The ONE & ONLY 2012 Politics/Election Thread

[MixmasterNash]

He would. And even many/most of the pundits think so too. Debate is an unteachable skill* in that an individual's substance can lack while his confidence still persuades. Newt exudes said confidence. Obama, on the other hand, doesn't have the patience for point to point combat and improvised rhetoric. He is a fantastic orator - no doubt - but only in the speech-giving sense.

*One can be taught the principles of debate, but still fail miserably in its execution.

It's really interesting that this is such an ingrained belief among the Republican electorate even though it's obviously and demonstrably false.

OMG TELEPROMPTERZ!!!!

[zhenya00]

Well, it's official. Romney has paid $6.2 million in taxes on $45 million in earnings in 2010 and 2011 -- a 13.77% tax rate.

I bet his gardeners pay more than that.

[butterface]

It's really interesting that this is such an ingrained belief among the Republican electorate even though it's obviously and demonstrably false.

OMG TELEPROMPTERZ!!!!

I didn't mention a teleprompter. Obama gives very good speeches, teleprompter or no. But, as many pundits on both sides have stated, Newt is the better debater.

[MixmasterNash]

I didn't mention a teleprompter. Obama gives very good speeches, teleprompter or no. But, as many pundits on both sides have stated, Newt is the better debater.

I believe Newt has believes that, as does the Republican base, but I do not think it reflects reality. Newt is great with the red meat: bashing the MSM, threatening Iran, etc., which is what he should be doing in the primary. But the general election debates are a whole 'nother beast where the candidates have to come across as reasoned, calm, and inclusive to appeal to the broad middle. Have you ever heard Newt do that?

[2.FOH!!]

I believe Newt has believes that, as does the Republican base, but I do not think it reflects reality. Newt is great with the red meat: bashing the MSM, threatening Iran, etc., which is what he should be doing in the primary. But the general election debates are a whole 'nother beast where the candidates have to come across as reasoned, calm, and inclusive to appeal to the broad middle. Have you ever heard Newt do that?

Only during the Clinton administration.

[butterface]

I believe Newt has believes that, as does the Republican base, but I do not think it reflects reality. Newt is great with the red meat: bashing the MSM, threatening Iran, etc., which is what he should be doing in the primary. But the general election debates are a whole 'nother beast where the candidates have to come across as reasoned, calm, and inclusive to appeal to the broad middle. Have you ever heard Newt do that?

All true, but red meat is what undecided debate watchers want to see. Sure, the ideologues on either side will be screaming at their TV sets if a candidate strongly emphasizes a half-truth or takes a cheap shot, but the 'middle of the roaders' will be making judgments based on the 'persuasive performance' (re - 'emotion'). You're particularly spot on about one thing - these are the folks who decide elections. But they typically eat their meat bloody.

Obama wouldn't do well against Newt in a debate not because he is too civil, but because he doesn't command the 'on the fly' rhetoric like Newt does. Obama is a sermon giver - a damn good one of course - but he appears, to me at least, to abhor the nit picking of back and forth retort. Not saying he isn't intellectually capable - just saying he isn't as good because his heart isn't into it.

Many pundits, even Matthews, appear to concede this.

[MixmasterNash]

Only during the Clinton administration.

You're kidding, right?

[2.FOH!!]

You're kidding, right?

No I'm completely serious (pointless cartoon aside).

Read the Contract with America.

[MixmasterNash]

All true, but red meat is what undecided debate watchers want to see. Sure, the ideologues on either side will be screaming at their TV sets if a candidate strongly emphasizes a half-truth or takes a cheap shot, but the 'middle of the roaders' will be making judgments based on the 'persuasive performance' (re - 'emotion'). You're particularly spot on about one thing - these are the folks who decide elections. But they typically eat their meat bloody.

Obama wouldn't do well against Newt in a debate not because he is too civil, but because he doesn't command the 'on the fly' rhetoric like Newt does. Obama is a sermon giver - a damn good one of course - but he appears, to me at least, to abhor the nit picking of back and forth retort. Not saying he isn't intellectually capable - just saying he isn't as good because his heart isn't into it.

Many pundits, even Matthews, appear to concede this.

1) Matthews is a well known idiot.
2) Red meat does not work on independents. Palin is a great example of inspiring the base and turning off the middle.
3) Obama is an excellent debater, most notably demonstrated by his visit with congressional Republicans, he just hasn't had many opportunities to demonstrate it.

Anyway, I'm not sure that it matters much given that Newt will be crushed for other reasons, probably in the primary, definitely in the general.

[Mike!]

Well, it's official. Romney has paid $6.2 million in taxes on $45 million in earnings in 2010 and 2011 -- a 13.77% tax rate.

I bet his gardeners pay more than that.

Capital gains are given preferential treatment theoretically due to him risking the capital and potentially bettering the economy in the process. Paul wants to repeal capital gains taxes completely, so people like Romney would pay closer to 0% in income taxes.

It's somewhat ironic to me that the same people who want to encourage economic investment by giving preferential treatment to capital gains also typically want to shift towards lower income tax and higher consumption tax. Consumption tax taxes consumer spending, which is the largest component of the economy. If it was all about the economy, then how does this jive? It just seems self-serving to the politicians making millions per year that promote it.

To some the point is that he paid $6.2m and not the $0 that so many Americans pay. I, however, happen to appreciate the principles of progressive taxation.

[MixmasterNash]

No I'm completely serious (pointless cartoon aside).

Read the Contract with America.

What does that have to do with his personal style? He has huge negatives, largely because of his personality and predilections, not policy. Almost everyone hated Newt by the end of the 90s, including his own party.

[2.FOH!!]

What does that have to do with his personal style?

It has to do with your question about his ability to reach a broad middle.

FWIW, I find his sharpness appealing, but maybe that's just me.

[butterface]

1) Matthews is a well known idiot.

Agreed.

1)2) Red meat does not work on independents.

Really? Tell that to the 'Giant Sucking Sound' or 'End the Fed!' crowds.

1)2) 3) Obama is an excellent debater, most notably demonstrated by his visit with congressional Republicans, he just hasn't had many opportunities to demonstrate it.

OK. Perhaps we'll see how convincing he is at it though. Anyone with intelligence can 'debate'. but can he persuade?

1)2) Anyway, I'm not sure that it matters much given that Newt will be crushed for other reasons, probably in the primary, definitely in the general.

Probably doesn't matter if he gets crushed in the primaries. The general is another story, considering BHO doesn't have the magic of a barnstorming, naive youth crowd anymore. They've all went to Paul.

[MixmasterNash]

It has to do with your question about his ability to reach a broad middle.

FWIW, I find his sharpness appealing, but maybe that's just me.

It is just you! Have you seen Newt's favorability ratings? It's negative 30, which is probably the worst of any potential candidate for president in history by a large margin.

[Mike!]

I still would not sell Obama's debating skills short. Look at what he's had to debate in the past... this friendly contest amongst allies (a bit of stark contrast to this year's Republican field) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22933562...on-one-debate/ followed up by an easy, no-effort shellacking of McCain http://articles.cnn.com/2008-09-26/p..._s=PM:POLITICS

[2.FOH!!]

It is just you! Have you seen Newt's favorability ratings? It's negative 30, which is probably the worst of any potential candidate for president in history by a large margin.

& yet he won in South Carolina.

Understand, I highly doubt he'll get the nod for the Presidential run.

[rsj0714]

& yet he won in South Carolina.

Understand, I highly doubt he'll get the nod for the Presidential run.

It has been Romney this entire time, and anyone who can't realize this is blind, end of thread.

[demonmk2]

I still would not sell Obama's debating skills short. Look at what he's had to debate in the past... this friendly contest amongst allies (a bit of stark contrast to this year's Republican field) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22933562...on-one-debate/ followed up by an easy, no-effort shellacking of McCain http://articles.cnn.com/2008-09-26/p..._s=PM:POLITICS

his debating skills are useless without rehearsing it or a teleprompter. it's been shown many times, he just kind uh....uh....uh... all the time

[demonmk2]

Capital gains are given preferential treatment theoretically due to him risking the capital and potentially bettering the economy in the process. Paul wants to repeal capital gains taxes completely, so people like Romney would pay closer to 0% in income taxes.

It's somewhat ironic to me that the same people who want to encourage economic investment by giving preferential treatment to capital gains also typically want to shift towards lower income tax and higher consumption tax. Consumption tax taxes consumer spending, which is the largest component of the economy. If it was all about the economy, then how does this jive? It just seems self-serving to the politicians making millions per year that promote it.

To some the point is that he paid $6.2m and not the $0 that so many Americans pay. I, however, happen to appreciate the principles of progressive taxation.

so your saying that baiscally he should get taxed twice to fullist extant of our tax laws as income for both? rememeber capital gains tax and income taxe are different.
I love how the news spins the ish out of capital gains tax and the 15% that is taxed on it.
If you take the income that is taxed which would be 35-40% if you were rich. you take some of that money that has been already taxed and "take a chance" on an investmentment and come out on the plus, then those gains are taxed 15% tha's about 50%+/- that that indavidual is paying nevermind if they own a businees also in which the profits are taxed also.
I know there are crooks out tere who lie and cheat to mkae there money but its a small amount. most investors make money and not brake any laws (and lets not foreget that congress on both sides are immune to insider trading laws and they float there money around just like the 1%er's but you never hear about that).
I don't know if lower capital gains tax creates jobs (it could go either way I guess) but why would they want to invest in a job market to help grow it when all Gov wants to do is take,take,take! and driving up the debt (on perpose I think)
And it's interesting that the poor who they're so called for in this matter always stay poor no matter who is on charge.
If they would actually try tp balance the budget thye would not talking about this.
If the American peopl knew what government spent there tax money on there would be a run in on D.C. I asure you.
I also bet that allot of the people complaing were to some how be in a position to invest and make money they would be doing the same thing because they don't want there money taken that they earned.

[Mike!]

I always love how despite Presidents having used teleprompters for 50 years, it's an issue now when Obama uses one. I don't even remember anyone criticizing Bush for using one, only that his speeches. were. still painfully. halting. even while. using one. Oh, and that little smirk he'd give every time he delivered the line right

[zhenya00]

so your saying that baiscally he should get taxed twice to fullist extant of our tax laws as income for both? rememeber capital gains tax and income taxe are different.
I love how the news spins the ish out of capital gains tax and the 15% that is taxed on it.
If you take the income that is taxed which would be 35-40% if you were rich. you take some of that money that has been already taxed and "take a chance" on an investmentment and come out on the plus, then those gains are taxed 15% tha's about 50%+/- that that indavidual is paying nevermind if they own a businees also in which the profits are taxed also.
I know there are crooks out tere who lie and cheat to mkae there money but its a small amount. most investors make money and not brake any laws (and lets not foreget that congress on both sides are immune to insider trading laws and they float there money around just like the 1%er's but you never hear about that).
I don't know if lower capital gains tax creates jobs (it could go either way I guess) but why would they want to invest in a job market to help grow it when all Gov wants to do is take,take,take! and driving up the debt (on perpose I think)
And it's interesting that the poor who they're so called for in this matter always stay poor no matter who is on charge.
If they would actually try tp balance the budget thye would not talking about this.
If the American peopl knew what government spent there tax money on there would be a run in on D.C. I asure you.
I also bet that allot of the people complaing were to some how be in a position to invest and make money they would be doing the same thing because they don't want there money taken that they earned.

I hesitate to respond to someone who can't bother with basic grammar or paragraphs, but here goes.

Capital gains, as it was originally intended makes reasonable sense; it was supposed to allow businesses to obtain the capital (in the form of equipment, machinery, or buildings) that it needed to expand without getting taxed excessively from the 'gain' in value that capital brought to the company. Today however, capital gains have been expanded to include all sorts of financial packages that are specifically designed to maximize the ability of the very wealthy to grow their fortunes with minimum tax liability. Hence, Romney's tax returns are completely legal because the system has been designed specifically for a person like him.

The problem is that in reality, this system has the effect of protecting the capital of those who already have it. For someone who is not yet wealthy, they must begin by funding their gains with income earned, and hence taxed at the full rate. Only once they have money can they begin to earn profits that accumulate at the lower tax rate. For all intents and purposes, the 'capital gains' from Romney's investments ARE his income; so why is he paying less than half what the vast majority of Americans pay?

Furthermore, much of Romney's fortune was made through the 'carried interest' loophole which allows money management firms to be paid in funds classified as 'capital gains' (and of course subject only to that low tax rate) even though the capital put at risk was not their own.

Whose interests do you think this guy is going to have at heart as president?

[Slipstream]

Probably doesn't matter if he gets crushed in the primaries. The general is another story, considering BHO doesn't have the magic of a barnstorming, naive youth crowd anymore. They've all went to Paul.

True, but where are they going to go once Paul bows out? There's no way in hell the youth vote will go to Newt, or even Romney. Romney has been painted (and will be tenfold in the general election) as "The Man." Angry hipsters who want Paul to swoop in and save the day would never, EVER vote for the guy they perceive as Wall Street personified.

They'll go back to Obama in droves if either Romney or Newt get the nomination, assuming Paul doesn't pull a wildcard out of his sleeve with an Independent run.

[barry2952]

Oh, and that little smirk he'd give every time he delivered the line right

That's the same look as when babies poop their pants. Relief that they got that one out.

[Mike!]

I hesitate to respond to someone who can't bother with basic grammar or paragraphs, but here goes.

Capital gains, as it was originally intended makes reasonable sense; it was supposed to allow businesses to obtain the capital (in the form of equipment, machinery, or buildings) that it needed to expand without getting taxed excessively from the 'gain' in value that capital brought to the company. Today however, capital gains have been expanded to include all sorts of financial packages that are specifically designed to maximize the ability of the very wealthy to grow their fortunes with minimum tax liability. Hence, Romney's tax returns are completely legal because the system has been designed specifically for a person like him.

The problem is that in reality, this system has the effect of protecting the capital of those who already have it. For someone who is not yet wealthy, they must begin by funding their gains with income earned, and hence taxed at the full rate. Only once they have money can they begin to earn profits that accumulate at the lower tax rate. For all intents and purposes, the 'capital gains' from Romney's investments ARE his income; so why is he paying less than half what the vast majority of Americans pay?

Furthermore, much of Romney's fortune was made through the 'carried interest' loophole which allows money management firms to be paid in funds classified as 'capital gains' (and of course subject only to that low tax rate) even though the capital put at risk was not their own.

Whose interests do you think this guy is going to have at heart as president?

Thank you. I wasn't even going to try considering how that post read like it was from a spam bot, but thank you for responding to it better than I could have.

[Egilbe]

so your saying that baiscally he should get taxed twice to fullist extant of our tax laws as income for both? rememeber capital gains tax and income taxe are different.
I love how the news spins the ish out of capital gains tax and the 15% that is taxed on it.
If you take the income that is taxed which would be 35-40% if you were rich. you take some of that money that has been already taxed and "take a chance" on an investmentment and come out on the plus, then those gains are taxed 15% tha's about 50%+/- that that indavidual is paying nevermind if they own a businees also in which the profits are taxed also.
I know there are crooks out tere who lie and cheat to mkae there money but its a small amount. most investors make money and not brake any laws (and lets not foreget that congress on both sides are immune to insider trading laws and they float there money around just like the 1%er's but you never hear about that).
I don't know if lower capital gains tax creates jobs (it could go either way I guess) but why would they want to invest in a job market to help grow it when all Gov wants to do is take,take,take! and driving up the debt (on perpose I think)
And it's interesting that the poor who they're so called for in this matter always stay poor no matter who is on charge.
If they would actually try tp balance the budget thye would not talking about this.
If the American peopl knew what government spent there tax money on there would be a run in on D.C. I asure you.
I also bet that allot of the people complaing were to some how be in a position to invest and make money they would be doing the same thing because they don't want there money taken that they earned.

50% income tax rate on the wealthy is still historically low.

[ATL_Av8r]

Well, it's official. Romney has paid $6.2 million in taxes on $45 million in earnings in 2010 and 2011 -- a 13.77% tax rate.

I bet his gardeners pay more than that.

If his gardeners are paying more than $6.2 million in taxes, I'm getting into gardening!

[butterface]

True, but where are they going to go once Paul bows out? There's no way in hell the youth vote will go to Newt, or even Romney. Romney has been painted (and will be tenfold in the general election) as "The Man." Angry hipsters who want Paul to swoop in and save the day would never, EVER vote for the guy they perceive as Wall Street personified.

They'll go back to Obama in droves if either Romney or Newt get the nomination, assuming Paul doesn't pull a wildcard out of his sleeve with an Independent run.

I somewhat disagree. I think it will likely be a wash - with perhaps a little edge to the R's - depending on how strongly one feels about one of two hugely polarizing issues. Many Paul supporters are vehemently anti-War and will lean towards BHO, while many are die hard Gadsden flag waving Randian-versed 'get the government out of my life' types who will lean towards the R nominee.

If Paul doesn't run as an I, and these folks don't become disillusioned and stay home, it will be interesting to see how they divide their issue loyalty.

[Mike!]

I somewhat disagree. I think it will likely be a wash - with perhaps a little edge to the R's - depending on how strongly one feels about one of two hugely polarizing issues. Many Paul supporters are vehemently anti-War and will lean towards BHO, while many are die hard Gadsden flag waving Randian-versed 'get the government out of my life' types who will lean towards the R nominee.

If Paul doesn't run as an I, and these folks don't become disillusioned and stay home, it will be interesting to see how they divide their issue loyalty.

This will be the interesting thing to see.

[demonmk2]

I hesitate to respond to someone who can't bother with basic grammar or paragraphs, but here goes.
?

typing to fast and spell check wouldn't work

[barry2952]

typing to fast and spell check wouldn't work

[demonmk2]

I hesitate to respond to someone who can't bother with basic grammar or paragraphs, but here goes.

Capital gains, as it was originally intended makes reasonable sense; it was supposed to allow businesses to obtain the capital (in the form of equipment, machinery, or buildings) that it needed to expand without getting taxed excessively from the 'gain' in value that capital brought to the company. Today however, capital gains have been expanded to include all sorts of financial packages that are specifically designed to maximize the ability of the very wealthy to grow their fortunes with minimum tax liability. Hence, Romney's tax returns are completely legal because the system has been designed specifically for a person like him.

The problem is that in reality, this system has the effect of protecting the capital of those who already have it. For someone who is not yet wealthy, they must begin by funding their gains with income earned, and hence taxed at the full rate. Only once they have money can they begin to earn profits that accumulate at the lower tax rate. For all intents and purposes, the 'capital gains' from Romney's investments ARE his income; so why is he paying less than half what the vast majority of Americans pay?

Furthermore, much of Romney's fortune was made through the 'carried interest' loophole which allows money management firms to be paid in funds classified as 'capital gains' (and of course subject only to that low tax rate) even though the capital put at risk was not their own.

Whose interests do you think this guy is going to have at heart as president?

would you apply this to dividends also??

as far as Romney's income now, yes they are coming from capital gains and dividends which have been taxed already, so you're saying that it should be taxed twice? that will never happen!
elected officials would loose out big time on this if a new law was passed.
and if it was, the country would go into a deeper recession that what it's going through now.

it's not black and white like you try to portray it.

[demonmk2]

I have the flu too

[demonmk2]

I know! excuses, excuses

[pentaxshooter]

[westsideseal]

would you apply this to dividends also??

as far as Romney's income now, yes they are coming from capital gains and dividends which have been taxed already, so you're saying that it should be taxed twice? that will never happen!
elected officials would loose out big time on this if a new law was passed.
and if it was, the country would go into a deeper recession that what it's going through now.

it's not black and white like you try to portray it.

I'm not sure you understand the concept of capital gains. If you invest 1 million, you're not being taxed year over year on that same 1 million. Now, if your 1 million turns into 2 million, you're taxed on the difference. How has this money "been taxed already"? Are you referring to the income tax a corporation paid prior to issuing dividends? You aren't paying tax on your original capital, you're paying tax on the profit (income) your capital makes.