2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vacante

[Kepler]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

Two national polls this morning showing Obama +7, and > 50% in each. I do not think either is a partisan poll.

He has also been polling higher in the battlegrounds, and he has put away at least one state (WI) where it looked like Ryan had made an inroad at first.

Repub pundit class is talking openly about cutting their losses and pushing all their funding into down ticket races. Personally I think that misses the point -- for both sides now it's about GOTV, and that means backing Romney is just as effective for the GOP as trying to target seats.

RCP national averages by battleground state are starting to split open. As recently as 10 days ago most of these were inside the 2% mark:

PA +8.6 (upper court also pushed the voter suppression measure back to the lower and it may be vacated in which case, done)
MI +8.0 (done, and MI will probably no longer be considered battleground in future cycles)
VA +4.7 (wow, combined with Kaine being up +5 on Allen, double wow; 5 years ahead of schedule to become the next MD)
OH +4.2
NV +2.5
NH +2.3
IA +2.3
FL +2.1
CO +2.0 (much closer than I'd have thought given the other swings)
NC -4.8 (almost a 10-point chasm with VA; this is the new GOP firewall for the south)
MO -7.0 (even as McCaskill pulls away; MO is solid red for future prez cycles)


As state polling stands Obama would win 332-206. If Romney were to flip all the purple above, he would win 274-264.

Given the odd border incursion here and there:

BLUE (332)

84 - Pacific (HI, WA, OR, CA, NV)
14 - Mountain (CO, NM)
80 - Rust (MN, IA, WI, IL, MI, OH)
63 - Mid-Atlantic (PA, NJ, VA, MD, DC, DE)
29 - Florida (FL)
62 - Northeast (NY, CT, RI, MA, NH, VT, ME)

RED (206)

30 - Zion (AK, MT, WY, ID, UT, AZ)
17 - Prairie (ND, SD, NE, KS)
69 - Greater Texas (TX, OK, MO, AR, LA)
24 - Appalachia (IN, KY, WV)
66 - Dixie (TN, NC, SC, GA, AL, MS)

 

[Rover]

What purpose is served by corporate taxes?

I'd like to see them zeroed (except on money that goes outside the country) with capital gains and dividend income treated as ordinary income. Corporate income that isn't invested back into the company should be captured by those taxes.

I would definately consider a proposal like that. I don't dismiss the concept but I'd be curious what the particulars would be (and I'm not asking you to supply them, just a hypothetical question).

In other news, I got into an argument with some knuckledragger at the bar last night. Some old idiot from Florida who tried to tell me Bush wasn't a bad President, Obama is a socialist and Clinton never balanced the budget and he knew all this because he was an economist. He didn't like it when I told him economics was all BS and he was pulling facts out of his @ ss! I think older righties aren't used to younger butt-kicking liberals as they expect every lefty to be Mike Dukaksis. Oh well...

 

[Rover]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

Saw an even bigger problem for The Mittster today in that his fund raising is starting to dry up. This was a sign I was looking for in terms of conservatives and how they view his chances in November. The other sign for me will be were Rove & co start putting their money. With control of the Senate hanging in the balance and a suddenly expanded playing field (CT, IN, AZ, etc) there's plenty of competition for Super PAC campaign dollars.

Which brings me to another point. While I know Super PAC's and campaigns technically can't coordinate, what exactly have they been spending their money on? Were I Romney's advisors I'd have thought Rove and Alderson would be using their bucks to attempt to put more states into play. Carpet bomb PA, NM, and MN and force Obama to throw time and money there. Aside from Wisconsin I haven't seen any effort to even attempt that.

 

[geezer]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

he was an economist. He didn't like it when I told him economics was all BS

hm, can't imagine how he pegged you as an *******.

 

[joecct]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

I would definately consider a proposal like that. I don't dismiss the concept but I'd be curious what the particulars would be (and I'm not asking you to supply them, just a hypothetical question).

In other news, I got into an argument with some knuckledragger at the bar last night. Some old idiot from Florida who tried to tell me Bush wasn't a bad President, Obama is a socialist and Clinton never balanced the budget and he knew all this because he was an economist. He didn't like it when I told him economics was all BS and he was pulling facts out of his @ ss! I think older righties aren't used to younger butt-kicking liberals as they expect every lefty to be Mike Dukaksis. Oh well...

Time will tell on #43 as it will for #44 (and for #'s 1 - 42 as well). Clinton balanced the budget because the Republican Congress presented a balanced budget to him. If he had a Democrat Congress, I doubt that would have been the case. Then the GOP screwed the pooch big time when they got control of all 3 and, rightfully, were punished in 2006 and 2008.

When the Democrats overreached, they were punished in 2010.

I think the moral of the story is to, as Gordon Cooper was oft of saying, "maintain an even strain".

 

[Rover]

Time will tell on #43 as it will for #44 (and for #'s 1 - 42 as well). Clinton balanced the budget because the Republican Congress presented a balanced budget to him. If he had a Democrat Congress, I doubt that would have been the case. Then the GOP screwed the pooch big time when they got control of all 3 and, rightfully, were punished in 2006 and 2008.

When the Democrats overreached, they were punished in 2010.

I think the moral of the story is to, as Gordon Cooper was oft of saying, "maintain an even strain".

A well played spin, but no dice. The Republican Congress wanted to pass massive tax breaks for the wealthy during Clinton's term. Clinton said no way, lets pay down the deficit. Once his term ended, they did exactly what they wanted to do 5 years earlier with a compliant Bush admin signing off on gimmicky, budget busting tax breaks for GOP campaign contributors.

Time has already spoken on GWB, the worst President in most people's memories (not too many left who remember Hoover, and GWB vs Nixon is an interesting). Time has also spoken on Clinton with a lofty 66% approval ratings 12 years after he left office. Not sure how Obama will be viewed yet.

geezer, I just tell it like it is. The guy could have thrown down if he'd liked. Instead he clammed up (and when I say old guy he was probably in his early 50's).

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

A well played spin, but no dice. The Republican Congress wanted to pass massive tax breaks for the wealthy during Clinton's term. Clinton said no way, lets pay down the deficit. Once his term ended, they did exactly what they wanted to do 5 years earlier with a compliant Bush admin signing off on gimmicky, budget busting tax breaks for GOP campaign contributors.

Correct. They always want tax cuts for the wealthy (sorry, job creators). Always.

 

[joecct]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

Correct. They always want tax cuts for the wealthy (sorry, job creators). Always.

I like when my taxes go down, don't you?

IIRC the 2001 - 2006 Congresses relied on budget projections that had a VERY rosy surplus. (Foolish them, NEVER look @ the out years, they're wishful thinking at best, abject lies at the worst). To them, it was better to return the money to the American people, than to keep it in Washington (a laudable idea, but there is the old debt that should be retired).

Then they had a war that, like the 1960's Democratic Congress, they tried to fund out of current earnings (another mistake, but it happens frequently). Then they created another Cabinet department that every time it said POOP!, another billion was thrown their way. IDIOTS! But it seemed like a good idea at the time, right?

I could go on with the mistakes that the GOP Congress did. They paid for their mistakes by losing their jobs (not the big fish - they NEVER lose their seats, right Mr. Rangel?). I pray every night that this Congress either wakes up and acts responsibly or gets tossed out on their collective ears for failing to be responsible. Like Scooby, I am not optimistic. Maybe we should all pray harder.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

I like when my taxes go down, don't you?

Only if the bills are paid. And they're not.

 

[Kepler]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

I like when my taxes go down, don't you?

I don't like when the wealthy get a $1M tax cut in exchange for the middle class getting a $1K tax cut which necessitates gutting programs that help the middle class, no.

The funniest thing about the 47% charge coming from the right is THEY OWN IT. That was the whole gambit -- they promised Joe Six Pack to null out his tax bill in exchange for reducing the top marginal rate from 90% to 73% to 50% to 39% to 35%. Joe said, "duh, gee Buttercup. That sounds good." And so we have today's tax code.

The GOP is always yammering about how the 50's were better. Fine, let's go back to the 50's.

 

[joecct]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

If Bill Gates and I get a 10% tax cut, his taxes go down a lot more than mine. He still pays a lot more than I do, though.

And the tax code prior to 1986 was filled with exceptions that made the effective rate a lot lower. Not that I totally agree with everything said below, but the current tax law does need to be redone.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/nhUOpNve1bY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

If Bill Gates and I get a 10% tax cut, his taxes go down a lot more than mine. He still pays a lot more than I do, though.

And the tax code prior to 1986 was filled with exceptions that made the effective rate a lot lower. Not that I totally agree with everything said below, but the current tax law does need to be redone.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/nhUOpNve1bY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

LOL. Get back to me when Romney pays the same percentage as me. Until then this is all BS.

 

[joecct]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

LOL. Get back to me when Romney pays the same percentage as me. Until then this is all BS.

Then reform the tax code that allows deductions that enable the well off to lower their tax bills. It's not Mitt's fault, or Kerry's, or the Kennedy's. It's the folks who write the tax code.

It all comes back to the Congress.

 

[streaker]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

I don't like when the wealthy get a $1M tax cut in exchange for the middle class getting a $1K tax cut which necessitates gutting programs that help the middle class, no.

The funniest thing about the 47% charge coming from the right is THEY OWN IT. That was the whole gambit -- they promised Joe Six Pack to null out his tax bill in exchange for reducing the top marginal rate from 90% to 73% to 50% to 39% to 35%. Joe said, "duh, gee Buttercup. That sounds good." And so we have today's tax code.

The GOP is always yammering about how the 50's were better. Fine, let's go back to the 50's.

Who do you define as "the wealthy" or "the middle class"?

Based on the chart I saw, Romney's plan mostly benefits those making $140-217K a year, specifically in the 25-28% tax bracket. He proportionally cuts the top brackets and the lower brackets at the same 20% reduction from the current tax bracket bands.

I also suppose you're good with Obama raping and pillaging the capital gains and dividends on investments,too. Of course, no body below 300K a year invests, right??

 

[streaker]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

Also, Here is GM begging the Gov't to cut them loose:

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120921/AUTO0103/209210343/

 

[Rover]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

Well, I hear Mittens has released his 2011 returns and once again is paying a lofty 13% of his income in taxes while working stiffs get to pay more than that. I realize we're just serfs and peasants to the man but no wonder he won't release 10 years of tax returns. This is probably the most % wise he's ever paid.

 

[MaizeRage]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

If you eliminate corporate taxes, in theory, the corporation could lower prices to achieve the same profit.

Yep, all they need is a slightly lower tax rate to make a little more money and then they'll have enough money, and will start giving back to the public. I bet if you asked, they'd even write that on a little piece of paper for you to wave around.

 

[walrus]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

Well, I hear Mittens has released his 2011 returns and once again is paying a lofty 13% of his income in taxes while working stiffs get to pay more than that. I realize we're just serfs and peasants to the man but no wonder he won't release 10 years of tax returns. This is probably the most % wise he's ever paid.

It was 2 million bucks, how much should he have paid? Was it illegal? Is the IRS prosecuting him?

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

It was 2 million bucks, how much should he have paid? Was it illegal? Is the IRS prosecuting him?

So, you think its fair that he pays a smaller percentage just because he pays more?

I guess that works. You know if I paid everything I had right now in assets I couldn't even pay his tax bill at 13%. I guess that makes me a freeloader.

 

[streaker]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

Well, I hear Mittens has released his 2011 returns and once again is paying a lofty 13% of his income in taxes while working stiffs get to pay more than that. I realize we're just serfs and peasants to the man but no wonder he won't release 10 years of tax returns. This is probably the most % wise he's ever paid.

That 13% probably represents more taxes than you and I will pay in 10 years. I don't begrudge anyone's success until their bonuses depend on laying off thousands of people to earn it. Lesser people than Mitt have done that- regardless of their political beliefs. Of course, who needs repubs to do it in corporate America when the government is bankrupt and has to do the same thing.

The U.S. Gov't: We can't hire everybody.