President Obama Re-Elected - Page 906

Prev 1 904 905 906 907 908 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

Deathmanbob

United States2356 Posts

October 19 2012 19:30 GMT

#18101

On October 20 2012 03:52 BluePanther wrote:
shit just got real.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html

every day i check this map, and every damn day i get scared

oneofthem

Cayman Islands24199 Posts

October 19 2012 19:35 GMT

#18102

rofl. ok

i mean if america goes for romney with 300 electoral votes then the place is likely beyond redemption. time to move to australia

Deathmanbob

United States2356 Posts

October 19 2012 19:36 GMT

#18103

On October 20 2012 04:26 Voltaire wrote:
It seems like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida are the three states that really matter at this point.

If either candidate takes all 3, they win.

obama is going to take the first two and romney is taking florida. Neither is going to win all three

farvacola

United States18857 Posts

October 19 2012 19:41 GMT

#18104

On October 20 2012 04:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Show nested quote +

On October 20 2012 03:42 farvacola wrote:

On October 20 2012 03:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

On October 20 2012 03:21 farvacola wrote:

On October 20 2012 03:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

On October 20 2012 02:41 DoubleReed wrote:

On October 20 2012 02:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

On October 19 2012 23:37 DoubleReed wrote:
No one actually pays the corporate tax. The largest companies pay an effective tax rate of less than 5%. The 40% number is just a facade.

+ Show Spoiler +

Source
Data should be for 2009 - so all rates are a bit lower because of the economy, though none in this set hit the nominal 35% rate.

It varies a lot by industry. Some of the low rates are legitimate, past losses are being used to offset current gains, or the company has a legitimate operation overseas in a lower tax country. Too much of it is loophole exploitation and tax expenditures that act as backdoor industrial policy.

We also spend $60 billion subsidizing oil.

I'm all in favor of corporate tax decrease if it makes sense. I just want honesty here.

In general I think a high income tax + low corporate tax encourages people to invest in their businesses.

No we don't. Oil and gas get ~$3B / year in subsidies. To get to $60B you need to count things like depreciation which isn't a subsidy.

http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pdf
Edit: see table ES2 on page xiii

Those numbers do not include annual subsidies nor state and local breaks. Consequently, they are highly misleading.

I don't know what 'annual subsidies' you are referring to. While it doesn't include state and local breaks, those breaks tend to be much smaller than federal subsides. Depending on the state they often favor renewable as well.

When I say "annual" subsidies I'm referring to general fund, non-specific subsidies that can be applied for based on unique financial status. From the Dept. of Energy brief provided,

The tax code allows a foreign tax credit for income taxes paid to foreign countries. If a multinational company is subject to a foreign country's levy, and it also receives a specific economic benefit from that foreign country, it is classified as a “dual-capacity taxpayer.” Dual-capacity taxpayers cannot claim a credit for any part of the foreign levy unless it is established that the amount paid under a distinct element of the foreign levy is a tax, rather than a compulsory payment for some direct or indirect economic benefit. Major oil companies are significant beneficiaries of this provision. However, this tax provision is also available to non-energy industries.
The tax code also provides special treatment for some publicly-traded partnerships (PTP). Section 7704 of the Code generally treats a publicly-traded partnership as a corporation for federal income tax purposes. For this purpose, a PTP is any partnership that is traded on an established securities market or secondary market. However, a notable exception to Section 7704 occurs if 90 percent of the gross income of a PTP is passive-type income, such as interest, dividends, real property rents, gains from the disposition of real property, and similar income or gains. This would include gains from natural resource sales. In these cases, the PTP is exempt from corporate level taxation, thus allowing it to claim pass-through status for tax purposes.4 As with many other tax provisions, the tax treatment of PTPs is not exclusive to the energy sector.

To summarize the text above, there are a host of subsidies available to companies and partnerships that fulfill certain criteria; criteria that, while explicitly labeled as non-energy specific, frequently benefits the sprawling and multilateral oil industry.

Those issues are important when discussing the corporate tax code as a whole, not when discussing a specific industry. If you were to replace the oil industry with another one (such as solar) those tax provisions still apply so they aren't worth addressing in an industry-specific context.

Those issues are also very 'squishy' in terms of whether or not they should be considered a subsidy. Often things such as foreign tax credits and pass-through status are enacted to prevent multiple layers of taxation that would result in an absurdly high tax rate, not to offer a subsidy.

I think those issues can be just as important when discussing how general tax law affects industry specific entities, in this case oil companies. What I am getting at here is that our general corporate tax code may not be as industry neutral in its provisions as originally intended, and to look at how pass through and dual capacity taxpayer status might affect different industries and corporations seems like something we ought to be doing a lot more of.

TheTenthDoc

United States9561 Posts

October 19 2012 19:46 GMT

#18105

On October 20 2012 04:26 xDaunt wrote:
Let me make a prediction about these polls and where they'll eventually end up. Take the average of any set of polls for a battleground state (or nationally for that matter), add all of the "undecideds" to Romney's column, and then move another 2 points from Obama to Romney, and you'll have something fairly close to where I believe we'll be election day.

This prediction is subject to some major gaffe or other election-rocking event occurring over the next two weeks.

So basically you're saying we'll see a historically unprecedented shift in polling data that completely ignores both the RCP and 538 model (the latter of which is probably the most accurate one in the business) because...why?

Because Rasmussen is accurate? I hope not, because they're the least reliable poll aggregator in the business. Because one moderately accurate national tracking poll shows outlier numbers?

farvacola

United States18857 Posts

October 19 2012 19:48 GMT

#18106

On October 20 2012 04:46 TheTenthDoc wrote:

Show nested quote +

Because of the monolithic liberal bias inherent to the act of communicating information. Duh!

Signet

United States1718 Posts

October 19 2012 19:58 GMT

#18107

Now that is a bold prediction!

Mine isn't so bold. Take the difference as (Obama - Romney), from some highly aggregated poll source like 538/etc. Subtract 1 from that, making Obama's lead smaller or Romney's larger. That is the final difference.

Subject to same disclaimer of course.

Deathmanbob

United States2356 Posts

October 19 2012 20:01 GMT

#18108

so you would put ohio, pens, and NV all to romney despite none of the polls showing that? (those are all toss ups on RCP, i could be missreading your post)

Souma

2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts

October 19 2012 20:03 GMT

#18109

This election obviously comes down to how well the Republicans can stifle Democrats from voting.

xDaunt

United States17988 Posts

October 19 2012 20:04 GMT

#18110

On October 20 2012 04:46 TheTenthDoc wrote:

Show nested quote +

Just three weeks ago, democrats were saying that the election was in the bag for Obama because polls were showing that he had anywhere from 6-12 point leads in several key swing states. Back then, I posed the following question: Assuming Romney comes back and wins this election, does it mean that people's minds really changed or does it mean that the polls were wrong? I, of course, suggested the latter.

So what am I basing my prediction on? Three things. First, undecideds tend to break for the challenger. Second, I've noticed a 2-3 point bias against republicans in the polls since the 2010 election. Third, Romney clearly has all of the momentum.

Take it for what you will, but this my honest analysis.

armada[sb]

United States432 Posts

October 19 2012 20:05 GMT

#18111

It's beyond me how Romney can win while alienating senior citizens, women, blacks and latinos.

Souma

2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts

October 19 2012 20:06 GMT

#18112

On October 20 2012 05:04 xDaunt wrote:

Show nested quote +

But people's minds really did change. Or, at least, he reassured his base during the first debate.

oneofthem

Cayman Islands24199 Posts

October 19 2012 20:06 GMT

#18113

On October 20 2012 04:48 farvacola wrote:

Show nested quote +

Because of the monolithic liberal bias inherent to the act of communicating information. Duh!

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2012/10/a-resurveyed-electorate-becomes-a-high-information-electorate-and-a-high-information-electorate-likes-barack-obama.html

more true than you thought

sc2superfan101

3583 Posts

October 19 2012 20:06 GMT

#18114

On October 19 2012 09:05 ZeaL. wrote:

Show nested quote +

On October 19 2012 08:46 xDaunt wrote:

On October 19 2012 08:40 ZeaL. wrote:

On October 19 2012 08:18 ticklishmusic wrote:

On October 19 2012 08:05 farvacola wrote:

On October 19 2012 08:02 mynameisgreat11 wrote:

On October 19 2012 07:55 xDaunt wrote:
Ruh, roh.

A new poll shows Republican Mitt Romney leading in Pennsylvania, a state that Republicans had all but written off just weeks ago but which is now listed as a toss up by the Real Clear Politics website.

Susquehanna Polling and Research provided The Washington Examiner with a poll it conducted for state party officials that shows Romney with a 49 percent to 45 percent lead over President Obama.

It's the first poll to show Romney leading among likely voters in the Keystone State.

"The polling is very clear that the race is certainly up for grabs and Republicans have a tendency to never believe it," Susquehanna President James Lee told The Examiner.

Source.

Wiki:

The Examiner's editorial page is heavily conservative; it is headed by Mark Tapscott, with American Spectator senior editor Quin Hillyer serving as its associate editor. The paper's national political coverage, which also appears in Examiner papers in Baltimore and San Francisco, was previously headed by Bill Sammon, a former Washington Times reporter who has written several books praising George W. Bush. (Sammon is now the deputy managing editor for Fox News Channel's Washington bureau.[1]) Chris Stirewalt, who has been described as "a true conservative voice"[2], is the Examiner's political editor. Mary Katherine Ham, former managing editor of the conservative Townhall.com, briefly served as the Examiner's online editor for a few months in 2008 [3] before joining the Weekly Standard.[4] Matthew Sheffield, executive editor of the Media Research Center blog NewsBusters, is in charge of the Examiner's website.[5] Byron York, formerly of National Review, joined the paper in February 2009.[6]

Oh nos! A clearly conservative paper reports polls favoring Romney!

And right before the latest debate too!

You forgot to mention the part where even the poll that was sampled is highly biased. Susquehanna Polling & Research has been the Republican pollster of choice in Pennsylvania for many years now.

Source

Not to mention the Washington Examiner is one of the most blatantly biased sources I've seen out there.

Kerry was a fine candidate I think, though Edwards did turn out to be a scumbag. Unfortunately, the Republicans (Karl Rove to be exact) decided to stoop to a new low in attack ads with swiftboat.

No joke. I was pretty much republican until 2004. It was awhile before I self labeled as "liberal" (was always socially liberal, fiscally not so) but seeing the swiftboat attacks was just fucking sickening.

[image loading]

This picture more than anything made me realize how vile many in the Republican base were and I never looked back.

Congratulations, here's your new base!

She's just fucking stupid, not fucking vile. Last time I checked "Obama Phone" isn't an official campaign strategy. The GOP was worshipping soldiers while ridiculing a veteran for his service to America. And this was from the fucking top and the base ate it up. Don't even try to compare the two.

well, technically, we were ridiculing a veteran for lying about his service to America.

xDaunt

United States17988 Posts

October 19 2012 20:07 GMT

#18115

On October 20 2012 05:01 Deathmanbob wrote:

Show nested quote +

so you would put ohio, pens, and NV all to romney despite none of the polls showing that? (those are all toss ups on RCP, i could be missreading your post)

Yeah, Romney would basically take almost all of the toss up states on RCP's list.

Speaking of which, did anyone else notice that RCP lists New Jersey as a "lean Obama" state? Hmmmmmm.......

xDaunt

United States17988 Posts

October 19 2012 20:08 GMT

#18116

On October 20 2012 05:05 armada[sb] wrote:
It's beyond me how Romney can win while alienating senior citizens, women, blacks and latinos.

Your error is in assuming that he has alienated -- or in other words, is significantly trailing Obama in support from -- senior citizens and women.

darthfoley

United States8004 Posts

October 19 2012 20:09 GMT

#18117

On October 20 2012 05:06 Souma wrote:

Show nested quote +

But people's minds really did change. Or, at least, he reassured his base during the first debate.

How does Romney have all the momentum when he clearly lost the last debate? lol

Voltaire

United States1485 Posts

October 19 2012 20:09 GMT

#18118

On October 20 2012 05:05 armada[sb] wrote:
It's beyond me how Romney can win while alienating senior citizens, women, blacks and latinos.

It's amazing that people think he's actually doing those things.

farvacola

United States18857 Posts

October 19 2012 20:11 GMT

#18119

On October 20 2012 05:06 oneofthem wrote:

Show nested quote +

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2012/10/a-resurveyed-electorate-becomes-a-high-information-electorate-and-a-high-information-electorate-likes-barack-obama.html

more true than you thought

Thanks for that, this DeLong fellow sounds like my kind of guy. And I was only half joking anyhow

sc2superfan101

3583 Posts

October 19 2012 20:12 GMT

#18120

On October 20 2012 05:09 darthfoley wrote:

Show nested quote +

How does Romney have all the momentum when he clearly lost the last debate? lol

pundits are saying he lost the debate, but thus far, i haven't seen much evidence that this is so. (polls of "who won the debate" mean nothing, IMO)

Romney's performance in the polls hasn't seemed to slow, he is still on a steady gain. (i know we have to wait a couple days to see the real effects, but still) I don't see how you can say someone won the debate when they failed to convince anyone of anything, but....

Prev 1 904 905 906 907 908 1504 Next

Please or register to reply.

President Obama Re-Elected - Page 906

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming