EPTPresident Obama Re-Elected - Page 239
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
I'm perusing this study by the Tax Policy Center, and it's a reasonably objective and matter-of-fact analysis. It does confirm that it based it projections on the 'progressive' elimination of tax preferences, meaning that it assumes that the loopholes that benefit the wealthiest would be closed first until the plan became revenue neutral. The table on page 16 sums up the impacts of the Romney tax cuts, with and without it being revenue neutral, pretty nicely. PDF of Tax Policy center study. For example, for people making > million, they would see a income increase of 8.3% with existing tax preferences, and an increase of 4.1 % if they were eliminated. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On August 03 2012 06:04 DoubleReed wrote: To be fair, tax policies are probably the worst thing to ask about if you want honesty from politicians. By the way, I totally didn't know about the hilarious flip-flopping on the israel-palestine thing. Truly amazing. Oh that video is too funny. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On August 03 2012 04:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote: By broadening the base they mean closing loopholes, tax credits and exemptions which can apply to both the poor and the rich. The study says that it won't be enough - hence the need for taxing the poor and middle classes more, since the study doesn't go into spending cuts and assumes that tax cuts for the rich are an absolute priority. The study also makes a lot of assumptions as to how far you go in broadening the tax base. FWIW the study isn't bad - it just goes a bit far. It would have sufficed to say that broadening the base wouldn't be enough (realistically) and then toss up the question of how revenue neutrality will be achieved. The assumptions it makes is that there will be no reform to investment income (capital gains). Other than that, they''re going by what we know: closing tax loopholes to regain as much revenue as possible. Since most loopholes are aimed at the middle class, but also benefit the wealthiest, eliminating those hit them hardest. The exception comes from capital gains, but again, those appear to be out of the discussion. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On August 03 2012 04:56 Mohdoo wrote: I'm curious how members of TL will be impacted by the tax plans suggested by Romney and Obama. http://www.barackobama.com/tax-calculator Takes 5 seconds and tells you how much you will be impacted by tax changes. For me: Tax Savings Under Obama 2013 $1,000 2009-2012 $1,200 Tax Increase Under Romney 2013 $183 This tax calculator is funny. This is at single, 0 dependents, although marriage status doesn't matter. Tax savings at $497,499: Obama $8,225 Romney $4,016 Tax savings at $497,500: Obama $8,295 Romney $36,319 I'm not sure why but there's a bright line at that income. The website doesn't say why. | ||
|
nucLeaRTV
Romania822 Posts
| ||
|
DocTheMedic
United States79 Posts
Well, in fairness, he wasn't apologizing during the second flipflop; he said it never happened, and people took it out of context. Which of course is stupid because that's exactly what he said (and then later wrote). Of course, it's always classic Mitt Romney to demand an apology from the media and the Palestinians for misinterpreting his words that could not be interpreted any other way. | ||
|
Saryph
United States1955 Posts
On August 03 2012 07:03 nucLeaRTV wrote: I'm not a US citizen, but I want to see how people think about Gary Johnson. I've heard some people speaking about him wishing to be the 3rd party to this election. He has some interesting ideas and I don't understand why nobody talks about him. Because he has no chance of winning and the two party system is so ingrained into our way of thinking of politics almost no one gives him a second thought. To the extent that most people have never heard of him. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On August 03 2012 07:03 nucLeaRTV wrote: I'm not a US citizen, but I want to see how people think about Gary Johnson. I've heard some people speaking about him wishing to be the 3rd party to this election. He has some interesting ideas and I don't understand why nobody talks about him. He is the libertarian candidate. But he already tried and failed early to get the Republican nomination. He's just not ready for primetime and he has nothing special for US national politics. He's from an obscure state (New Mexico), he holds views that alienate too many people, and he's frankly the kind of guy that adds even more fuel to the sentiment that the Republican candidates are a joke. And that's before anyone has dug into the skeletons in his closet. | ||
|
MethodSC
United States928 Posts
On August 03 2012 07:03 nucLeaRTV wrote: I'm not a US citizen, but I want to see how people think about Gary Johnson. I've heard some people speaking about him wishing to be the 3rd party to this election. He has some interesting ideas and I don't understand why nobody talks about him. I'll be voting for him gladly. He's the best candidate this country has by far. As you can already tell with just the couple other comments, people just don't know anything about him. And he's not a republican, libertarians are not republicans, they are liberals, classical liberals. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On August 03 2012 07:28 MethodSC wrote: I'll be voting for him gladly. He's the best candidate this country has by far. As you can already tell with just the couple other comments, people just don't know anything about him. And he's not a republican, libertarians are not republicans, they are liberals, classical liberals. Aren't all the parties classical liberals? I mean our country was sort of founded on classical liberalism... Edit: Or is it more about fighting over who gets to call themselves classical liberals? | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
MITT ROMNEY’S latest controversial remark, about the role of culture in explaining why some countries are rich and powerful while others are poor and weak, has attracted much comment. I was especially interested in his remark because he misrepresented my views and, in contrasting them with another scholar’s arguments, oversimplified the issue. It is not true that my book “Guns, Germs and Steel,” as Mr. Romney described it in a speech in Jerusalem, “basically says the physical characteristics of the land account for the differences in the success of the people that live there. There is iron ore on the land and so forth.” That is so different from what my book actually says that I have to doubt whether Mr. Romney read it. My focus was mostly on biological features, like plant and animal species, and among physical characteristics, the ones I mentioned were continents’ sizes and shapes and relative isolation. I said nothing about iron ore, which is so widespread that its distribution has had little effect on the different successes of different peoples. (As I learned this week, Mr. Romney also mischaracterized my book in his memoir, “No Apology: Believe in America.”) That’s not the worst part. Even scholars who emphasize social rather than geographic explanations — like the Harvard economist David S. Landes, whose book “The Wealth and Poverty of Nations” was mentioned favorably by Mr. Romney — would find Mr. Romney’s statement that “culture makes all the difference” dangerously out of date. In fact, Mr. Landes analyzed multiple factors (including climate) in explaining why the industrial revolution first occurred in Europe and not elsewhere. Source | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
Oversimplifications of oversimplifications. Straw men everywhere (which would be a great Halloween theme). Must be election season! | ||
|
Speece
United States50 Posts
| ||
|
Funnytoss
Taiwan1471 Posts
On August 03 2012 08:50 Speece wrote: Obama is a stronger candidate in literally every way. Can someone explain what Romney has going for him other than he is not Obama? The economic recovery has not gone as smoothly as hoped, and Obama is black. | ||
|
Vega62a
946 Posts
On August 03 2012 08:50 Speece wrote: Obama is a stronger candidate in literally every way. Can someone explain what Romney has going for him other than he is not Obama? The economy still hasn't recovered, which is clearly 100% the fault of Obama. If he were a competent president he would have used a magic bullet by now. That's why, if you elect Romney, he'll fire that magic bullet and Make Jobs Happen. | ||
|
StateofReverie
United States633 Posts
| ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote: Of course it applies to us as well. Yes, intelligence is hereditary. These are things we understand quite well. I never said anything different. Except racial factors are extraordinarily minor to intelligence (and are pretty minor in general). Although, technically everyone is a special snowflake because we're all unique. Stop talking about race already. You keep bringing up that strawman to inject emotional arguments related to racism instead of addressing the actual issue. No one is arguing that "racial factors" have anything to do with intelligence; the argument is that genetics and natural selection is relevant to SES (which is affected by, among other things, intelligence). On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote: What I'm disagreeing with here if your actual statement of these selection effects. The only study you showed me showed very minor effects, and not to anything affecting intelligence. And yet you're the one accusing me ignoring realities. You are the one not being scientifically rigorous here. The evidence we have suggests there could be a very minor effect (maybe only slightly greater than racial factors on intelligence, which is very slim), but it is simply not as massively significant as cultural factors. The study I showed merely demonstrates that humans evolve at a comparable rate to other species. Considering that only 50 years of breeding was enough to produce significant changes in the silver fox, it's not a stretch to argue that several centuries of slavery results in significant effects (not to mention the selection effect behind slave capture). On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote: Your assumption is that "genetics => intelligence" implies "race => intelligence." This is simply not the way it works. There is massive genetic variability in a race, and the genetic distance between the different races is pathetically small, even to isolated island tribes. Again, stop with the bullshit about "race". It's a strawman. "Race" is not a valid scientific concept (e.g. skin color is not a defining part of genetics). Ethnic groups are (e.g. mitochondrial DNA haplogroups). On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote: And even more than that, because African Americans are not Africans. They are a hybrid. All humans are hybrids. Nevertheless, reasonable inferences can be made about population clusters based on their general characteristics. | ||
|
HunterX11
United States1048 Posts
On August 03 2012 09:07 sunprince wrote: Stop talking about race already. You keep bringing up that strawman to inject emotional arguments related to racism instead of addressing the actual issue. No one is arguing that "racial factors" have anything to do with intelligence; the argument is that genetics and natural selection is relevant to SES (which is affected by, among other things, intelligence). The study I showed merely demonstrates that humans evolve at a comparable rate to other species. Considering that only 50 years of breeding was enough to produce significant changes in the silver fox, it's not a stretch to argue that several centuries of slavery results in significant effects (not to mention the selection effect behind slave capture). Again, stop with the bullshit about "race". It's a strawman. "Race" is not a valid scientific concept (e.g. skin color is not a defining part of genetics). Ethnic groups are (e.g. mitochondrial DNA haplogroups). All humans are hybrids. Nevertheless, reasonable inferences can be made about population clusters based on their general characteristics. How about YOU stop talking about this altogether, you ignorant racist. User was warned for this post | ||
|
NovaTheFeared
United States7212 Posts
On August 03 2012 08:50 Speece wrote: Obama is a stronger candidate in literally every way. Can someone explain what Romney has going for him other than he is not Obama? Economy seems likely to be the #1 issue and polling on Obama's handling of the economy is upside down. But the other advantage Romney has is fundraising. This is the first Presidential election since Citizen's United and it's related cases paved the way for unlimited corporate spending. And the rich/corporations are backing the more rich/corporate friendly candidate, Mitt Romney. In some ways it makes me glad not to be in a swing state, because the avalanche of campaign ads is going to be like nothing seen before. | ||
| ||
