Obamacare) doesn't mean that he has to advocate against all government forms of government involvement.

In case you haven't been following the campaign, Romney has very clearly put the emphasis on denouncing "socialized healthcare" and government intervention in healthcare. That he would praise a healthcare system that is socialized and that features government intervention in healthcare is therefore contradictory, as is correctly pointed out in Ezra Klein's article.


The debate over healthcare is more than just "private" vs "socialized" (two extremely generalized terms) healthcare - it is about fixing a healthcare system that doesn't work too well. The two main issues are coverage and cost. Obamacare (mostly) solves the coverage issue but does little on the cost side.

"We have to find ways, not just to provide health care to more people, but to find ways to finally manage our health care costs."

He was pointing out that healthcare costs in the US are too high. How we lower those costs is up for debate - there are MANY different healthcare systems around the world that we can emulate to make that happen (some 'socialized', some not). But Obamacare itself won't make that happen.

Is it a little wonky to use Israel as the example? Sure... but he was there. If this was in the middle of a debate it would be a bad example - and Obama would call him out on it. But since he was in Israel, the comparison is fine and the criticism is over the top.

I know the debate over healthcare is more than just "private" vs "socialized". The point is that Romney has been pushing in the direction OPPOSED to the direction the Israeli healthcare system that he's praising took. Do you understand this, yes or no?

Yes.

Do you understand that Romney's praise of the Israeli system was limited? Yes or no?

Yes, it was limited to the costs. Guess how the costs are being kept down in Israel? Government intervention, the very thing Romney has been railing against.

Did Roomney actually released his own healthcare plan already?

Also the goverment can intervene is a number of ways that do not need shit like individual mandate, for example allowing to import cheap drugs from abroad, decreasing the time of patent protection, opening up to foreign competition more, ex.

Increasing competitivnes with decreasing the goverment regulation of the service themselves, can very well lead to overall improvements.

Obamacare is really bad because it doesn`t do a thing to decrease cost, on contray, it rises cost, and tries to figure out a way to get the current cost imposed by companies payed, instead of figuring out how to decrease the cost.

At state level, state can not really do a lot to decrease cost, so it has to figure out a way to pay one.
At national goverment level, this kind of policy is dead wrong.
kwizach
Profile Joined June 2011
3658 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-08-01 19:54:54
August 01 2012 19:54 GMT
#4677
On August 02 2012 04:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 02 2012 04:18 kwizach wrote:
On August 02 2012 04:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On August 02 2012 02:58 kwizach wrote:
On August 02 2012 02:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On August 01 2012 22:58 kwizach wrote:
On August 01 2012 13:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On August 01 2012 12:48 kwizach wrote:
On August 01 2012 12:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On August 01 2012 11:23 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
In his praise of Poland, Romney conveniently forgets to mention the important role of the government in the economic success the country is enjoying. Why would it be bias or distortion to notice this? Imagine a candidate X is advocating policy A and criticizing policy B. Policy A & B together bring success to another country. Candidate X visits the country and says the success of the country is owed to policy A, which he happens to also advocate at home, and does not mention the role of policy B. It would be bias to mention that he conveniently left out the role of policy B?

I also like how this is in direct succession to his praise of the Israeli healthcare system, which happens to work thanks to heavy government intervention.


Romney is not advocating that government offers zero benefits to society. So he doesn't need to mention that government offers benefits to society.

Romney was using Poland as an example of an economy that grew during a period of declining government involvement. Romney also used Poland as an example of an economy that is growing without ballooning government debt. These two points are in line with Romney's platform (smaller government, smaller deficits).

The size of Poland's government is irrelevant to either point.

No, the size of Poland's government is certainly not irrelevant. When you say Romney advocates "smaller government", he advocates "smaller government" than what is currently found in the United States. Since in some ways the Polish government is actually bigger (proportionately) than its US counterpart (see the article) and has played a considerable role in the current economic situation of the country, it would be disingenuous to defend the idea (as Romney is implicitly doing in his speech, as was pointed out in the article) that Poland's story indicates that "smaller government" is the way to go for the US. In fact, it would indicate the opposite, namely that bigger government would be the way to go for the US.

You can't simply say "hey look, this economy grew during a period of declining government involvement, this is in line with my platform", when the points of departure in terms of government involvement are completely different. In fact, if we look at total government expenditure as a percentage of GDP, the point of arrival for Poland (44 percent of GDP) is higher than the point of departure for the US (41 percent).

On August 01 2012 12:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
As for Israel's health care - Romney's point was to praise Israel's lower health care costs.

Lower health care costs is not what Obamacare provides. Obamacare is about increasing coverage but will do little to lower costs. The fact that government is involved in lowering healthcare costs is irrelevant because Romney is not advocating zero government involvement in healthcare.

Lower health costs are in Israel notably the result of the role the country's national government plays in healthcare. Romney has advocated going in the opposite direction (less national government in healthcare). Can't you see the contradiction in him praising the Israeli healthcare system?


His only point was that Poland grew while the government shrunk and debt was kept in check. He was NOT using Poland as an example of a small government.

If you want to argue that points of departure matter than you are making a counter argument - and a debatable one at that. Just because you don't agree with his point doesn't mean that he can't make it. Nor is he required to list all possible criticisms to his point in the middle of the speech.

At this point I'm going to need you to go read Romney's comments again. He was very clearly using Poland as an example that limiting government intervention in the economy brings success, and implicitly drawing a parallel with his own platform. I explained why this was disingenuous - government plays in some respects a bigger role in the economy in Poland than in the US, and government intervention played a role in Poland's economic success.


No, I'm not going to read his comments again. I read the entire speech. You seem to be hung up on an article that is taking certain comments out of context. He pointed out in his speech that the private sector was 65% of the economy. The "heavy hand of government" and the "government dominated economy" he referred to was a communist government that controlled 85% of the economy.

No, the article analyzes his comments pertaining to the Polish economy, it certainly does not take them out of context. You said yourself that the points he was making about Poland were in line with his platform for the US (notably his push for "smaller government"). What I and the article are arguing is that he conveniently left out of his assessment of what contributed to making Poland's economy successful what is NOT in his platform, namely government intervention. If he was simply saying "hey, good job for moving from communism to capitalism", you'd have a point. But he wasn't, so you don't. He very clearly identified several factors that contributed to Poland's success not just as opposed to communist states but as opposed to other states in general, communist or not. And he purposively left out the factors that contradict his own platform.

Yes he left out other factors - of course he did. But there is nothing contradictory about that. Specific points can stand on their own.

A shrinking government is a specific point.
Fiscal responsibility is a specific point.

When making a speech you can make specific points. Romney didn't need to cite each of a million factors that contributed to Poland's economic growth. There is nothing wrong with choosing a couple points and bringing them to light. This isn't a 200 page academic thesis we're talking about - it's a political speech.

If his argument was that Poland was successful because it had a small government than it would be contradictory - but he didn't, so it's not.

I didn't say it was contradictory from him to leave out contradictory factors. I said it was disingenuous from him to leave out contradictory factors, and it was, and there is therefore no bias in pointing it out. Like you said, it's a political speech, and it deserves to be analyzed as such.

By that standard is any political speech not disingenuous? Can you give an example of a speech Obama has made that passes your standard?

I pointed out and explained in detail why a specific part of Romney's speech was clearly disingenuous. Unless you're trying to argue that every politician is at all times disingenuous, which is clearly not true, I'm not sure what your point is. Has Obama made disingenuous statements in the past? Yes. Is that part of Romney's speech still disingenuous? Yes. Was the article at the origin of this discussion perfectly justified in pointing it out? Yes.

On August 02 2012 04:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 02 2012 04:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On August 02 2012 02:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On August 01 2012 13:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
As for healthcare, just because Romney is advocating against a specific form of government involvement (Obamacare) doesn't mean that he has to advocate against all government forms of government involvement.

In case you haven't been following the campaign, Romney has very clearly put the emphasis on denouncing "socialized healthcare" and government intervention in healthcare. That he would praise a healthcare system that is socialized and that features government intervention in healthcare is therefore contradictory, as is correctly pointed out in Ezra Klein's article.


The debate over healthcare is more than just "private" vs "socialized" (two extremely generalized terms) healthcare - it is about fixing a healthcare system that doesn't work too well. The two main issues are coverage and cost. Obamacare (mostly) solves the coverage issue but does little on the cost side.

"We have to find ways, not just to provide health care to more people, but to find ways to finally manage our health care costs."

He was pointing out that healthcare costs in the US are too high. How we lower those costs is up for debate - there are MANY different healthcare systems around the world that we can emulate to make that happen (some 'socialized', some not). But Obamacare itself won't make that happen.

Is it a little wonky to use Israel as the example? Sure... but he was there. If this was in the middle of a debate it would be a bad example - and Obama would call him out on it. But since he was in Israel, the comparison is fine and the criticism is over the top.

I know the debate over healthcare is more than just "private" vs "socialized". The point is that Romney has been pushing in the direction OPPOSED to the direction the Israeli healthcare system that he's praising took. Do you understand this, yes or no?

Yes.

Do you understand that Romney's praise of the Israeli system was limited? Yes or no?

Yes, it was limited to the costs. Guess how the costs are being kept down in Israel? Government intervention, the very thing Romney has been railing against.

So because he is against government intervention in healthcare in general he can never be supportive of any government intervention in healthcare?

During his campaign, Romney has stated his opposition to the kind of government intervention found in Israeli healthcare.
"Oedipus ruined a great sex life by asking too many questions." -- Stephen Colbert
kwizach
Profile Joined June 2011
3658 Posts
August 01 2012 19:56 GMT
#4678
On August 02 2012 04:43 coverpunch wrote:
Show nested quote +
The reason most Palestinians have low third-world income levels is that they are born into impoverished towns or refugee camps inside the gerrymandered Bantustans of the Palestinian Authority, where border crossings are controlled by Israeli military authorities, water sources are tapped to feed Jewish settlements, Israeli-built infrastructure bypasses them, the education system is funded by paltry international contributions and paltrier taxes, agricultural land is periodically taken by Jewish settlers whose illegal seizures are retroactively approved by the government, land values are undermined because of the overhanging threat of expropriation by Israel, and on and on through all the savage indignities and economic violence of a 50-year-long occupation by people whose ultimate goal is to force you off as much of the territory as possible. Obviously, gross corruption by Palestinian officials and counterproductive political and economic attitudes on the part of Palestinian citizens, mainly typical adaptive behaviours that any people tend to develop when they're confined to massive donor-supported detention zones, have made the situation much worse.

So...is that culture or not?

Define culture? I'd find it hard to put what's mentioned in that sentence under the label "culture", so no.
"Oedipus ruined a great sex life by asking too many questions." -- Stephen Colbert
Defacer
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
Canada5052 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-08-01 20:01:01
August 01 2012 19:59 GMT
#4679
On August 02 2012 04:34 coverpunch wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 02 2012 03:52 Saryph wrote:
Study: Romney Plan Would Raise Taxes On 95% Of Americans

Mitt Romney’s tax plan would be a boon for the wealthy, but a tax hike for 95% of Americans, according to a new nonpartisan study.

The report, by researchers from both the Brookings Institution and Tax Policy Center, examined Romney’s suggestion of an across-the-board 20% income tax cut financed by closing existing loopholes and concluded there was no way to make the numbers work without burdening the vast majority of Americans with higher taxes.

...


Source


From the report:
Show nested quote +
In order to form a revenue neutral plan, the proposed revenue reductions from lower rates must be financed with an equal-value elimination or reduction in available tax preferences. (In our analysis, we assume that eliminating preferences that lower rates on savings and investment is off the table.) Offsetting the $360 billion in revenue losses necessitates a reduction of roughly 65 percent of available tax expenditures. Such a reduction by itself would be unprecedented, and would require deep reductions in many popular tax benefits ranging from the mortgage interest deduction, the exclusion for employer-provided health insurance, the deduction for charitable contributions, and benefits for low- and middle-income families and children like the EITC and child tax credit.

Show nested quote +
we have not examined whether it would be politically realistic to reduce tax expenditures—provisions like the mortgage interest deduction, charitable giving, the tax benefit for health insurance, the EITC, and the child tax credit, etc,—by 58 percent for those earning less than $200,000, and to eliminate such features entirely for all households earning more than $200,000. These are extremely popular tax breaks, not just for the taxpayers who benefit directly from lower tax bills, but also from other parties who benefit indirectly such as charities and their constituents, or the home building industry.

This is a terrible criticism of Romney's tax plan. The plan has many contradictions and is politically impossible, but attack it on that basis, not by making up other crazy assumptions that can't happen.

In fairness, the report does go on to say that the biggest flaw in Romney's plan is that it relies entirely on future growth. Yes, Romney can cut taxes and make up the revenue if the US economy suddenly jumps to 8% growth and booms its way out of trouble. But the same can be said about Obama's economic platform and tax policy too. The question is whether either man's policy can make that happen or if one is more likely to result in growth than the other.


Yes. The math just doesn't make sense. You can't cut taxes and get the political willpower to close all the 'loopholes' and make the necessary, massive spending cuts to balance the budget, let alone pay down the debt.

I think the difference comes down to leadership. Obama is much more willing to decrease spending in order to increase taxes revenue. Romney seems committed to not raising taxes a nickel.

The Economist candidly and brutally outlined the flaws of both candidates economic policies, and how really the defining issue of this election is what the size and role of government should be.

AMID all the name-calling in America’s presidential campaign, a serious subject has begun to emerge: what role should government play? Earlier this month Barack Obama caused a stir when he said that entrepreneurs were not solely responsible for their success, but relied on the roads, bridges and other infrastructure which society constructs and which make commerce possible: “If you’ve got a business…you didn’t build that.” Meanwhile, Mitt Romney has told voters looking for state handouts to vote for the other guy.

Both men’s positions have been contorted by each other’s attack ads. But there is a real left-right division, personified by the two candidates. Mr Obama, who has spent most of his life in the public sector, academia or community work, plainly thinks the state has a bigger role to play—in galvanising the economy when demand collapses (as in 2008) and in moderating inequality. By contrast, Mr Romney, who made $200m or so in private equity, believes that the best thing that government can do is to get out of the way—by cutting taxes, reducing regulations and leaving people to build their businesses.

Good. America needs a serious debate both about the size and scope of government, and how to pay for it. The winner of the November election will immediately be faced with the problem of the “fiscal cliff”—a preset $400 billion tax increase, with the expiry of various tax cuts, and a $100-billion-a-year cut in spending—which could push the economy back into recession. Looming over that is the gaping deficit. And over that, America’s schizophrenia: it taxes itself like a small-government country, but spends like a big-government one.

Free to choose, for better or worse

The rest of the world would gain from such a debate. America has inspired most of the interesting thinking on the role of the state in the past 50 years, from deregulation in the 1970s to New York’s “broken windows” policing. Next week marks the centenary of the birth of Milton Friedman (see Free Exchange). The Chicago economist did as much as anyone to battle Leviathan: driving bureaucrats out of telephone companies and airlines, proposing education vouchers to give parents a choice over their children’s schools and railing against the unintended consequences of state meddling (for example, “rent control” laws that reduce the amount of property available for rent). Friedman was a mentor to both Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, but his ideas prompted creativity on the left too: Bill Clinton’s New Democrats also “reinvented government”, embracing charter schools and welfare reforms.

So it is sad to report how lacklustre the debate about government is in America. The obvious decline is on the right. This newspaper is hardly delighted that government spending has grown from 34% of GDP in 1980, when Friedman published “Free to Choose”, to over 40% today; but American conservatism has grown so angry that it has become a parody of its former self. Tax cuts are always right (even if they inflate the deficit); government activism is always wrong (even if stimulus helped avert a depression). And the right’s hypocrisy when it comes to spending on conservative projects (prisons, the armed forces, subsidies to big business) is breathtaking. George W. Bush presided over a huge growth in government.

If the Republican Party has moved to the unthinking right, the Democratic Party has moved to the unreforming left. Mr Obama has shown little of Mr Clinton’s enthusiasm for modernising government: indeed, he is unpicking welfare reform, by loosening work requirements. He has presided over a huge expansion of legislation, much of it badly drafted, such as the 850-page Dodd-Frank bill (see article). Worryingly in hock to the public-sector unions, Mr Obama seems to think the public sector is inherently more moral than the private one. Companies are at best cows to be milked, at worst prey to be hunted.

Even if clever local experiments continue (see article), Washington is gridlocked. The bipartisan Bowles-Simpson commission produced a sensible recipe for reform: short-term stimulus to jolt the economy, longer-term entitlement reforms to lower the debt and a simplification of America’s crazy tax code. House Republicans rejected it and Mr Obama ignored it. And all this as the baby-boomers are beginning to retire and medical costs are escalating. Sooner or later, America will have to look at rationing health care for the elderly and reforming pensions; but each party rejects the other’s proposals.

Against that background, both parties need to be far more willing to think the unthinkable. Our prejudice is firmly in favour of a leaner state, but the Republicans need to recognise, as their intellectual forebears did from Adam Smith to Abraham Lincoln, that government has an important role to play in a capitalist economy, providing public goods and a safety net. Teddy Roosevelt broke up over-mighty companies, rather than doling out tax breaks to them. Why on earth are people who champion a small state supporting an expensive war on drugs that has filled the prisons to bursting point without reducing the supply of narcotics? But the Republicans’ main problem is taxes. Successful deficit-reduction plans require at least some of the gap—perhaps around a quarter—to be closed by new revenue. If the Republicans got rid of loopholes, they could cut all the main tax rates and still raise more money.

The Democrats’ challenge is more on the spending side. Productivity has been flat in the public sector at a time when it has doubled in the private sector. Mr Obama needs to decide whether he is on the side of taxpayers or public-sector workers (who, if they work for the federal government, earn more than their private-sector equivalents do in wages and benefits). He needs to get serious about cutting back regulation, rather than increasing it; and he needs to spend more time listening to successful business leaders rather than telling them all is fine.

America needs a man who can spell out what he thinks a modern government should do—and then how to pay for it. With luck the debate will push either Mr Obama or Mr Romney to do that. At the moment, neither seems to understand the central domestic challenge of the next presidency.


http://www.economist.com/node/21559630
coverpunch
Profile Joined December 2011
United States2093 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-08-01 20:19:17
August 01 2012 20:18 GMT
#4680
On August 02 2012 04:59 Defacer wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 02 2012 04:34 coverpunch wrote:
On August 02 2012 03:52 Saryph wrote:
Study: Romney Plan Would Raise Taxes On 95% Of Americans

Mitt Romney’s tax plan would be a boon for the wealthy, but a tax hike for 95% of Americans, according to a new nonpartisan study.

The report, by researchers from both the Brookings Institution and Tax Policy Center, examined Romney’s suggestion of an across-the-board 20% income tax cut financed by closing existing loopholes and concluded there was no way to make the numbers work without burdening the vast majority of Americans with higher taxes.

...


Source


From the report:
In order to form a revenue neutral plan, the proposed revenue reductions from lower rates must be financed with an equal-value elimination or reduction in available tax preferences. (In our analysis, we assume that eliminating preferences that lower rates on savings and investment is off the table.) Offsetting the $360 billion in revenue losses necessitates a reduction of roughly 65 percent of available tax expenditures. Such a reduction by itself would be unprecedented, and would require deep reductions in many popular tax benefits ranging from the mortgage interest deduction, the exclusion for employer-provided health insurance, the deduction for charitable contributions, and benefits for low- and middle-income families and children like the EITC and child tax credit.

we have not examined whether it would be politically realistic to reduce tax expenditures—provisions like the mortgage interest deduction, charitable giving, the tax benefit for health insurance, the EITC, and the child tax credit, etc,—by 58 percent for those earning less than $200,000, and to eliminate such features entirely for all households earning more than $200,000. These are extremely popular tax breaks, not just for the taxpayers who benefit directly from lower tax bills, but also from other parties who benefit indirectly such as charities and their constituents, or the home building industry.

This is a terrible criticism of Romney's tax plan. The plan has many contradictions and is politically impossible, but attack it on that basis, not by making up other crazy assumptions that can't happen.

In fairness, the report does go on to say that the biggest flaw in Romney's plan is that it relies entirely on future growth. Yes, Romney can cut taxes and make up the revenue if the US economy suddenly jumps to 8% growth and booms its way out of trouble. But the same can be said about Obama's economic platform and tax policy too. The question is whether either man's policy can make that happen or if one is more likely to result in growth than the other.


Yes. The math just doesn't make sense. You can't cut taxes and get the political willpower to close all the 'loopholes' and make the necessary, massive spending cuts to balance the budget, let alone pay down the debt.

I think the difference comes down to leadership. Obama is much more willing to decrease spending in order to increase taxes revenue. Romney seems committed to not raising taxes a nickel.

The Economist candidly and brutally outlined the flaws of both candidates economic policies, and how really the defining issue of this election is what the size and role of government should be.

Show nested quote +
AMID all the name-calling in America’s presidential campaign, a serious subject has begun to emerge: what role should government play? Earlier this month Barack Obama caused a stir when he said that entrepreneurs were not solely responsible for their success, but relied on the roads, bridges and other infrastructure which society constructs and which make commerce possible: “If you’ve got a business…you didn’t build that.” Meanwhile, Mitt Romney has told voters looking for state handouts to vote for the other guy.

Both men’s positions have been contorted by each other’s attack ads. But there is a real left-right division, personified by the two candidates. Mr Obama, who has spent most of his life in the public sector, academia or community work, plainly thinks the state has a bigger role to play—in galvanising the economy when demand collapses (as in 2008) and in moderating inequality. By contrast, Mr Romney, who made $200m or so in private equity, believes that the best thing that government can do is to get out of the way—by cutting taxes, reducing regulations and leaving people to build their businesses.

Good. America needs a serious debate both about the size and scope of government, and how to pay for it. The winner of the November election will immediately be faced with the problem of the “fiscal cliff”—a preset $400 billion tax increase, with the expiry of various tax cuts, and a $100-billion-a-year cut in spending—which could push the economy back into recession. Looming over that is the gaping deficit. And over that, America’s schizophrenia: it taxes itself like a small-government country, but spends like a big-government one.

Free to choose, for better or worse

The rest of the world would gain from such a debate. America has inspired most of the interesting thinking on the role of the state in the past 50 years, from deregulation in the 1970s to New York’s “broken windows” policing. Next week marks the centenary of the birth of Milton Friedman (see Free Exchange). The Chicago economist did as much as anyone to battle Leviathan: driving bureaucrats out of telephone companies and airlines, proposing education vouchers to give parents a choice over their children’s schools and railing against the unintended consequences of state meddling (for example, “rent control” laws that reduce the amount of property available for rent). Friedman was a mentor to both Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, but his ideas prompted creativity on the left too: Bill Clinton’s New Democrats also “reinvented government”, embracing charter schools and welfare reforms.

So it is sad to report how lacklustre the debate about government is in America. The obvious decline is on the right. This newspaper is hardly delighted that government spending has grown from 34% of GDP in 1980, when Friedman published “Free to Choose”, to over 40% today; but American conservatism has grown so angry that it has become a parody of its former self. Tax cuts are always right (even if they inflate the deficit); government activism is always wrong (even if stimulus helped avert a depression). And the right’s hypocrisy when it comes to spending on conservative projects (prisons, the armed forces, subsidies to big business) is breathtaking. George W. Bush presided over a huge growth in government.

If the Republican Party has moved to the unthinking right, the Democratic Party has moved to the unreforming left. Mr Obama has shown little of Mr Clinton’s enthusiasm for modernising government: indeed, he is unpicking welfare reform, by loosening work requirements. He has presided over a huge expansion of legislation, much of it badly drafted, such as the 850-page Dodd-Frank bill (see article). Worryingly in hock to the public-sector unions, Mr Obama seems to think the public sector is inherently more moral than the private one. Companies are at best cows to be milked, at worst prey to be hunted.

Even if clever local experiments continue (see article), Washington is gridlocked. The bipartisan Bowles-Simpson commission produced a sensible recipe for reform: short-term stimulus to jolt the economy, longer-term entitlement reforms to lower the debt and a simplification of America’s crazy tax code. House Republicans rejected it and Mr Obama ignored it. And all this as the baby-boomers are beginning to retire and medical costs are escalating. Sooner or later, America will have to look at rationing health care for the elderly and reforming pensions; but each party rejects the other’s proposals.

Against that background, both parties need to be far more willing to think the unthinkable. Our prejudice is firmly in favour of a leaner state, but the Republicans need to recognise, as their intellectual forebears did from Adam Smith to Abraham Lincoln, that government has an important role to play in a capitalist economy, providing public goods and a safety net. Teddy Roosevelt broke up over-mighty companies, rather than doling out tax breaks to them. Why on earth are people who champion a small state supporting an expensive war on drugs that has filled the prisons to bursting point without reducing the supply of narcotics? But the Republicans’ main problem is taxes. Successful deficit-reduction plans require at least some of the gap—perhaps around a quarter—to be closed by new revenue. If the Republicans got rid of loopholes, they could cut all the main tax rates and still raise more money.

The Democrats’ challenge is more on the spending side. Productivity has been flat in the public sector at a time when it has doubled in the private sector. Mr Obama needs to decide whether he is on the side of taxpayers or public-sector workers (who, if they work for the federal government, earn more than their private-sector equivalents do in wages and benefits). He needs to get serious about cutting back regulation, rather than increasing it; and he needs to spend more time listening to successful business leaders rather than telling them all is fine.

America needs a man who can spell out what he thinks a modern government should do—and then how to pay for it. With luck the debate will push either Mr Obama or Mr Romney to do that. At the moment, neither seems to understand the central domestic challenge of the next presidency.


http://www.economist.com/node/21559630

I'm strongly in agreement with the Economist article. I think this is a defining election for US history in the 21st century and if our next president botches it, then we are in for decades of misery. Which for most of the people on this forum would mean it is the income over our lifetime that will be paying for these mistakes.

There is a question of leadership and it's fine to say that you don't think Romney would be a good leader. But it's laughable to act like Obama has been good. He's been mediocre at best and it's clear he's not smart or capable or strong enough to handle the problems before him. He needs to prove he can do better. I would sum it up as saying that Obama deserves to lose but Romney does not deserve to win.
Prev 1 232 233 234 235 236 1504 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 5h 22m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
WinterStarcraft651
ProTech55
StarCraft: Brood War
Sea 3949
Killer 270
PianO 255
Sacsri 125
Leta 101
Bale 62
Noble 37
sorry 33
sSak 19
Backho 15
[ Show more ]
Aegong 8
Dota 2
NeuroSwarm101
XcaliburYe51
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K1076
Other Games
SortOf57
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick1306
StarCraft: Brood War
UltimateBattle 93
Other Games
BasetradeTV32
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 14 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• davetesta91
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• iopq 1
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• lizZardDota247
League of Legends
• Stunt561
Upcoming Events
OSC
5h 22m
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
8h 52m
The PondCast
1d 2h
Online Event
1d 8h
Korean StarCraft League
2 days
CranKy Ducklings
3 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
3 days
Mihu vs QiaoGege
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs TBD
Online Event
3 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
4 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
4 days
Bonyth vs TBD
[ Show More ]
OSC
5 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

BSL 20 Non-Korean Championship
FEL Cracow 2025
Underdog Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL 20 Team Wars
CC Div. A S7
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025

Upcoming

BSL 21 Qualifiers
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #1
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #2
ASL Season 20
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
WardiTV Summer 2025
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
HCC Europe
Yuqilin POB S2
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.