-
Comment -
Walter forgot... when you're desperate's when you got no choice.Comment -
As much as you want this all to be true, doesn't make it so. Elections are both about the incumbent, as well as the candidate running against them. Look at Wisconsin, Scott Walker is polling behind Russ Finegold(who isn't running) but ahead of all sorts of other challengers.
Furthermore, the Democrats regained Congress in 2006, not 2008.
You also seem to think that people are one issue voters. Yes the Republicans retook control of the house during the 2010 midterm election, but you seem to think that people are incapable of separating issues. Why if this were the case would 60% of people favor repeal of the Affordable Care Act but in the same poll give Obama at 52-42 lead over Mitt Romney?
Additionally, when asked who is responsibility for the problems in Washington, voters overwhelmingly choose Congress, not the President. Congressional approval is at something like 10-12%, while the President's approval is around 45-50%.
You seem to think that there is this widespread hatred of Obama and Democrats, but its really not the case. Most voters are not full of such vitriol and hate. There are 30-40% of people who will not vote for Obama no matter what, there are 30-40% of people who will vote for Obama no matter what. The race is decided by the 20% in the middle.
Obama is currently overwhelmingly winning the middle, especially in key battleground states, and is leading by slightly outside the margin of error in these same battleground states, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania. Could this all change in 7 months, sure. But I don't think hammering the same negatives about Obama that have been harped on for three and a half years is gonna do it. Most people in the middle vote for a candidate, not against one. The people that vote against a candidate have already made up their mind.Comment -
Technically, the senate was tied 49-49 but since the remaining 2 were independents that caucus with the democrats, I'll concede the error.
I'm assuming you followed the 2008 and 2010 elections as closely as you're following the upcoming election. The turnaround in voter sentiment from 2008 to 2010 was incredible and since democrats had full control of all 3 chambers of government, you can't blame the turnaround on anything major the republicans did as they had very little power.
The 2010 democratic THRASHING speaks volumes and I believe ObamaCare and how it was rammed through was the reason for the overwhelming change in voter sentiment from 2008. If you disagree, what do you think was the cause?This is accurate for the most part.here are 30-40% of people who will not vote for Obama no matter what, there are 30-40% of people who will vote for Obama no matter what. The race is decided by the 20% in the middle.I don't believe any of this to be accurate. I have come across all sorts of ridiculous polls showing Obama with 20+ point leads with women and 15+ point lead overall. I take no stock in polls and instead like to see what sites like Intrade have to say where money drives the market as opposed to polls that will always be biased in favor of the individual or entity performing the poll.Obama is currently overwhelmingly winning the middle, especially in key battleground states, and is leading by slightly outside the margin of error in these same battleground states, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania.
If Obama had overwhelming leads in the middle and especially in battleground states, he wouldn't be trading anywhere near his current price of 60%. Since the MSM is overwhelmingy biased in favor of the democratic party, I don't find it surprising at all that most polls wind up being biased in favor of the democrats as well.
In the months leading up to the 2010 mid-term election, most polls predicted a loss of 10-20 house seats for the democrats. On election day, these polls were predicting a loss of 30-35 house seats with a 40 seat loss considered to be a worst case scenario.
The final tally was a 65 seat loss in the house for the democrats which was exactly what Intrade predicted it would be (The 65+ house seat loss for the democrats was trading around 45% on election day morning 2010). FYI, the worst case scenario of a 40 seat loss predicted by the democrats was trading at 98% on election day morning.
Cutting through all the B.S., I can't find anything substantial enough that the democrats have done since they got thrashed in the 2010 mid-terms to justify some of these blow out polling numbers in favor of Obama being released.
Since you clearly prefer Obama over Romney, I can understand why you search for these polls as a form of mental masturbation so to speak. However, if you want to really see where Obama stands, check out the Intrade market where all political biases are thrown to the curb.Comment -
This line could start creeping. Guys who want Obama need to get their bets in.Comment -
The thing is that polls are largely accurate on the national level(much closer to the election), they are not so accurate on the individual congress person level because each Congressman only represents approximately a million people, and the ground game just isn't there even in the contested elections. Senate races are a lot more accurate than Congressional races but nothing is as accurate as Presidential polling right before the election.
I think a lot of what you are seeing with it only being 60% is that people realize the election is far away and lots of things can happen. The prediction market is totally different than a poll. The prediction market is about what people think conditions will be like in November(in this case), not what conditions on the ground are today. Conditions on the ground today are very much in favor of Obama, but that doesn't mean they will be so 7 months from now. You are right to not take much stock in polls this far out, but there is no doubt that as of this moment Obama is ahead by significant amounts in the battleground states and Romney has ground to make up if he wants to win. Which isn't to say he won't, but only that he isn't there right now.
But what did the polls on the ground show? Do you have the data seat by seat that shows that the 40 seat loss was predicted but the 65 loss wasn't based on margin of error and polling date on the day before the election?
The economy is much better now than in 2010. There's also been a huge backlash by women recently against the Republican party. Obama doesn't have to do anything other than not have a crappy economy come November to win. That's what the election will come down to plain and simple. You obviously don't favor Obama, so obviously you can't find anything to justify the change in mood since 2010, but its the economy.Last edited by Shaudius; 04-10-12, 10:55 PM.Comment -
Bookmaker or 5dimes running these lines?Comment -
After listening to Obama's speech today in front of those college students, I understand why he insists on carrying that teleprompter around everywhere he goes.
Never in my life have I heard a president engage in such extreme class warfare and I am convinced now more than ever that Obama is single-handedly capable of destroying our entire country.
Obama sounded far more like a panhandler with a tin cup in his hand than he did a president.
How on Earth could we elect someone like him? Are U.S. citizens this pathetic that we can't support ourselves without fleecing millionaires even more.
If this Buffett Rule somehow gets passed, the Dow could drop 2,000 points the very next day. Thank goodness the republicans control the House and Obama is pretty much handcuffed.
If Obama wins in November and the democrats some how take back control of both houses of congress:
LOOK OUT BELOW!!!!!!
Comment -
Yes because people are going to suddenly stop trying to make money because they have to pay more in taxes. When in the history of the world has someone said, "Hmmm, I could make a bunch of money but I'm not going to try because I'll just have to pay so much darn money in taxes on what I make!" What are these people gonna do, hid their money under the mattress and not gain anymore income? Nevermind the fact that the Buffett rule only effects approximately 100,000 people in the US. The Buffett rule isn't even a 1% rule its a .033% rule. The vast majority of 1%ers already pay what the Buffett rule says that they must because, unlike Romney, most 1%ers income comes from ordinary income, not carried interest.Comment -
Comment -
Look up the recession of 1978. There you will find high taxes brought the US economy to its knees with unemployment at 11% and interest rates at 18%.When in the history of the world has someone said, "Hmmm, I could make a bunch of money but I'm not going to try because I'll just have to pay so much darn money in taxes on what I make!"
The problem with high taxes is that the rate of return does not justify the risk of capitol. Investing in a business or expanding one is risky. Investors will not risk their cash on low returns and high taxes cause low returns. That's exactly what happened in the 70's when tax rates soared to 70% and the economy grounded to a halt. Republicans AND Democrats came up with massive tax cuts that propelled the country out of a deep recession into one of the most prosperous times in history.Comment -
Well, the rich aren't doing anything to get this economy going, might as well give it to the
govt, to pay the no working, lazy, with their hands out, liberal Democrats. At least they will buy stuff, pay taxes on the stuff they buy, compared to the rich who have their money in their mattresses.Comment -
Why wish a Obama reelection? If you like Greece you like Obama! He presses lies after lies...
Guy has nothing to run on excep0t for race. Look for a race war up coming!!!!Comment -
No way Obama doesn't get re-elected. Romney is a tool and looks like he'll be the Repub candidate. Obama will smoke him in the election. Ugh, **** me, I'm done with politics.Comment -
While I realize most liberal democrats think millionaires and billionaires water the tree and out pops $100 bills, thats not how it works.
While it does "take money to make money", making considerable amounts of money is not easy and is NEVER GUARANTEED.
There is certainly a clear argument as to whether or not its fair for investors to pay a much lower rate in capital gains taxes as compared to ordinary income where people have to work for the money. However, investing in the financial markets is risky for everyone.
If the capital gains tax rate is raised from 15% to 35 or 40%, its going to have a severe negative impact as to the risks people are willing to take when it comes to investing in the stock market or anything else. Liberal democrats have trouble grasping this very simple concept and thus are nowhere near educated enough to even present their opinion on the subject.
It appears that "carried interest" being taxed at the capital gains rate seems to be the problem here so why doesn't President Obama propose changing the way carried interest is taxed and have it be taxed as ordinary income (the way regular interest is taxed).
You can bet Obama and the democrats are going to mention over and over again about Romney's 13.9% effective tax rate but the fact remains that he paid over $3,000,000 in taxes last year and probably used far less by way of government services than the average American.
Its oh so easy for some $30,000/year middle class stiff to whine and complain that the rich aren't paying enough taxes but the truth of the matter is the Romney's are paying way more tax than they should with the $30,000/year middle class individual not paying anywhere near enough.
As you correctly stated, the Buffett rule only effects .033% of the people and sticking it to the rich over and over again is NOT going to get the job done and can have extreme adverse future consequences. Instead, we should do what other nations do and thats widen the taxpayer base.
In todays tax code, people who make less than $100,000 annually pay very little to no income tax and that needs to change.
Shaudius, I commend you for your willingness to have a sincere political discussion as that seems to be a rarity with most of the liberals in this forum.Great post John.Look up the recession of 1978. There you will find high taxes brought the US economy to its knees with unemployment at 11% and interest rates at 18%.
The problem with high taxes is that the rate of return does not justify the risk of capitol. Investing in a business or expanding one is risky. Investors will not risk their cash on low returns and high taxes cause low returns. That's exactly what happened in the 70's when tax rates soared to 70% and the economy grounded to a halt. Republicans AND Democrats came up with massive tax cuts that propelled the country out of a deep recession into one of the most prosperous times in history.
D2bets, you are the biggest hypocrite in the SBR forum.Last edited by andywend; 04-12-12, 03:01 AM.Comment -
You still haven't provided a good argument about why this would cause the stock market to plummet though because you neglect one very important aspect of the tax system. The capital loss deduction. I have found no information about the Buffett Rule itself that says that it eliminates the capital loss deduction. This very important aspect means that people actually have MORE incentive to make risky investments, that would be subject to the capital tax rules versus the ordinary income rules, despite it costing them more in their profit. This is because these investments cost them less in risk then they normally would because of the ability to deduct losses against winnings therefore causing them less exposure to the Buffett Rule taxation scheme. Rich investors aren't dumb they would realize this fact.
You make the argument that, "making considerable amounts of money is not easy and is NEVER GUARANTEED." But the fact is that the Buffett rule only affects people who have made a considerable amount of money from investment, if they made their considerable amount of money from regular wages they wouldn't need to worry about the Buffett Rule because they'd already have enough money in the highest tax bracket(it may end up being an extra 1% or 2% extra tax to these people but a 1% tax increase certainly wouldn't stop those people from investing). So since you correctly point out, it takes money to make money, how much money do you think these people already have that they are earning over a million in interest and interest equivalents?
Ummm, he has tried to on several occasions? http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...dinary-income/ Just like the Buffett Rule, just because Obama wants to do something, puts it in proposals doesn't mean that it automatically becomes law.
This is not the case. Rich people generally use MORE in government services than the average American. Yes, they probably use less than the extremely poor American(because of the safety net in place for the extreme poor, food stamps, medicaid, etc.), but they use more than the average American. The rich generall have larger homes, larger homes use more power, not all of the power grid is pay for directly through usage, some of it is subsidized, the rich are more of a drain on the power grid. Additionally, every time you fly, you use more government services(all air traffic control is done by federal employees, TSA, despite what you think of them), rich people fly more than the average American, especially Mitt Romney, while he may fly a private jet which may not be subject to TSA, it is certainly subject to air traffic control). Incredibly rich people also have staff that they pay for to run errands for them, this is an additional strain on the roads, which are maintained by the government, both at the local level and the state and federal level.
These are just a few examples. Note that this doesn't mean that there necessarily should be a progressive tax, but there is an absolute justification for those with higher income should pay more in taxes(not percentage wise, but proportionately).
My effective tax rate is higher than Romney's, and I guarantee you that I use less in government services than he does.
People who make less than 100k very much pay a lot in taxes(as a percentage of income), people who make 45k and have a family of 4, not so much, which is the median income for a family of 4 in this country. The reason that only half of the country pays federal income tax is because the average American really doesn't have all that much to tax. A family of 4 making 45k has 11.25k a person, the poverty line for a family of 4 is $23,000. So more than half of American families are making less than 2x poverty. The poverty amount for a family of 1 is around 11k, so if you broke that family up, they'd actually all be right around poverty, it is easier to run a family of 4 than a family of one, but not so much easier that these people have a ton of disposable income. Whats' more these people already pay approximately 7% in federal taxes through Medicare and SS taxes, which is actually regressive in the sense that after a certain income level you stop having to pay it on new marginal income.
Correlation is not causation. Just because the tax rate was high in the 70s does not mean that it caused the recession. But beyond that if you look at the highest marginal rate over time, you would see that the top marginal rate at the time in the 70s, was actually a lower rate than it had been since the great depression and the first bracket rate was actually higher prior to 1978 then it was in 1978.
Was America in the depths of recession from 1954 to 1964? Because during that time the top marginal tax rate was 91% on millionaires(in today's dollars) and 20% on the first dollar taxed. So when you said soared to 70% do you actually mean fell to 70% like what actually happened historically?Last edited by Shaudius; 04-12-12, 03:28 PM.Comment -
I'll try and explain this in a way you can understand. If capital gains taxes were raised from their current 15% up to say 75%, would that cause the stock market to plummet? How about 85% or even 95%?You still haven't provided a good argument about why this (raising the capital gains taxes from 15% to 35 or 40%) would cause the stock market to plummet though because you neglect one very important aspect of the tax system. The capital loss deduction.
Anytime you buy stock in a particular company, you are putting your money at risk. If the federal government takes a higher percentage of the reward away, people will stop investing. Its a fairly easy concept to understand. The capital loss deduction only allows you to deduct a MAXIMUM of $3,000/year off your annual income which is unchanged from the 1930's.Lets stop with the B.S. about effective tax rates for a minute.My effective tax rate is higher than Romney's, and I guarantee you that I use less in government services than he does.
Mitt Romney paid approximately $3,000,000 in income taxes in calendar year 2010. How much did you pay?
Even if everything you said was true about the super wealthy using more power (which they have to pay for), they fly more often (which they also have to pay for with all sorts of extra taxes built into the fare) and hire people to run errands for them (BTW all of these items create more jobs), do you believe Romney uses anywhere near $3,000,000 more in government services than you do?This is flat out UNTRUE.People who make less than 100k very much pay a lot in taxes(as a percentage of income)
Lets take someone who makes $100,000/annually who is married and has 2 children and lives in a $300,000 home. After all the exemptions, home mortgage deduction, child tax credits, etc, you're looking at a federal income tax bill of around $5,000 for an effective 5% federal income tax rate MAX. The vast majority of the tax bill is due to social security/medicare taxes and that brainchild of a program belongs to the democrats.
If you ask the vast majority of liberal democrats what the problem is in this country, they will respond by saying the rich aren't taxed enough and thats just BULLSHIT.This is a reasonable statement that I can totally get behind as the rich have a lot more to lose and rely on government entities like the police far more than lower income Americans do.Note that this doesn't mean that there necessarily should be a progressive tax, but there is an absolute justification for those with higher income should pay more in taxes(not percentage wise, but proportionately).
From now until election day, you are going to hear all sorts of crap from President Obama and liberal hack journalists around the country that Mitt Romney is NOT paying his fair share of taxes. He most certainly paid his fair share in taxes and then some to the tune of over $3,000,000 in income tax alone in 2010.Last edited by andywend; 04-13-12, 02:59 AM.Comment -
So what did?Just because the tax rate was high in the 70s does not mean that it caused the recession.Comment -
Specifically the one that occurred in the late 70s and not the one that occurred in the early 80s? It was most likely the aftereffects of the oil crisis of the early 1970s coupled with the contractionary monetary policy that was put in place to counteract inflation which led to a stagnation of the economy. Note that I say most likely, because it is impossible to pinpoint an exact cause, but one thing I can tell you for certain it was not caused by an increase in ordinary income tax rates because the tax rates were never raised in the entire period from the end of World War II to the time in question. Furthermore, tax rates actually decreased in 1978 because that was the first year that taxes were adjusted for inflation, so there were actually LESS people paying money into the highest marginal tax rate at the time than there were pre-1978 and yet we still had a deeper recession than the one in 1978 in 1980 and 1981.Last edited by Shaudius; 04-13-12, 11:27 AM.Comment -
Shadius, repubs blame everything on taxes, the conman Reagan did a good job on their brain...
30+ years of reaganomics has led to this country being in the shitter.
Lets go back to pre-reagan tax rates.Comment -
Why stop there? Let's just become a socialist state.
Liberals hate to admit that high taxes ground economies. So why did Kennedy propose sweeping tax cuts? Maybe he was in the same camp as Reagan? Actually, they were both democrats at the time.
Tax cuts and low taxes are not Republican or Democrat. They are part of the founding fabric of the USA. Some seem to have forgotten that. Those who receive welfare think those that pay taxes do not pay enough. Where does it end? Do we have to hit bottom like a deep depression? Maybe. We need an early 80's culture to be reborn.
Comment -
Where is your empirical evidence that higher tax rates ground economies? Again, the US' highest marginal tax rate was 70-90% from 1946 to sometime in the 80s, was there a complete lack of growth in this 30+ year period? Did the US economy grind to a halt? Even if Kennedy did propose sweeping tax cuts, the top marginal rate was still at least 70%.Why stop there? Let's just become a socialist state.
Liberals hate to admit that high taxes ground economies. So why did Kennedy propose sweeping tax cuts? Maybe he was in the same camp as Reagan? Actually, they were both democrats at the time. Tax cuts and low taxes are not Republican or Democrat. They are part of the founding fabric of the USA. Some seem to have forgotten that. Those who receive welfare think those that pay taxes do not pay enough. Where does it end? Do we have to hit bottom like a deep depression? Maybe. We need an early 80's culture to be reborn.
It has become a conservative talking point that high marginal tax rates on the wealthiest are bad for the economy, but the true story isn't that simple. This false belief have led to a mystical aura around supply side economics, which have never been demonstrated to actually aide the economy. Why do you think former President George H.W. Bush called them Voodoo economics?
Hell you tried to claim that high income taxes caused a recession when marginal tax rates were actually decreasing over the period, so how can we take any of your theories about economic principles seriously anyway?Comment -
Us old guys know about paying taxes and the pain it was at tax time during
Reagans early years. The middle class did their taxes the same as the rich.
The tax rate was high but the middle class had a hell of a lot more deductions
than today.
I remember taking deductions on sales tax, mileage and the normal of today,
property, real, local etc. If you bought a car, refrig or any big ticket item, you
could claim the sales tax. Claim your mileage to and from work.
I forget when in his term, the tax rate fell, but so did everyones deductions.
During Clinton, I went from getting back about 1k to having to change my
w-2, because we didn't get squat back. (surplus, no wars)
It went back to about 1k when Bush and 'bama took over. (deficit, two wars)
Some say that's not a good indicator of the tax rate, to me, it is.Comment -
No reason to bet Obama until the timeline around the GOP convention. And yes he is free money, just like 4 years ago.Comment -
No I'm saying high taxes on everyone including business is to blame. I'm going to take a wild guess and guess you have never invested in your own business. Makes it hard to have a conversation with someone who simply doesn't understand the effect of high personal taxes, high business taxes, matching FICA, social security tax and medicare.It has become a conservative talking point that high marginal tax rates on the wealthiest are bad for the economy, but the true story isn't that simple.
Your facts are selective. The US began imposing all sorts of hidden taxes and business taxes during the 60's and 70's as well as raising personal taxes. The economy ground to a halt because of it. You blame it on "monetary policy" lol, give me a break. So if we raised taxes to 100% it would be fine with you because afterall thats only 9% over our highest effective rate?Hell you tried to claim that high income taxes caused a recession when marginal tax rates were actually decreasing over the period, so how can we take any of your theories about economic principles seriously anyway?
Futhermore, the tax proposed by your tax and spend boy, the millionaire tax, would only raise $5.1 billion a year. Isn't rather insulting that he would spend sooo much time on this when we need to cut 3 trillion?Comment -
Maybe that's what you're saying now, but thats now what you were saying before. Which is what I was responding to, "Investors will not risk their cash on low returns and high taxes cause low returns. That's exactly what happened in the 70's when tax rates soared to 70% and the economy grounded to a halt. Republicans AND Democrats came up with massive tax cuts that propelled the country out of a deep recession into one of the most prosperous times in history."
Yes, Republicans and Democrats came together in the mid 70s in response to a recession, it worked so well that's why we had another recession in 1980/81...
Furthermore we didn't actually have a recession that started in 1978, we had a recession in 1974-1975 and then another one in 1980-1981. Unemployment shot up after the recession of 1974-1975 and then went down again until 1979 and then shot up again in 1980-1981.
Any small business that is running into high business taxes isn't doing it right. While I have only a little bit of experience running my own business, I have helped numerous people set them up, both personally in my life, as well as in a job setting and why you wouldn't incorporate as an LLC, LLP, S Corp(or please don't, a sole proprietorship) is beyond me.
As far as the Medicare and SS matching taxes(FICA is the same as saying both of those) that's a completely separate issue from personal income, or even general corporate taxes. We can argue back and forth about the merits of the system(which is a completely separate debate, and I do agree there needs to be serious reform to that system), taxes on businesses are a completely different subject than individual income tax, which was what this discussion was about in the first place.
Besides all that, many of the largest companies in the world were founded in the 1960s, when corporate income tax actually made up a greater share of GDP than it does today. The idea that today we are so unfriendly to business in the tax code, but somehow growth and business startup still happened throughout a period of time when tax were far higher just doesn't compute.
At no point since the great depression has the highest marginal tax rate risen, for a brief time the amount of income that was subject to the highest rate did rise, but it quickly fell again. Hidden taxes? Like what?
Nice strawman about thinking I want to raise taxes to 100%. My argument is simply that higher taxes do not neccesarily stiffle growth in such a causal way as you would have us believe, and certainly they haven't been rising over time and causing recessions, because they've in fact been falling over time. Tax rates don't cause recessions, other factors are much more important.
Yes, I blame it on monetary policy in part, because that's what a lot of economists, who unlike you apparently, actually know that income taxes have been falling over time, not raising blame it on. No one actually knows the real causes of recessions, they can only suggest and not in such blanket terms.
Its political posturing, yes, but what would you have him do? He proposed a budget that cuts a fair few things, and losers the deficit over time, but that was a non-starter in an election year. I'm not a huge Obama supporter, but at least I think he's coming to the table. I still can't go over the quotation from Mitch McConnell,Comment -
Sabotage: the story behind the Repubs top priority.Comment -
Why should Nobama get another term???Comment -
Obama has nothing to run on...
He is worst than Jimmy Carter!
Communist, or should I be nice and sat socialist!Comment -
Sabotage: the story behind the Repubs top priority.[/QUOTE]
and the libs top priority is???? More spending and more gov control...
this is what libs do!Comment -
Your an imbecile.Comment -
Balco is an imbecile.Comment -
Whats your say on politics snoopaloop??? If your so smart and a freaking Lib, what does Nobama have to run on to win???
Only the imbeciles will vote for the dictator! Don't be a popinjay!Comment
