|
|
On September 23 2012 09:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I think people are still getting way too caught up on Romney here.... This isn't a Romney vs. Obama ticket here, you don't have lots of people who really like Romney or are enthusiastic about Romney. Because this election is basically Obama vs. Anti-Obama. So the people who do all this focus and criticism on Romney and wonder how anyone could support Romney are kind of missing the point, the point that he simply isn't Obama.
Yeah, but in that case independents will probably drift towards the one offering actual plans, and further they'll probably be turned off by Romney's percieved incompetence stemming from his train wreck of a campaign.
|
On September 23 2012 09:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I think people are still getting way too caught up on Romney here.... This isn't a Romney vs. Obama ticket here, you don't have lots of people who really like Romney or are enthusiastic about Romney. Because this election is basically Obama vs. Anti-Obama. So the people who do all this focus and criticism on Romney and wonder how anyone could support Romney are kind of missing the point, the point that he simply isn't Obama.
It was the same in 04. And people disliked Kerry SO MUCH, that they STILL voted for George Bush even though he was still incredibly unpopular. He began his second term with an already incredibly low approval rate.
People that are anti-Obama are not going to win this election by themselves. They need to convince enough of the rest of the country that their candidate is better than Obama, and if they can't do that Obama will win. I don't see that happening at the moment.
Even if I want to accept every single negative argument the anti-Obama people are throwing at the President, I'm still looking at him more favorably than I'm looking at Romney.
|
Don't know how to embed this video, but here is an amusing video of Bill O'Reilly and his douche-posse basically calling out Romney for being too much of a pussy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/22/bill-oreilly-mitt-romney_n_1905985.html
I don't think it's Romney's tentativeness that's the issue personally. I just think a majority of people justifiably think the GOP platform is dumb and non-sensical. Even if Obama's economic policies won't solve all of America's policies, it's a plan with milestones and benchmarks that can be tracked and 'scored', as Clinton puts it.
|
On September 23 2012 08:15 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 08:00 JinDesu wrote:On September 23 2012 07:52 DoubleReed wrote:
Uhm. Romney isn't running on how great he is. He's running on how bad Obama is. So why would the vote change that much. People are voting against Obama. No one cares about Romney.
Anyway, what about the congressional elections? It looks to me like a huge blowback against republicans after how obstructionist they've been. Care to summarize for me? I actually haven't kept up  I wouldn't expect so much blowback against Congressional Republicans for being obstructionists. The voters put them in Congress to do exactly that. Republican primaries for 2010 was a large sweep of moderates out because voters wanted their Republican Reps to oppose Obama's liberal policies. Those voters have not changed their minds in the last two years, so unless something changes in the American political scene, don't expect Republican support to wane for their conservative Republican Congress.
Are you kidding? Congress's approval rating has been in the single digits. Single digits! Right now it's hovering over 13%. I think we have some serious voter regret for the obstructionists in Congress.
http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/09/22/4280812/send-more-people-to-congress-no.html
On September 23 2012 11:06 Defacer wrote:Don't know how to embed this video, but here is an amusing video of Bill O'Reilly and his douche-posse basically calling out Romney for being too much of a pussy. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/22/bill-oreilly-mitt-romney_n_1905985.htmlI don't think it's Romney's tentativeness that's the issue personally. I just think a majority of people justifiably think the GOP platform is dumb and non-sensical. Even if Obama's economic policies won't solve all of America's policies, it's a plan with milestones and benchmarks that can be tracked and 'scored', as Clinton puts it.
Ehh... Bill O'Reilly thinks everyone is a pussy. Unless the guy is a raging lunatic and delivering as much name-calling as Papa Bear himself, I'm pretty sure O'Reilly considers him a pussy.
|
On September 23 2012 10:59 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 09:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I think people are still getting way too caught up on Romney here.... This isn't a Romney vs. Obama ticket here, you don't have lots of people who really like Romney or are enthusiastic about Romney. Because this election is basically Obama vs. Anti-Obama. So the people who do all this focus and criticism on Romney and wonder how anyone could support Romney are kind of missing the point, the point that he simply isn't Obama. It was the same in 04. And people disliked Kerry SO MUCH, that they STILL voted for George Bush even though he was still incredibly unpopular. He began his second term with an already incredibly low approval rate. People that are anti-Obama are not going to win this election by themselves. They need to convince enough of the rest of the country that their candidate is better than Obama, and if they can't do that Obama will win. I don't see that happening at the moment. Even if I want to accept every single negative argument the anti-Obama people are throwing at the President, I'm still looking at him more favorably than I'm looking at Romney.
This is true in a hand-waving sense but not in a political one. Bush got more votes in 2004 because the GOP fired up the conservative base to vote in much larger numbers than they had in 2000 (8 million more people).
You can see that Obama's campaign strategy is largely the same, fire up liberals to vote in large numbers while trying to discourage conservatives with constant reminders how much they don't like Romney. This thread is largely representative of that strategy as well.
|
On September 23 2012 13:42 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 10:59 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 23 2012 09:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I think people are still getting way too caught up on Romney here.... This isn't a Romney vs. Obama ticket here, you don't have lots of people who really like Romney or are enthusiastic about Romney. Because this election is basically Obama vs. Anti-Obama. So the people who do all this focus and criticism on Romney and wonder how anyone could support Romney are kind of missing the point, the point that he simply isn't Obama. It was the same in 04. And people disliked Kerry SO MUCH, that they STILL voted for George Bush even though he was still incredibly unpopular. He began his second term with an already incredibly low approval rate. People that are anti-Obama are not going to win this election by themselves. They need to convince enough of the rest of the country that their candidate is better than Obama, and if they can't do that Obama will win. I don't see that happening at the moment. Even if I want to accept every single negative argument the anti-Obama people are throwing at the President, I'm still looking at him more favorably than I'm looking at Romney. This is true in a hand-waving sense but not in a political one. Bush got more votes in 2004 because the GOP fired up the conservative base to vote in much larger numbers than they had in 2000 (8 million more people). You can see that Obama's campaign strategy is largely the same, fire up liberals to vote in large numbers while trying to discourage conservatives with constant reminders how much they don't like Romney. This thread is largely representative of that strategy as well.
You are far too unequivocal when you say "Bush got these votes this way", when your own logic supports something different. The conservative base was certainly fired up in 2004, but for what reason? The Anti-Kerry machine was a thing of frightening efficiency, especially when one starts looking at how much Kerry himself began to feed into it. I think its fair to say both the flag waving celebration of geopolitical conservative "success" and the attacks on Kerry got Bush back into office.
|
On September 23 2012 13:49 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 13:42 coverpunch wrote:On September 23 2012 10:59 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 23 2012 09:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I think people are still getting way too caught up on Romney here.... This isn't a Romney vs. Obama ticket here, you don't have lots of people who really like Romney or are enthusiastic about Romney. Because this election is basically Obama vs. Anti-Obama. So the people who do all this focus and criticism on Romney and wonder how anyone could support Romney are kind of missing the point, the point that he simply isn't Obama. It was the same in 04. And people disliked Kerry SO MUCH, that they STILL voted for George Bush even though he was still incredibly unpopular. He began his second term with an already incredibly low approval rate. People that are anti-Obama are not going to win this election by themselves. They need to convince enough of the rest of the country that their candidate is better than Obama, and if they can't do that Obama will win. I don't see that happening at the moment. Even if I want to accept every single negative argument the anti-Obama people are throwing at the President, I'm still looking at him more favorably than I'm looking at Romney. This is true in a hand-waving sense but not in a political one. Bush got more votes in 2004 because the GOP fired up the conservative base to vote in much larger numbers than they had in 2000 (8 million more people). You can see that Obama's campaign strategy is largely the same, fire up liberals to vote in large numbers while trying to discourage conservatives with constant reminders how much they don't like Romney. This thread is largely representative of that strategy as well. You are far too unequivocal when you say "Bush got these votes this way", when your own logic supports something different. The conservative base was certainly fired up in 2004, but for what reason? The Anti-Kerry machine was a thing of frightening efficiency, especially when one starts looking at how much Kerry himself began to feed into it. I think its fair to say both the flag waving celebration of geopolitical conservative "success" and the attacks on Kerry got Bush back into office.
These details are a red herring. What matters strategically is that Obama is trying to motivate voters to head to the polls in large numbers again. With his 70 million voters in 2008, he received the most votes in US history. If he can get 90+% of the turnout again, he's certain to win. Turning the negativity on McCain and Palin in 2008 worked, as McCain received fewer votes than Bush had in 2004. So long as Romney can't do better than Bush 2004, he won't win.
This is a numbers game, pure and simple. The reasons, the attacks, they're all part of the game.
|
On September 23 2012 14:20 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 13:49 farvacola wrote:On September 23 2012 13:42 coverpunch wrote:On September 23 2012 10:59 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 23 2012 09:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I think people are still getting way too caught up on Romney here.... This isn't a Romney vs. Obama ticket here, you don't have lots of people who really like Romney or are enthusiastic about Romney. Because this election is basically Obama vs. Anti-Obama. So the people who do all this focus and criticism on Romney and wonder how anyone could support Romney are kind of missing the point, the point that he simply isn't Obama. It was the same in 04. And people disliked Kerry SO MUCH, that they STILL voted for George Bush even though he was still incredibly unpopular. He began his second term with an already incredibly low approval rate. People that are anti-Obama are not going to win this election by themselves. They need to convince enough of the rest of the country that their candidate is better than Obama, and if they can't do that Obama will win. I don't see that happening at the moment. Even if I want to accept every single negative argument the anti-Obama people are throwing at the President, I'm still looking at him more favorably than I'm looking at Romney. This is true in a hand-waving sense but not in a political one. Bush got more votes in 2004 because the GOP fired up the conservative base to vote in much larger numbers than they had in 2000 (8 million more people). You can see that Obama's campaign strategy is largely the same, fire up liberals to vote in large numbers while trying to discourage conservatives with constant reminders how much they don't like Romney. This thread is largely representative of that strategy as well. You are far too unequivocal when you say "Bush got these votes this way", when your own logic supports something different. The conservative base was certainly fired up in 2004, but for what reason? The Anti-Kerry machine was a thing of frightening efficiency, especially when one starts looking at how much Kerry himself began to feed into it. I think its fair to say both the flag waving celebration of geopolitical conservative "success" and the attacks on Kerry got Bush back into office. These details are a red herring. What matters strategically is that Obama is trying to motivate voters to head to the polls in large numbers again. With his 70 million voters in 2008, he received the most votes in US history. If he can get 90+% of the turnout again, he's certain to win. Turning the negativity on McCain and Palin in 2008 worked, as McCain received fewer votes than Bush had in 2004. So long as Romney can't do better than Bush 2004, he won't win. This is a numbers game, pure and simple. The reasons, the attacks, they're all part of the game.
Of course it's a numbers game, we're talking an election........
|
|
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Mike Lofgren:
The usual Republican rationale for reducing tax rates on capital below the rates on labor is that capital gains are "double taxed." But that is a smokescreen. The American revenue system is about taxing individual legal entities. Taxes on an individual, be he a wage earner or sole proprietor of a business, are only levied once; that said, all income the individual gets from whatever source (unless it is specifically exempt) is taxed. Corporations pay taxes only on their profits, a narrower category whose definition is more susceptible to creative bookkeeping. This is how GE can pay zero federal taxes in a given year. Yet that does not preclude its shareholders from realizing capital gains. Those GE shareholders are individual entities who are legally separate from the corporations whose shares they own. That is why they are not liable for corporate malfeasance or the company's debts. They are taxed once on the income they receive from their investments.
To argue that investors are double taxed is like saying that if Warren Buffett were to give you a billion dollars free and clear, you should pay no taxes on that sum, since Buffett was already taxed on it. Good luck with that argument when you make your not-guilty plea in federal court! The cry of "double taxation" is a perennial red herring designed to let rich speculators skate.
That combined with my previous post:
+ Show Spoiler +The notion that low capital gains tax rates are a good thing because they promote investment, lead to job creation, encourage people to sell assets without fear of tax consequences and actually raise total tax revenue is so entrenched in both parties that the idea of equalizing capital gains and ordinary income rates is barely mentioned or, when it is, is quickly denounced. It’s become a third rail of tax policy and electoral politics. “It’s now so woven into standard thinking that it’s become a cultural norm,” a prominent hedge fund official told me this week. Proponents of lower — even zero — capital gains rates have some academic research and statistics to support their claims. Still, there’s no doubt that the root of the problem highlighted by Mr. Buffett is the disparity between tax rates on capital gains and ordinary income. Were these rates the same, the debate over how to treat carried interest would vanish, along with much of the disparity between tax rates for the rich and people like Mr. Buffett’s secretary. Is that so unthinkable? It does seem intuitive that lower taxes and thus potentially greater rewards would encourage risk-taking and investment, and surely at some rate high taxes can discourage any endeavor. But even some hedge fund and private equity officials concede that the argument for lower capital gains rates rests more on faith than science. “I’ve seen study after study that says lower capital gains rates have no impact on behavior,” the hedge fund official told me. That view is also backed by a growing amount of academic research questioning the premise that lower capital gains rates promote growth. The evidence “is murky, at best,” said Leonard E. Burman, the Daniel Patrick Moynihan professor at the Maxwell School of Syracuse University. Mr. Burman is also a former deputy assistant Treasury secretary for tax policy in the Clinton administration and author of “The Labyrinth of Capital Gains Tax Policy.” “It’s not the panacea for economic growth that advocates make it out to be,” he said. Mr. Buffett himself lent empirical support to this view in his column. “I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off,” he said. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/20/business/questioning-the-dogma-of-lower-taxes-on-capital-gains.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0#h
I would ask why we aren't raising the taxes on capital gains but I already know the answer. 
|
|
|
I knew you guys voted for the wrong guy. Should have taken that moon base!
|
On September 23 2012 20:46 Gorsameth wrote:I knew you guys voted for the wrong guy. Should have taken that moon base!
Gingrich for moon prez, man.
|
To be fair: Ryan says "Work smart, not hard!" as his argument for how to improve the space program and talks about changes in priorities. The budget repeals are largely irrelevant in that case.
Of course, without more specifics on how they are gonna use the money better, so is his rant...
|
On September 23 2012 21:05 radiatoren wrote:To be fair: Ryan says "Work smart, not hard!" as his argument for how to improve the space program and talks about changes in priorities. The budget repeals are largely irrelevant in that case. Of course, without more specifics on how they are gonna use the money better, so is his rant...
That pretty much sums it up. Obama has indeed gutted a lot of NASA, but Romney and Ryan love it that way. They wouldn't even bring it up if they didn't feel they were behind and needed new lines of attack. I am glad it's getting some attention though, hopefully some journalist has the guts to take Obama to task over it.
|
From that article, "in the meantime his administration has mandated that the job of servicing the space station be handed off to private companies".
Seems like Romney and Ryan should like this plan given their stances on other issues. But then they would have to agree with Obama and it seems like for them it's more important to disagree than hold any sort of convictions at all. Fuck.
|
On September 23 2012 22:58 DamnCats wrote:From that article, "in the meantime his administration has mandated that the job of servicing the space station be handed off to private companies". Seems like Romney and Ryan should like this plan given their stances on other issues. But then they would have to agree with Obama and it seems like for them it's more important to disagree than hold any sort of convictions at all. Fuck.
I think we're seeing Ryan's achilles heel. When you don't let him talk about the things he wants to talk about -- his ideas for cutting spending -- he has to come up with other things to talk about. And those things happen to be fucking stupid.
It's obvious to me that Ryan, while a rising star in his party, is not ready for national politics. He's been promoted prematurely 'out of the feedback loop' -- he's used to being the hotshot in his group of like-minded peers, no pandering to the masses or defending himself from the media.
Romney is far more comfortable with the doublespeak and duplicity that is the GOP platform (because he's partly to blame for it). Ryan seems to be struggling to figure out what, exactly, his role is in this campaign.
|
On September 23 2012 21:05 radiatoren wrote:To be fair: Ryan says "Work smart, not hard!" as his argument for how to improve the space program and talks about changes in priorities. The budget repeals are largely irrelevant in that case. Of course, without more specifics on how they are gonna use the money better, so is his rant...
It's hillarious. I hope one day he will tell the world what "smart" is and how the nasa is supposed to carry a space program without funding.
What a tool.
|
It is really hard to take Ryan complaining about Obama's cuts to NASA seriously when his own most recent budget proposal cuts it six percent more than Obama.
Link
|
It is difficult to pinpoint precise causes for these extraordinarily negative views, although the continuing poor economy is certainly a major factor. The fact that control of Congress is now divided, with a Republican majority in the House and a Democratic majority in the Senate, may provide an opportunity for Americans of all political persuasions to dislike some aspect of Congress. With Congress divided, however, it is difficult to assess what impact its low ratings will have on the November elections, now less than three months away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
