Newt isn't going to win in Florida, the sheer volume of anti-Newt adverts will see to that.
US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
- Status
Some of the questioning is just ridiculous - why does Blitzer care about the strengths of first ladies?
Oh snap, forgot this was on. Did I miss much?
It got tasty between Gingrich and Romney in parts.
Romney definitely beat Gingrich in their head-to-head. Was well prepared and had the soundbites even if his record doesn't match what he's saying. Santorum probably strongest overall.
Romney will win Florida after that.
Romney will win Florida after that.
I dont remember having this many debates in the 2008 election cycle? Are there more this time around and why? Money spinners?
Reading the reports this morning, I'm finding myself strangely disappointed that Newt bombed. But it's probably best for the world.
Just watched the Brian Williams moderated debate. What a fiasco. You can't help but feel for Santorum. He seemed the least Adolescent of the lot and barely managed to get much discussion in during the Romney/Gingrich food fight. I thought Williams' attempts at ignoring Santorum and Paul for lengthy stretches was disgraceful.
They have been, a lot. Green Berets and other elite special operators were amongst the first to step foot into Afghanistan post 9/11 and have been used extensively there. Same with Iraq and other places around the globe. They have been used far more than the 90s.
I meant instead of committing regular ground troops. I don't think they are being used more than in the 90s. The only conflict to draw a comparison from is the Gulf War and special Ops were heavily involved in that. The SAS were on the ground inside Iraq several weeks before the invasion.
With more patience they could have located Osama and took him out with very limited losses. Even the Taliban and camps could have been systematically neutralized with special ops and drone strikes. You don't catch a mouse by switching the light on and running in the room with a shotgun.
So Newt's campaign is on the rocks then. The other three may as well drop out of the race. Let Romney's camp save their money and get they party rallying behind one candidate.
They should, you're right. But they seem to dislike Romney enough for logic to be bypassed for the foreseeable future.
Just read that Gingrich reckons offering a prize of $10bn will get a private company to go to Mars
Gingrich is not a smart man. I genuinely believe that.
Romney, probably smart.
Perry... sorry, what was the question?
Romney, probably smart.
Perry... sorry, what was the question?
There have been stories for years about how haphazard the hunt for Bin Laden was immediately after the invasion, and that they eventually called the SAS in by which time the trail went cold.
when asked about the majority of Americans wanting taxes to be raised on the wealthy, all the candidates disagreed.
The Presidident was right on message on this.
and these guys expect to beat him?
this is the most fundemental issue this election.
..and the Dems have wisely turned back the the Class Warfare message the right is putting out against them.
The Presidident was right on message on this.
and these guys expect to beat him?
this is the most fundemental issue this election.
..and the Dems have wisely turned back the the Class Warfare message the right is putting out against them.
The problem is RD that most Americans are completely and utterly clueless about the topic of taxes. I think there is no doubt that almost any Amercian will say taxes need to be raised a bit and a nice overhaul of the tax code would be a good thing. But this whole argument about Romney not paying his share or whatever is apples and oranges. Most do not understand the difference between income taxes and capital gains taxes. Not only that, but most don't understand the tax code as it pertains to them anyway. So to say Romney (for example) only paid 13.9% is true but it leaves out the fact that he paid regular income tax on the money he erned and then invested that. And he would have paid the highest rate income tax.
Should the capital gains be moved up? Maybe but that's a different discussion.
Should the capital gains be moved up? Maybe but that's a different discussion.
Yes, it should. It being at 20-25% isn't going to stop people from investing. It didn't slow down the boom of the 90s. The tax rates( income and capital gains) have dropped steadily while spending has expanded. Yes, the number of payers is higher with population growth, but the drop in taxes is a big part of why we have huge deficits. Corporate tax should also be reformed and lowered but require companies to actually pay them.
From Eisenhower to Obama: What the Wealthiest Americans Pay in Taxes - Yahoo! News
From Eisenhower to Obama: What the Wealthiest Americans Pay in Taxes - Yahoo! News
One of the most irritating fallacies is the automatic assumption that raising taxes will stifle investment. It makes sense logically but ignores the fact that good investments are usually good investments whether you get taxed 10% or 20% on the profit, so people are generally going to make them anyways. Yes there will be some borderline cases affected (and if they're that borderline are the investments that good to begin with?) but overall, people make investments because they want to make more money.
Lowering taxes to stimulate investment and spending is a tactic based on an assumed cause and effect, but isn't remotely guaranteed to be successful. There's no signed agreement that says, "If you accept this tax cut, you must take this money and invest it" or "You must take this extra money you save from tax cuts and use it to hire new employees". For all anyone knows, they could just take this money and give themselves gigantic bonuses.
One of the best things about some of Obama's proposed reforms is the attempt to link government money to the actual results they hope to achieve. Like forcing insurance providers to spend at least a specific percentage of their money on actual healthcare services. Linking colleges' eligibility for financial aid to how well they can keep their costs affordable. If you actually want something to happen, don't just throw money at the problem and assume people will use it properly. Actually add some stipulations to ensure that at least part of what you want to get done will get done.
Quite interesting. I would like us to go back to the tax rate from the Clinton administration:
Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income: over $250,000: 39.6% -
Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 29.19% - 21.19%
I would like a 20% capital gains on investments in US companies, and 30% for all other investments. Plus maybe a 45% tax rate on income over $1 million.
I mean, if i were to be looking at an investment in Google/Apple knowing that it had a good chance at making me money, I'm not going to bitch that I'm making 80% instead of 85%, or even 75%. If it's a good investment, you'll make it either way. The same goes for payroll taxes and the like. If a business owner needs to hire someone or would benefit from it, only an idiot would avoid it because it increases the tax burden. That's like saying I'm not going to make an extra $1m because I'd have to pay $100k to the government and only keep $900k.
There are points where the tax inhibits investment and hiring, but the rates are no where close. It's just an excuse to keep them from going up. They take the Laffer Curve to an extreme.
Also, the whole Reaganomics crap is still going strong despite it quite clearly being bullshit.
In this race you'd think he was God's 2nd son. They all want to be him and link themselves to him continuously. Maybe that means they'll sell weapons to Iran, too."How do you know they have nukes?" "Uhhhh...we've got the receipt?"
Reagan was a gimp.
but he looks actually sound compared to the current GOP nuts.
but he looks actually sound compared to the current GOP nuts.
we just need to takes taxes back to the Clinton days.
I don't blame Romney for taking advantage of the current tax laws. But he has problems running for president in the current electoral mood...where they feel we are not on a level playing field... which we are not.
Nor do I, and I doubt many do.
I do have a problem with him using his power, which springs from his wealth, to pressure to maintain that or indeed pay even less. And to characterise a government that's arguing that he should pay a little more (while actually temporarily extending the Bush tax cuts) as 'European-style socialists'.
do you seriously expect people like him to have Integrity??
I blame the system that allows people like him to wield the power he does.
That is what needs to change. It wont happen overnight. This money buys anything system has taken 30 years to come where it is. It will take time to dismantle. Just look at how corrupt the Supreme court now is.
many election cycles in the 'left' direction will need to happen before we get rid of what we now have.
Well, the actual "European-style socialists" (ie. the Nordic countries) fared quite well during the economic crisis. Perhaps he should seriously consider it
Well, the actual "European-style socialists" (ie. the Nordic countries) fared quite well during the economic crisis. Perhaps he should seriously consider it
The Nordic countries rule. Though the Fins top themselves a little more than is ideal.
the excuse put forward why it wont work in the States is that the Nordic countries have an almost all white population.
that's the right wing theory anyway.
That's an illusion caused by snow
The real reason is that they got all the mentalness out their systems when they were vikings. It was like a national adolescence. Now they're all just really mature, calm, selfless people... though every now and then they still sneak out to the countryside and hack an elk to pieces with a hatchet, just to let off steam.
The real reason is that they got all the mentalness out their systems when they were vikings. It was like a national adolescence. Now they're all just really mature, calm, selfless people... though every now and then they still sneak out to the countryside and hack an elk to pieces with a hatchet, just to let off steam.
We don't have elk. We have moose.
You do, you just can't tell the difference cos they're called the same thing
Good lord.
the word used is 'homogeneous'
It was the rise of the neo conservatives and their marraging politics to American evangelist religions during Reagan that has caused this current crop of GOP nuts.
Yeah but Reagan himself was not of that ilk. He was an old school traditionalist who was a democrat until the early 1960s. The current crop of idiots seem to like channeling Reagan to pander to his 1980s ethos, but aren't very much like him in terms of how they communicate.
The thing I find most bemusing is that Reagan wasn't really very good at being a conservative. I mean for all his love of the free market he did quite like his market protectionism and interventions.
He wasnt afraid of tax increases either.
- Status