U.S. Politics - wages haven't moved edition...

[MinorityReport]

no one is saying he's cheating, we're saying he's covering up things that will look really really bad.

Wisconsin is unlikely to flip from blue to red in 2012, it's about as likely as Arizona flipping from red to blue. North Carolina and Indiana are the most likely flips, after that, it becomes more interesting, in the 50/50 range in states like Florida.

Obama can't play 'prevent' he needs to not just be defending all the time, but Romney has a huge deficit of electoral votes to overcome.

Trust me, the people of Wisconsin are sick of all the recall elections these last four years. There is a very good chance they flip.

For the record, I am libertarian and not a big fan of either candidate, but Obama's biggest problems is 8+% unemployment, a stagnant economy, and debt as far as the eye can see. If Obama can't get Romney off message he's screwed.

Were people ever really making this about catching him doing something illegal with taxes? I thought the idea was to highlight the absurdity of the tax loopholes that benefit the rich and allow them to pay a lower tax rate than the middle class (let's call them the productive sector if you will) and make Romney look bad on the grounds that he favors all these things simply because he's too greedy to pay minimal taxes despite the vast amounts of wealth he's accumulated?

I guess I don't understand this. Romney and other rich folk didn't write the tax code. The people who did write the tax code came from both sides of the isle, so you can't blame just one party because both are culpable. Are we really going to blame people for taking advantage of government programs and tax exemptions? You create a government program to help the poor,and people will sign up for it. You create tax code that allows people to keep more of their money they'll take advantage of it. So even if you do think that Romneys tax returns show a certain unfairness, you really can't blame him anymore than you can blame the person who signs up for renters assistance. If it is available people will take advantage of it. The real solution is simplifying the tax code so everyone can understand it, but there is little interest on either side of doing this.

[Commodore]

Take that you fuckers that use the term Obamacare.

fuckers?

So far Romney has been accused of being a felon, tax evader, murderer. But hey, he's got it coming right?

[All-for-Joffrey]

Trust me, the people of Wisconsin are sick of all the recall elections these last four years.

????

The recall elections happened last year, over approximately a year. Certainly not four years. Walker hasn't even been in office that long.

Like I said, the state is a complete wild card, it's pretty much half and half, with a slight advantage for Republicans (assuming the recall elections are a good indicator for how the federal elections will play out there).

The people who did write the tax code came from both sides of the isle, so you can't blame just one party because both are culpable

The real solution is simplifying the tax code so everyone can understand it

I agree with these two statements completely (which is why I generally don't support Democrats either) but I certainly don't agree with this:

Romney and other rich folk didn't write the tax code

The mega-wealthy and their institutions exercise a huge amount of influence on both parties. Those loopholes exist in large part because of that, as well as the general reluctance to reform the tax code. The only hope is to vote for third parties which are not funded by these institutions.

But speaking on partisan lines, the bottom line is that Democrats are more inclined to raise overall taxes on the wealthy, something Romney and the Republicans want to avoid at all costs. So, Romney not releasing his tax records, is completely consistent with the accurate narrative that Republicans want to coddle the wealthy at the expense of the middle and low-income classes.

[lokisnow]

sure he's got it coming. He's a lying sack of shit who has made millions by bankrupting companies, emptying pensions, outsourcing jobs and other total war tactics targeting the livelyhoods and wallets of the middle class. Romney Hood.

Great article on Mormonism, particularly how Romney has grown up in a culture that has handed him power and never challenged him--particularly interesting in light of how badly Mormon culture fails women.

Also, the article highlights the Official Mormon Practice of "Lying for the Lord" the doctrine that lying is not a sin if you're hiding unpleasant things about the church, or if you're trying to evangelize someone to join. The idea is that if you're doing something "good," lying is A-OK.

The article also highlights Joseph Smith's Whitehouse Prophecy, that a Mormon will become president, something millions of mormons believe Romney to emobdy (the article also suggests the church has been grooming Mitt for this since his father ran for president).

http://www.thedailyb...itt-romney.html

[Crazydog7]

fuckers?

So far Romney has been accused of being a felon, tax evader, murderer. But hey, he's got it coming right?

Right because its all lies and slander when its your guy.

[Shryke]

Michael Tomasky is a moron. Take a look at the electoral map from 2008:

http://www.npr.org/n...ent?view=race08

There is not one good reason why a red state in 2008 is going to flip Democrat in 2012. Not one. So considering that Romney is locked in no worse than 173 votes means he only needs to pick up another 97 electoral votes. Florida and Wisconsin look like prime states to switch from blue to red which is an additional 37 electoral votes meaning Romney would only need another 60 votes for the presidency. Now I am not saying Romney is a shoo-in by any stretch of the imagination, but there is no way Obama wins in a blow out. It won't happen. Matter of fact, with the unemployment rate still as high as it is I would wager that Obama is way more likely to get blown out than Romney will.

Right, but none of that handles the fact that Romney needs to flip 97 electoral votes to win and Obama just needs to keep him from flipping 97 of those. Romney needs to flip alot of states to get this to work. Obama just needs to prevent one of a few major ones from flipping and it's over for Romney.

And the Unemployment rate has been bad all along and yet the overall poll numbers are pretty stable.

Here's is probably your best source btw: http://fivethirtyeig...gs.nytimes.com/

fyi - Wisconsin is not a "prime chance", it's a long shot for Romney. Even the straight up averages give Obama a 6 point lead. People may be sick of recalls, but they love them some Obama.

Releasing his tax returns is a non story in my opinion. The main reason he doesn't release them is that most people don't understand their own taxes, much less someone elses. Everyone talks about tax loopholes, but there is no tax loopholes, just tax code, which Romney didn't write. How many people know that the most common "tax loophole" is purchasing Municipal Bonds? When you purchase a Municipal Bond what you are actually purchasing is state debt. For purchasing state debt you make a profit that you do not have to pay taxes on. Of course there are other deductions that he can make which are all legal. Seriously, do you really think that a guy who has had political ambitions, for what seems like forever, would cheat on his taxes? The answer is no. It is a non-story. A red herring.

No one thinks he cheats on his taxes. Exactly the opposite in fact. Romney hires the very best people in the business. People want to see how little he pays legally exploiting the system. People want to see because even the tax return of his we got is fishy as hell and shows him paying ridiculously low rates.

And people want to see because Romney very much doesn't want anyone to see. Because at this point he's either an idiot or hiding something. Nothing illegal, just something that looks bad.

[Shryke]

I guess I don't understand this. Romney and other rich folk didn't write the tax code. The people who did write the tax code came from both sides of the isle, so you can't blame just one party because both are culpable. Are we really going to blame people for taking advantage of government programs and tax exemptions? You create a government program to help the poor,and people will sign up for it. You create tax code that allows people to keep more of their money they'll take advantage of it. So even if you do think that Romneys tax returns show a certain unfairness, you really can't blame him anymore than you can blame the person who signs up for renters assistance. If it is available people will take advantage of it. The real solution is simplifying the tax code so everyone can understand it, but there is little interest on either side of doing this.

Actually Romney is running to represent the party that is half-responsible for the tax system.

And he's running on a platform of lower taxes for rich people. Rich people like him.

So people are quite curious what rate of taxes he wants to lower his own from.

[MinorityReport]

????

Before they tried to recall Scott Walker they tried to recall certain Wisconsin senators, then there was a hoopla surrounding the recount of Judge Prosser. So basically, there has been political ads running non-stop for the last 2 years (Earlier I meant 2 not 4 years) Not to mention their phones have been ringing non-stop, or at least it seemed that way, of people looking for either donations or polling data. You throw in the Democratic Wisconsin senators that fled the state to avoid a vote, and a lot of people are feeling kind of pissy towards the Democratic party.

Also when politicians talk about raising taxes on the rich they are talking about raising the income taxes. The problem with this is that the mega-rich get their money from investments which falls under Capital Gains taxes NOT income taxes. Capital gains tax rate is quite abit lower than income taxes, so when your Ted Kennedy's and Warren Buffet's talk about the need to pay more taxes, they really don't mean it.

Chris Christie had a great comment about Warren Buffet a while back:

[Sci-2]

Chris Christie had a great comment about Warren Buffet a while back:

Wow. That's a sad [mis]characterization of Buffet's argument.

[Shryke]

Before they tried to recall Scott Walker they tried to recall certain Wisconsin senators, then there was a hoopla surrounding the recount of Judge Prosser. So basically, there has been political ads running non-stop for the last 2 years (Earlier I meant 2 not 4 years) Not to mention their phones have been ringing non-stop, or at least it seemed that way, of people looking for either donations or polling data. You throw in the Democratic Wisconsin senators that fled the state to avoid a vote, and a lot of people are feeling kind of pissy towards the Democratic party.

Are they really?

http://www.realclear...obama-1871.html

Apparently not.

Also when politicians talk about raising taxes on the rich they are talking about raising the income taxes. The problem with this is that the mega-rich get their money from investments which falls under Capital Gains taxes NOT income taxes. Capital gains tax rate is quite abit lower than income taxes, so when your Ted Kennedy's and Warren Buffet's talk about the need to pay more taxes, they really don't mean it.

Actually people talking about raising taxes ARE talking about raising the capital gains taxes.

Chris Christie had a great comment about Warren Buffet a while back:

What is "great" about this comment? Warren Buffet thinks rich people like him pay too little and can afford more. And he should know.

[All-for-Joffrey]

Before they tried to recall Scott Walker they tried to recall certain Wisconsin senators, then there was a hoopla surrounding the recount of Judge Prosser.

Having lived there until a year ago I'm well aware of all this and that "hoopola" was because of incredibly shady vote count behavior in Waukesha County. But the time frame is more like a year and a half from the 2010 elections to 2012 governor recall elections, certainly not four years as you initially said, which prompted my response.

Not to mention their phones have been ringing non-stop, or at least it seemed that way, of people looking for either donations or polling data. You throw in the Democratic Wisconsin senators that fled the state to avoid a vote, and a lot of people are feeling kind of pissy towards the Democratic party.

My phone rang no or less than normal so evidently you have a false impression. As for the senators who avoided quroum, do you really think that changed anyone's opinions once they had already made up their minds on the issue? Just to chime in on behalf of their defense though, Abarham Lincoln once jumped out of a window and ran to avoid a quorum, which is basically the 19th century equivalent of what they did. I'm not going to get in an off topic debate with you on the ethics of it however as it didn't change anything in the long run but, as I said, this had nothing to do with changing people's viewpoints, nor did the other two claims you made. As someone else pointed out, this is really bad analysis and Romney doesn't have Wisconsin secure by a long shot, even if you work off the premise that people are going to be voting in the federal election along the same lines they did in the recall elections.

Also when politicians talk about raising taxes on the rich they are talking about raising the income taxes. The problem with this is that the mega-rich get their money from investments which falls under Capital Gains taxes NOT income taxes. Capital gains tax rate is quite abit lower than income taxes, so when your Ted Kennedy's and Warren Buffet's talk about the need to pay more taxes, they really don't mean it.

I'm aware of this and it makes an even stronger case that they should be paying higher income taxes, if it's pretty much a minimal income source, as you just said yourself. So basically, it would barely have an effect on their personal finances and is a meager way to compensate for the taxes lost to the capital gains loophole.

[MinorityReport]

Are they really?

http://www.realclear...obama-1871.html

Apparently not.

I said Wisconsin was in play to switch from Blue to Red, I didn't say it was a foregone conclusion

Actually people talking about raising taxes ARE talking about raising the capital gains taxes.

And why is that such a great idea? Who care if the rich are rich? Basically what you are talking about is legalized plunder where you allow the government to do something that you and I would go to jail for doing.

What is "great" about this comment? Warren Buffet thinks rich people like him pay too little and can afford more. And he should know.

What's great about it is that Warren Buffet does not need to change the tax code to pay more taxes he could simply write a check like Governor Christie said. Simply put he could lead by example if he wanted to, but he chooses not to, he still takes all the deductions and exemptions that everyone else takes.

[MinorityReport]

OK, it's been a lot of fun debating everyone,but I got to go for the night. Hopefully, I'll have the time to check in tomorrow so we can continue our debate!

Slainte! :cheers:

[All-for-Joffrey]

What's great about it is that Warren Buffet does not need to change the tax code to pay more taxes he could simply write a check like Governor Christie said. Simply put he could lead by example if he wanted to, but he chooses not to, he still takes all the deductions and exemptions that everyone else takes.

This makes absolutely no sense. How much money is the government going to make from Warren Buffet writing a check alone? It has to be done in conjunction with other Americans in his income bracket to add up to an adequate income. That's not even basic economics, that's just common sense. Wtf.

I said Wisconsin was in play to switch from Blue to Red, I didn't say it was a foregone conclusion

And you conveniently disregarded the 6 point Obama lead Shryke told you about in that baseless assertion.

[Sci-2]

What's great about it is that Warren Buffet does not need to change the tax code to pay more taxes he could simply write a check like Governor Christie said. Simply put he could lead by example if he wanted to, but he chooses not to, he still takes all the deductions and exemptions that everyone else takes.

But whether or not Buffet leads by example isn't the issue, the issue is that he is presenting himself as an example of a larger sample.

It's the sample of the tax revenue that could be contributed by the rich that is the issue, not one person.

Now, I'm not saying Buffer is right or wrong, just that Christie's charge is silly. Even if Buffer was caught cheating on his taxes it would [be] irrelevant to the argument he's making.

[Shryke]

I said Wisconsin was in play to switch from Blue to Red, I didn't say it was a foregone conclusion

Wisconsin has at best an tiny chance of being in play.

And why is that such a great idea? Who care if the rich are rich? Basically what you are talking about is legalized plunder where you allow the government to do something that you and I would go to jail for doing.

Ah yes, a time of plunder. I too remember the horrors of the early 90s under the tyrannical reign of GHWB. And the post-war period when taxes were even higher then that? Man, those were the worst times for America.

As for why? Because the bills gots to be paid and the rich can afford to pay more. They have in the past to zero ill effect. Taxes are at an 80 year low right now.

What's great about it is that Warren Buffet does not need to change the tax code to pay more taxes he could simply write a check like Governor Christie said. Simply put he could lead by example if he wanted to, but he chooses not to, he still takes all the deductions and exemptions that everyone else takes.

He is leading by example by saying "I pay too little taxes". Or are we now, unlike your last post, blaming people for paying as little taxes as they can legally get away with?

Buffet thinks the current taxes on the rich are too little. Saying he could cut the government a check isn't actually a response to that argument. It's a meaningless nothing. Like most of what comes out of Christie's mouth.

Warren Buffet writing a check does nothing for anyone.

[Fez]

Wisconsin is certainly the most likely blue to state to flip if there was Romney blowout win, but there is almost certainly not going to be a Romney blowout win. There is definitely the possibility of a Romney win, but barring something very unexpected happening in the next couple months Obama's floor is significantly higher than Romney's. If everything broke against Romney, he'd be at 191 but if everything broke against Obama he'd still be at 257. And if Romney doesn't drop his bizarre opposition to wind energy he's going to lose any chance of taking Iowa. That'd put Obama at 263 and only needing to win 1 of CO, OH, VA, NC, or FL whereas Romney would need to win all 5.

Obama will win New Mexico, its a straight-up blue state at this point and the polls are favorable. 2004 was the only time in the past 5 elections that it went red, and that was at the height of Republican electoral dominance and it still barely flipped. Nevada's more a swing state, going to the overall winner the past 8 elections, but its started looking much more blue recently and while polling has been limited, its been favorable. A year ago it looked like New Hampshire would go red, but polling shows its sticking with the New England fold. And Pennsylvania is not Ohio or Florida; so long as the turnout operations are strong in Pitt and Philly it goes blue; every time (and even if the voter id law stands it won't be enough to flip it; need proof? check out Romney's campaign spending in the state). Wisconsin, Michigan, and Oregon are the 3 traditionally blue states that Romney will likely try to flip, but Obama has a sizable enough lead in each one that it would be extremely difficult to say the least.

So Colorado, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida. 5 states, the same number as an inside straight, that's the election; and Romney needs them all and he's only holding a lead right now in one of them. He definitely can do it, 3 of the others are very close right now, but its a tough road. And as a voter of one of these states, I look forward to a continuation of the never ending onslaught that has been political ads on TV. I gotta get a tivo.

[tzanth]

Take that you fuckers that use the term Obamacare.

Wait, what? What is wrong with the term "Obamacare?" I certainly don't have a problem describing the Affordable Care Act as Obamacare. It is Obama's signature achievement and a great advancement for healthcare in this country. Credit should go where credit is due...

[awesome possum]

Taxes are at an 80 year low right now.

That's what I don't get about, well, anyone who isn't for raising taxes on the mega-rich. Taxes are at an 80-year low and the economy is in the worse slump since the Great Depression and yet these chumps don't see the connection right there in front of their ignorant faces?

Talk about trying too hard to ignore reality.

[SkynJay]

That's what I don't get about, well, anyone who isn't for raising taxes on the mega-rich. Taxes are at an 80-year low and the economy is in the worse slump since the Great Depression and yet these chumps don't see the connection right there in front of their ignorant faces?

Talk about trying too hard to ignore reality.

I still don't understand why unemployment of people formerly employed in the public sector doesn't count. What would the rate be if huge amounts of education cuts(and other public cuts) had been stopped? I have seen reports that say the swing could be as much as 3%.