Jump to content

Flying_Mollusk

Members
  • Posts

    5,135
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Flying_Mollusk's Achievements

Deserved All-Star

Deserved All-Star (11/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Posting Machine
  • Conversation Starter
  • Week One Done

Recent Badges

0

Reputation

  1. Ah, I made no assumptions about anyone. I said you can laugh at me if I was wrong, and so you have. Problem is, 4 years from now, nobody is going to be laughing. You were so fundamentally wrong about this election. I would think you would have some level of humility and question your own arrogant sense of brilliance.
  2. The republican party now is like the democratic party from 1972-1988. They simply cant understand why the majority does not want to adopt their platform, and they continue to get beat on the presidential stage. Back then, democrats voters who didnt support them stupid also. They said they would reap what they sow. It took someone like Bill Clinton to come in and shut down the more ideaological suicide wing of the party. Now everything has shifted. I dont know if it will happen in 2016, but at some point, a centrist, pro gay marriage, pro choice anti-extremist candidate will emerge from the right.
  3. Lol, I know this board is not representative. Just offhand noting how much attitudes have changed.
  4. Not a good sign for Romney that nobody is voting for him on this board. I remember all the arguments in 2004. There was a poll on the presidential election between Bush and Kerry that went back and forth, and I think Bush won.
  5. A lot of voters are idiots. I know a LOT of libertarians Ron Paul people who have no clue about anything. Since we are talking about how Obama voters are idiots, this is for you Beinfest:
  6. Your Romney comparison doesn't work because when there is an open primary not involving an incumbent, usually there is a drawn out fight. If you want to compare conservatives being intellectually honest or dishonest in comparison to liberals and Obama, go back to 2004 and check their behavior with an incumbent president. -prescription drug benefit bill expanded government in 2003. -foreign intervention in Iraq war -deficit spending in years 2001-2004. Yet conservatives showed no resistance to Bush's 2004 campaign. In fact, Id say throughout time, liberals have usually been much more about shaking up the foundation of the establishment when it deviates from their views. A liberal, Ralph Nader, essentially cost democrats the 2000 election. When has that happened with the right? I largely expected that with Ron Paul this year, but then saw him actively assist Romney in the debates and never attack Romney. Basically the opposite of Nader. Generally the narrative throughout the entire 2012 primary cycle was that in light of the weakness of the other candidates in the field, Romney had much more difficulty securing the nomination than he should have given his funds and level of name recognition. That's basically why you would see this cyclical trend of people like Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, and New Gingrich "surging" to become the frontrunner. He didn't really have an opponent on the caliber of a John McCain to fight against. Combined with the low turnout (in spite of the incredible dissatisfaction among conservatives toward Obama), I think that the primary battle clearly demonstrates some reluctance to nominate Romney. Also, in 2004, Bush's intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan was very much in step with the pulse of the conservative base at the time. He might have campaigned on a more non-interventionist approach in 2000, but 9/11 basically changed all of that for his base. The cost of financing the wars was also probably something that compelled his base to overlook the deficits. National security in response to 9/11 was the dominant concern among the GOP base for 2004. George W. Bush was definitely their guy. I don't think that less significant policies like the prescription drug plans could have conceivably amounted a primary challenge. That's not nearly the same as liberals dwelling on Bush's foreign policy and civil liberties positions for 8 years (those issues pretty much defined the Bush backlash) and then being silent when Obama emulates Bush and goes even further. I'd say that the intellectual dishonesty among liberals right now is on a different order of magnitude. You already said that you are voting for Obama. Assuming that you disliked Bush for his Iraq War and surveillance policies, you are just as hypocritical as the Romney voter who opposed Obamacare. And the Nader angle is silly. He represents a small demographic of the liberal base. If he did indeed cost Gore the election, it's only because the election results were exceptionally close. With such a narrow margin of victory, you cannot really say that Nader represents a meaningful voice of dissension among liberals. This is really a selective assessment of what Bush did, what Obama did, what conservatives were upset about and what liberals were upset about. Are liberals being hypocritical for not showing more resistance to Obama over the civil liberties issue? Sure. Im not denying that. But what I cant understand is how youre minimizing conservative hypocrisy while inflating liberal hypocrisy. This is such a subjective assessment and really is in the eye of the beholder. I can do the same selective assessment. The biggest event that set off liberal outrage towards Bush was not the civil liberties issues. Yes, those things outraged liberals. But the war in Iraq was by far the biggest touchstone. Obama ending that war was a pretty big event in his presidency. Another example of the hypocrisy is conservative continuing to praise Reagan as some great president, while ignoring his history of deficit spending (no Iraq war there?) or his history of expanding the federal government. At the end of the day, liberals support democratic presidents if they are popular, and whether they are popular is a factor of the overall economic conditions. Conservatives do the same thing. What I do question is the distinction between libertarians and conservatives. When talking to libertarians, I often get the response of "well Im not voting for the republican, so Im not a hypocrite." But there is certainly hypocrisy in terms of how much outrage libertarians show when depending on the president. Libertarians are much more forgiving of republican presidents than they are of democratic presidents, regardless of who they end of voting for. Romney knows he wont get libertarians to vote for him, but he will never see any rallies against him like the tea party rallies, no matter what he does during his presidency.
  7. Perot didnt cost Bush that election. If you go back and look at the actual polls, Clinton had a huge lead over Bush in the period after Perot dropped out. Then when Perot came back, the race heavily tightened. Bush was also pretty low in the approval ratings, and faced a huge uphill climb to get reelected. Exit polls also showed that Perot voters were evenly divided between Bush and Clinton. For details on this, see below: http://www.pollingre...ibbitts1202.htm Bush senior did face a difficult primary challenge. But so did Jimmy Carter. Both were vulnerable because of economic conditions, not because of being moderate at the expense of the base. As for Paul, he really didnt shake up the election at all, did he? In what way did he influence the election? Which of his views did Romney adopt as part of his platform? In fact, Romney at the first debate basically moved hard to center left positions to try and make movement in the campaign, knowing he faced no backlash. I like Ron Paul, as he is consistent. But the guy is overrated in terms of his ability to move his agenda anywhere.
  8. Youre missing a key aspect of the way the Senate works. If the dems retain a majority, as it is clearly looking like they will, no Romney tax plan can come to the floor for a 50 person vote without Harry Reid letting it come to the floor. The party leaders control what is or isn't voted on. So even if you got 2-3 dems to back all republicans, no way Reid lets Romney get a plan on the floor that most dems would oppose. Odds are pretty good that we wind up with an R majority of 52 or 53. But, let's say that doesn't happen. If there are 50 or more votes for tax reform it can be done. You pass it in the House, Romney, having the bully pulpit talks about it and Democrat refusal to bring it up every single day, and the Senate is brought to a stand-still by refusing to conduct any unanimous consent business at all by demanding roll call votes on everything, and by any number of other procedural methods of slowing things down until the bill is brought to the floor. Public opinion can be brought to bear over time and force Reid's hand. Not to mention that there are 20 Ds up for re-election in 2014 and only 8 of them are "safe" seats. That's going to provide a lot of internal pressure in the D caucus. And not to mention that a new President enjoys some sort of "honeymoon" period with Congress and the public. If all of that fails, you could easily be looking at 55 to 60 Rs in the Senate after the 2014 election because the Ds will be hammered relentlessly on it all the way to 2014. It's going to get done one way or another. This is a pretty bold prediction. Id like you to follow up with this on Wednesday.
  9. Is it as amusing as Republicans nominating the guy who invented Obamacare? Or republicans praising Reagan as a great man, despite the fact that he ran up huge deficits and increased the national debt in his 8 years? I never said that the Republicans were not at fault. However, to their credit, Romney's nomination was not without resistance. Ultimately there was some intellectual dishonesty among the party (basically "anyone but Obama" mentality), but the primary was contested to the point where there clearly was some concern among Republicans questioning whether or not Romney's background was consistent enough with their professed ideology and stated criticisms of Obama. I took away from the primaries that there was at the very least some reluctance among party members to nominate Romney because of his policies in MA. I can't really say so much for the liberals. Yes, it's very uncommon for the sitting president to face a primary challenger, but still not without precedent. At the very least there should have been more debate among liberals questioning whether or not Obama would be best to represent them for a second term considering he is basically a George W. Bush clone for most of the major issues that dominated the last presidential election cycle. Both parties are intellectually dishonest, but I give conservatives a bit more credit. Your Romney comparison doesn't work because when there is an open primary not involving an incumbent, usually there is a drawn out fight. If you want to compare conservatives being intellectually honest or dishonest in comparison to liberals and Obama, go back to 2004 and check their behavior with an incumbent president. -prescription drug benefit bill expanded government in 2003. -foreign intervention in Iraq war -deficit spending in years 2001-2004. Yet conservatives showed no resistance to Bush's 2004 campaign. In fact, Id say throughout time, liberals have usually been much more about shaking up the foundation of the establishment when it deviates from their views. A liberal, Ralph Nader, essentially cost democrats the 2000 election. When has that happened with the right? I largely expected that with Ron Paul this year, but then saw him actively assist Romney in the debates and never attack Romney. Basically the opposite of Nader.
  10. great point that Mark Cuban made Cuban doesn't know what he's talking about. 1) It will be extremely easy to agree on a deduction cap. It's currently unlimited. Somewhere between zero and unlimited are many numbers that could attract overwhelming support. But, overwhelming support, while nice to have isn't needed. It's not the slightest issue in the House and only 50 are actually needed in the Senate to do tax reform as part of budget reconciliation, with the VP casting the 51st vote. The Bush cuts were initially enacted as part of budget reconciliation. 2) Romney's proposal is to cut the corporate rate from 35 to 25%. Period. Only a further cut below 25% would involve broadening the base. He would also go to a territorial system from the current worldwide system, which would get rid of the problem of U.S. firms not repatriating foreign profits because they don't want to take the U.S. tax hit (35% less foreign tax already paid.) Do we really believe that corporations will gladly accept an increase in their net tax bill? Lower rates result in higher revenue, especially over time as taxpayers no longer have as great an incentive to structure things so as to avoid taxes. See individual income tax revenue under Coolidge, Kennedy/LBJ, Reagan, Bush, revenue following every single capital gains tax cut ever made, and corporate income tax revenue following the cut from 50% to 35%. dems are likely going to retain the Senate. Says you. But, it doesn't really matter, there are always a handful of conservative Democrats who will join the Republicans on tax issues. And 60 votes aren't necessary, as I already mentioned. 50 Senators plus the VP can get the job done. Youre missing a key aspect of the way the Senate works. If the dems retain a majority, as it is clearly looking like they will, no Romney tax plan can come to the floor for a 50 person vote without Harry Reid letting it come to the floor. The party leaders control what is or isn't voted on. So even if you got 2-3 dems to back all republicans, no way Reid lets Romney get a plan on the floor that most dems would oppose. Bush had a 1 person majority when his tax cuts passed the Senate.
  11. Is it as amusing as Republicans nominating the guy who invented Obamacare? Or republicans praising Reagan as a great man, despite the fact that he ran up huge deficits and increased the national debt in his 8 years?
  12. Rather than go back and forth with you guys, Ill just point out a great point that Mark Cuban made: The Republican candidate is trying to convince us all that it is going to be easy to convince both sides of Congress to come together and figure out at what number they can cap individual tax deductions. He is also saying that he is going to reduce corporate taxes AFTER he is able to get consensus on which corporate deductions to eliminate. That is not going to happen unless we outlaw corporate lobbyists. Everyone is for eliminating all deductions other than their own. The idea that everyone will happily agree to compromise is not consistent with the actions of this Congress and not going to happen. It's not going to happen. He is not going to be able to get anyone to agree on which deductions to eliminate. Not only that, he believes that the net result of these improbable actions is that tax revenues from corporations will go up. Do we really believe that corporations will gladly accept an increase in their net tax bill? I don't think so. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-cuban/romney-election-2012_b_2020584.html Throw in the fact that dems are likely going to retain the Senate. The irony of this is that, to avoid the fiscal cliff, Romney will probably have to accept increases taxes on the wealthy by letting Bush tax cuts on them expire, while extending middle class tax cuts. Nor would he be able to repeal Obamacare. Basically accept Obama's plan.
  13. -Taxes-believe Romney will shift tax burden to middle class by capping deductions. Do you know how taxes work? Only in the sense that I pay them every single year, complete my own tax returns with my wife, itemize deductions, calculate and pay an alternative min. tax, pay a marriage penalty because my wife and I are both high income earners, and earn little to no income from investments at this stage in my life so do no benefit from the lower rate for capital gains. Im pretty sure you dont know how taxes work. The middle class benefits immensely from the mortgage interest deduction, deduction for state and local taxes, employer-provided health care, education, medical expenses, state and local taxes, and child care. If you cap that or limit itemized deductions, you have now raised taxes on the middle class. Reducing the rate itself by 20%, from say 28% to 22%, doesn’t make up for that. Study after study backs that up. But most tax deductions don’t benefit the wealthy because they are phased out of a lot of them. Nor do the benefit from the tax credits that Romney has said he will eliminate. The wealthy pay the alternative min. tax and the estate tax. Romney would get rid of both taxes. So they don’t get affected by the eliminated tax deductions, which they never got in the first place, but they do benefit from a raw reduction and elimination of the AMT and estate. \ Except one can cap mortgage deductions in such a way that middle class persons would be unaffected. A $300k mortgage could provide all the deduction it does now, whereas a $1,500,000 loan would not. Right now we have a system designed to reward friends and punish enemies, it is the reason why it is so large. Simplifying the code (to remove some exemptions) and then lowering the base rates (to keep the cost to the taxpayer the same) can only help the economy. Businesses spend a fortune doing taxes, we have low income people with basically no itemized deductions going to Jackson Hewitt / HR Block to do what should instead be 2nd grade arithmetic, middle class people are being hit by the AMT, etc. There is no need for it at all. The goal of taxes should be to provide revenue, not selective advantages. If we want to help a business or industry or demographic, just subsidize it with a law that sees the light of day instead of being hidden in a labyrinth of regulations and tax codes. First, you, being a dick, asked me if I even understood how taxes work. Which is why I explained where I was coming from. Second, Romney is not just capping the home mortgage deduction. He is capping all deductions. So yeah, it is much higher than youre claiming by when you just isolate it to a 300k mortgage. It includes eliminating tax credits, which are huge for the middle class and poor, and capping other deductions. Third, analysis after analysis says it will raise taxes on the middle class. The only analysis that says it wont is from a right wing think tank that does work for Romney's campaign. Fourth, he isn't just eliminating deductions. He is eliminating the estate tax and the AMT. Fifth, there is zero evidence that the AMT mostly hits the middle class. Find me anything that backs up that false statement.
  14. -Taxes-believe Romney will shift tax burden to middle class by capping deductions. Do you know how taxes work? Only in the sense that I pay them every single year, complete my own tax returns with my wife, itemize deductions, calculate and pay an alternative min. tax, pay a marriage penalty because my wife and I are both high income earners, and earn little to no income from investments at this stage in my life so do no benefit from the lower rate for capital gains. Im pretty sure you dont know how taxes work. The middle class benefits immensely from the mortgage interest deduction, deduction for state and local taxes, employer-provided health care, education, medical expenses, state and local taxes, and child care. If you cap that or limit itemized deductions, you have now raised taxes on the middle class. Reducing the rate itself by 20%, from say 28% to 22%, doesn’t make up for that. Study after study backs that up. But most tax deductions don’t benefit the wealthy because they are phased out of a lot of them. Nor do the benefit from the tax credits that Romney has said he will eliminate. The wealthy pay the alternative min. tax and the estate tax. Romney would get rid of both taxes. So they don’t get affected by the eliminated tax deductions, which they never got in the first place, but they do benefit from a raw reduction and elimination of the AMT and estate.
  15. Obama(obviously) for the following reasons: -Civil rights-Dont ask dont tell gone, likely to see DOMA gone because of refusal of admin to defend it. -Taxes-believe Romney will shift tax burden to middle class by capping deductions. -Shifting federal spending from domestic programs and grants I support, like Pell Grants, while increasing military spending. -Environment-Like Bush, I believe Romney will shift enforcement of environmental laws away from protection to easing restricting on companies that maybe harming environment. -Medicare-staunchly oppose the desire to transition Medicare into a private based system.
×
×
  • Create New...