2012 Election Thread

[Hicks]

Welp here in Portland houses are starting to move again in a matter of days.

Anything good goes immediately here.  Is it just an anomaly since it's desirable market or are we an indicator of a more widespread recovery?

I don't know the answer but I can tell you that nobody could move shit three years ago and that is definitely not the case now.

Seems to me something is changing.

[sls.stormyrider]

Romney says tax cuts - then he outlines his plan. Lower tax rates, reduce / eliminate deductions. He "promises" it will be revenue neutral. So called experts don't think that his plan is feasible, but I'll take it at face value for argument's sake.
OK - so, you want to reform the tax code. Great idea. It is too complicated and somewhat unfair.
But - and someone help me out here - if the changes are revenue neutral, how does that put more money in the economy to create jobs???

Faster growth. More disposable income in the hand of the private sector means greater contribution to economic output. Since taxes are a function of that, it's not unreasonable to conclude you can have higher revenues with lower rates. Now, I'm not suggesting Romney's plan would be such (I'm sure Romney's GDP growth assumptions are on the high end of the range), but it is certainly possible both in theory and in practice.

right - but he says the tax change is revenue neutral. So how does that put more $ in the economy?

btw, Reagan proved that cutting taxes without cutting spending only makes the deficit get larger.

Now, lets make a distinction between the capital gains tax itself and the carried interest loophole that lets private equity guys like Romney only pay cap gains rates on their income. The latter is clearly unfair and should be closed (although something tells me this is not on Mitt's list of targeted loopholes). So on this, I'm with you: private equity is in the business of taking risk, so their income should be taxed at the ordinary rate which for most of them would be the top bracket.

But the cap gains tax itself is different. We want to encourage people to save and invest their money, right? Not just super wealthy dickbags like Romney but everyone should want to grow their savings in the best way possible for their given risk tolerance. Also, investing has the added bonus of providing capital to business who can then put money that to productive use by hiring workers or buying new equipment. But the problem with the tax on capital gains is it is double taxation. Because any money you've invested you've already earned and been taxed for. So the cap gains tax is, in effect, punishing you for investing your after-tax money wisely.

There are other effects like distorting the price of stocks (because you might hold when you should sell or sell when you should hold to offset any gains/losses at the end of the year). There's the issue that ordinary income is guaranteed and is taxed when earned while investments can be wiped out and may not be recognized until years after the cap gain was earned. And let's not forget it's not only stocks: if you sell a house that's not your primary residence for more than what you paid (not likely these days but once upon a time it happened) it is a capital gain (there are some other nuanced laws about cap gains and home sales that I'm not familiar with). So it's not just the investor class subject to this double taxation. And yes, the return on an investment is the compensation you get for taking that risk, but higher cap gains taxes along with riskier economic climates like the one we're living through absolutely could discourage total investment which would be a drag on overall growth.

So, while the carried interest loophole is one of the worst examples of cronyism in a tax code laden with special interest handouts, the cap gains tax in and of itself is not necessarily a good thing and I support it's elimination. YMMV

ETA: BTW, cap gains taxes (and I don't know if this includes the carried interest scam or not) generally only make less than 5% of total tax receipts. Like lower income tax rates, the elimination of this distorting tax could be more than offset by contributing to stronger growth and a more productive economy.

well, you know more about this stuff than I do. But here are my issues with the cap gains part
if you personally own the business and invest in it to help it grow, fine, I have no problem with that.

the average investor, imo doesn't invest because he or she believes in what the company is doing, but will he make money on this. Stocks often go up after a company reduces costs (ie layoffs) - there is nothing altruistic about it. And, if I thought an investment was gonna make $, I would do it whether I was getting taxed 15% or 20%.

Double taxation? If I make $1,000 (and get taxed on it), and invest it in something, the cap gains tax is only on the profit, not the principle.

I don't think cap gains should be necessarily taxed the same as regular income, but 15% is too low. The tax system is a little more equitable.

ETA: BTW, cap gains taxes (and I don't know if this includes the carried interest scam or not) generally only make less than 5% of total tax receipts. Like lower income tax rates, the elimination of this distorting tax could be more than offset by contributing to stronger growth and a more productive economy.

maybe - you can make the same argument about govt spending - say on infrastructure (something we need and something I think even Ron Paul will agree is the role of govt). It's just about stimulating the economy, there's the deficit too. When we have a deficit, all spending / taxes / cuts need to be looked at closely. Even increasing tax reciepts by a few percent, and cutting spending by a few percent add up.

ETA - there's also the fairness issue. Fox news blames the Dems for starting class warfare, imo there already is class warfare, only not the same way Fox is thinking of it.

[runawayjimbo]

Romney says tax cuts - then he outlines his plan. Lower tax rates, reduce / eliminate deductions. He "promises" it will be revenue neutral. So called experts don't think that his plan is feasible, but I'll take it at face value for argument's sake.
OK - so, you want to reform the tax code. Great idea. It is too complicated and somewhat unfair.
But - and someone help me out here - if the changes are revenue neutral, how does that put more money in the economy to create jobs???

Faster growth. More disposable income in the hand of the private sector means greater contribution to economic output. Since taxes are a function of that, it's not unreasonable to conclude you can have higher revenues with lower rates. Now, I'm not suggesting Romney's plan would be such (I'm sure Romney's GDP growth assumptions are on the high end of the range), but it is certainly possible both in theory and in practice.

right - but he says the tax change is revenue neutral. So how does that put more $ in the economy?

All revenue neutral means is the same amount of tax collected under varying plans. So if the current baseline if $40T in taxes collected over the next 10 yrs, Romney's plan collect the same dollars with lower rates and a faster growing GDP. It would lower the share of taxes collected as a % of GDP, but the total amount of revenues would be the same.

btw, Reagan proved that cutting taxes without cutting spending only makes the deficit get larger.

Can I get an Amen?!?! But remember, despite what the GOP says, Reagan raised tax rates not once but twice.

I saw the evil Grover Norquist on Bill Maher a while back and he mentioned that the reason for the strict no new taxes line in the sand is because of Reagan. Under both tax increases, there was a deal with Tip O'Neal that they would raise rates in exchange for a reduction in spending. However, since rates and projected tax revenues were higher, the Dems saw this as a blank check to increase spending. Because of this, Norquist and his ilk see any tax rate increases as an implicit approval for growing spending, so they say they have no choice but to be impenetrable dicks until spending comes back down to historical levels (around 20% of GDP). Make of that what you will.

well, you know more about this stuff than I do. But here are my issues with the cap gains part
if you personally own the business and invest in it to help it grow, fine, I have no problem with that.

the average investor, imo doesn't invest because he or she believes in what the company is doing, but will he make money on this. Stocks often go up after a company reduces costs (ie layoffs) - there is nothing altruistic about it. And, if I thought an investment was gonna make $, I would do it whether I was getting taxed 15% or 20%.

At some point we're gonna have to leave the altruism at the door or else we're not gonna get anywhere. People should save their money and plan for their future in the best way they know how. For many, especially younger people who have a longer time horizon, stocks are the best way to do this (or at least they were before the stock market became completely detached from fundamentals and became Helicopter Ben's monetary playground/crack house). For many people, there's really nothing wrong with investing in Exxon or Wal-Mart; others find this notion reprehensible. But that's the beauty of the market - everyone is free to make their own decision and do what they deem to be in their own best interest. If some people want to use their moral compass to guide their investing or purchasing decisions, more power to them and there are companies that cater to these kinds of people. I mean, let's be clear - if you have a Prius you most likely paid a premium for it (i.e., you do not save enough money in gas to break even on the increased sticker price), but that doesn't mean you don't get some satisfaction from feeling that you did your part. I don't understand why there needs to be a distinction between good and bad money. Sustainably growing the economy is the best way to help those in need, not worrying about with a company in my portfolio had to lay off a few thousand workers.

As for the power of taxes to deter investment, tax treatment is a very powerful motivator. So while 15 or 20% may not matter to you, to some (read: the uber-wealthy) it could be a considerable hit so they will shift their asset allocations to tax preferred vehicles like municipal bonds or universal life insurance or, yes, Swiss bank accounts. That is a drag on investment and productivity and thus economic output.

Double taxation? If I make $1,000 (and get taxed on it), and invest it in something, the cap gains tax is only on the profit, not the principle.

To your earlier point, that profit is the return you are getting for risking your own capital. Your after-tax money helped a business generate profit which you share in (the business, which you are a partial owner in, also pays taxes so really that money is being taxed 3 times; unless you are GE). Oh and that principle could also be completely wiped out too.

I don't think cap gains should be necessarily taxed the same as regular income, but 15% is too low. The tax system is a little more equitable.

Glad to hear this, but what would the "right" level be? (rhetorical, obviously)

ETA: BTW, cap gains taxes (and I don't know if this includes the carried interest scam or not) generally only make less than 5% of total tax receipts. Like lower income tax rates, the elimination of this distorting tax could be more than offset by contributing to stronger growth and a more productive economy.

maybe - you can make the same argument about govt spending - say on infrastructure (something we need and something I think even Ron Paul will agree is the role of govt). It's just about stimulating the economy, there's the deficit too. When we have a deficit, all spending / taxes / cuts need to be looked at closely. Even increasing tax reciepts by a few percent, and cutting spending by a few percent add up.

Look, at the end of the day, if we want to have the gov't be a larger share of the economy than it has historically been (and by we I mean the country as a whole, I say fuck this), we will have to pay for it. You cannot continue running $1T deficits without at some point suffering the consequences of it. When Greece started going down the shitter, people said, "Well it's only Greece, what effect could a country the size of Delaware have on the world economy?" 2 years later we are still struggling with the havoc this tiny country has/is wreaking on global financial markets. Iceland, Portugal, Ireland, no big deal, these are all relatively small countries on a global scale. But now Spain is finding out what happens when you try to spend without restraint for decades. And soon Italy, the world's 8th largest economy. So to anyone who thinks it can't happen here I cannot emphasize how wrong you are.

But where are the politicians saying we need to raise revenue? If we want to have gov't spending of 25% (or more given the aging population), taxes will need to go up not just on the rich but on everyone. Substantially. So while it may make good politics to campaign on the Buffet Rule and higher capital gains taxes and Clinton era taxes but only on a small subset of the country, it does not make good policy. And no one will ever, in the history or future of the country, campaign on raising middle class taxes. So, in effect, unless we get spending in check, we're screwed.

Then again, I also believe taxation is theft and believe the 16th Amendment should be repealed, so what do I know.

[PIE-GUY]

Everyone knows where Taibi's politics lie, but he hit the nail on the head with this one:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/presidential-debate-aftermath-mitt-romney-wins-all-important-bs-contest-20121005

Presidential Debate Aftermath: Mitt Romney Wins All-Important BS Contest

I didn't watch the debate – I just couldn't. I read it in transcript form afterwards. I know it is widely believed that Mitt Romney won, but I don't agree. I think both candidates lost. I think they both sucked. Romney told a series of outright lies – the bit about the pre-existing conditions was incredible – while Barack Obama seemed unaccountably disinterested in the intellectual challenge of the exercise, repeatedly leaving the gross absurdities hurled his way by Romney unchallenged.

Romney's performance was better than Obama's, but only if you throw out criteria like "wasn't 100% full of shit from the opening bell" and "made an actual attempt to explain who he is and what his plans are." Unfortunately, that is good enough for our news media, which drools over the gamesmanship aspects of these debates, because it loves candidates who sink their teeth into the horse-race nonsense that they think validates their professional lives.

For instance: in my local paper, the Star-Ledger in New Jersey, I read an analysis entitled, "Romney's debate performance was presidential game changer, analysts say."

The unnamed authors of this analysis delivered a blizzard of sports metaphors about Romney's performance. "It's a new race for the White House," they said, after Romney "changed the game with an aggressive, confident performance" – needed, because "Obama's forces had hinted earlier that all they needed from the debate was one good punch to knock Romney out," after the challenger "spent the summer and early fall stumbling."

On the internet, they complemented this keen analysis with a cartoon picture of the two candidates as superheroes punching each other, complete with "Pow!" and "Bam!" Batman-style effects.

Why was Romney so effective, according to the Star-Ledger? Because "the Romney viewers saw during the nationally televised debate from Denver was the one his friends have long known: a conversational, smart, decent-on-his-feet guy, eager to defend his plans to cut taxes and change government health insurance for future generations."

Obama, meanwhile, came off as "wonky and lacking punch," because he was "so intent on answering questions."

The piece literally had nothing to say about the substance or accuracy of the two arguments. Like, not one thing. It did, however, speculate that Obama might be in trouble if his performance ended up getting parodied on the Daily Show, because he might end up with a reputation for being "too academic, too cold and uneasy with being challenged."

What the hell does any of this have to do with being president? It's one thing for reporters to talk shop behind the scenes about which candidate they think is doing a better job of slinging bull. But to legitimize it as real is just nuts.

Analysts like this were, however, right in a way. Romney did come across as the more confident and aggressive candidate, and Obama did come across as "wonky" and "lacking punch." Just visually and dramatically, Romney met the spectacle on its terms better than Obama did, much the way John F. Kennedy did in his celebrated debate with Richard Nixon. In that legendary meeting, radio viewers thought Nixon won, but TV viewers, blown away by Kennedy's smile and tan, thought was a landslide for the Democrat.

Journalists who cite that Nixon-Kennedy debate always forget that the lesson of that night is that the new broadcast media technology made superficiality and nonsense more important – that thanks to the press, it was now possible to get someone elected to the most powerful office on earth because he had a superior tan. Reporters love this story because it reminds everyone that the medium they work in has the power to overcome substance and decide elections all by itself. What's amazing is that they don't have the good sense to be ashamed of this.

I read the transcript of the debate and all I got from Romney was either outright factual lies, or total rhetorical dishonesty. He even tried out a version of the for-years-debunked death panel business:

    In order to bring the cost of health care down, we don't need to have a -- an -- a board of 15 people telling us what kinds of treatments we should have.

Really? Hey, Mitt – what do you think health insurance is? It is, by definition, a bunch of people deciding what kinds of treatments we should have.

Of course, Romney's point is that there's allegedly going to be a bloodless government board somewhere deciding upon treatment options, as opposed to some bloodless corporate board making those decisions, but even that's not true at all. Romney was talking about the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which exists solely to make cuts in Medicare if its costs rise beyond a certain level and congress doesn't do anything about them.

That board is specifically barred by law from making the kinds of care decisions Romney is talking about. Obama did at least point this out, but weakly, and that's not even the point. I mean, practically in the same breath of his "unelected board" attack, Romney criticized Obama's plan because it cut Medicare. So he's clearly not against government bureaucrats making decisions about treatment, because what the hell does Romney think Medicare does? He should try getting an eye job and billing Medicare for it. The whole thing was a non-sequitur, insincere and substantively meaningless – but if you had no clue what you were watching, it looked like Romney was confidently attacking and Obama was backtracking.

Romney's entire debate performance was like this. He said absolutely nothing, but got lots of credit for style points. Here's Romney's answer on what budget cuts he would make, addressing perhaps-soon-to-be-ex-PBS employee, Jim Lehrer:

    I'm sorry, Jim. I'm going to stop the subsidy to PBS. I'm going to stop other things. I like PBS. I love Big Bird. I actually like you too. But I'm not going to -- I'm not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for it. That's number one.

    Number two, I'll take programs that are currently good programs but I think could be run more efficiently at the state level and send them to state.

    Number three, I'll make government more efficient, and to cut back the number of employees, combine some agencies and departments. My cutbacks will be done through attrition, by the way.

So the answer to the question, "What will you do to rein in the biggest budget deficit in history?" comes down to, "I'll cut PBS, which is about one millionth of the federal budget, and some other stuff."

For God's sake – "I'll take programs that could be run more efficiently at state and send them to state"? Is that a joke? That's worse than a Bill Belichick answer: "What's our plan against the Broncos? We're going to watch the film and do what's best for our football team."

Reporters should have instantly pelted Romney with bags of dogshit for insulting the American people with this ridiculous non-answer, but he was instead praised for the canny "strategy" hidden in the response. Despite the fact that Romney is running as a budget hawk and yet has refused to name any actual programs (except Obamacare and PBS) he will cut, reporters gave him credit in the debate for being willing to be the bearer of bad budgetary news, because he essentially advance-fired Jim Lehrer on TV. Many also complimented the "humor" of the line about Big Bird.

Typically, Obama is the recipient of the breathless media plaudits for meaningless imageering and iconography, but Romney scooped it all up this time. Ugh. At least there are only two more!

[VDB]

The developing narrative on the right is that anyone who complains about Mitt's debate fabrications is just trying to make "excuses" for Obama's "loss".

[Hicks]

The developing narrative on the right is that anyone who complains about Mitt's debate fabrications is just trying to make "excuses" for Obama's "loss".

I don't think people are that dumb, lies are lies regardless of Obama's performance.

[twatts]

The developing narrative on the right is that anyone who complains about Mitt's debate fabrications is just trying to make "excuses" for Obama's "loss".

I don't think people are that dumb, lies are lies regardless of Obama's performance.

Look who we are talking about:  the GOP Constituency...  The would rather believe that OB planned a massive conspiracy to subvert the USCon about his place of birth years before he even thought to run for President, rather than believe that he's Hawaiian... 

[Hicks]

The developing narrative on the right is that anyone who complains about Mitt's debate fabrications is just trying to make "excuses" for Obama's "loss".

I don't think people are that dumb, lies are lies regardless of Obama's performance.

Look who we are talking about:  the GOP Constituency...  The would rather believe that OB planned a massive conspiracy to subvert the USCon about his place of birth years before he even thought to run for President, rather than believe that he's Hawaiian...

I don't think birthers, or even the tea partiers as a whole, make up the majority of the GOP constituency.

[sls.stormyrider]

I hate to say this, but some people are that dumb.
Hopefully, if you are curious enough to watch the debates, your curious enough to do more than just scratch the surface and fine out what is BS and what isn't.
Too many of us don't do that.
Style often trumps substance.

[VDB]

The developing narrative on the right is that anyone who complains about Mitt's debate fabrications is just trying to make "excuses" for Obama's "loss".

I don't think people are that dumb, lies are lies regardless of Obama's performance.

This morning one of the headlines on FN.com was "Media's new debate excuse -- 'he lied'" (referring to the "liberal media" and Romney, respectively). Then there's this. And this.

[twatts]

The developing narrative on the right is that anyone who complains about Mitt's debate fabrications is just trying to make "excuses" for Obama's "loss".

I don't think people are that dumb, lies are lies regardless of Obama's performance.

Look who we are talking about:  the GOP Constituency...  The would rather believe that OB planned a massive conspiracy to subvert the USCon about his place of birth years before he even thought to run for President, rather than believe that he's Hawaiian...

I don't think birthers, or even the tea partiers as a whole, make up the majority of the GOP constituency.

Sure, but you didn't see that particular majority trying to discredit any of those stories...  When the current Leader of the GOP (Boner) says:  ""It's not up to me to tell them what to think", its just complicity plain and simple...  If there was any serious leadership there, that story would have been buried along time ago as "that makes us look like a bunch of tin-foil hat wearing idiots".  Instead it was legitimatized, even embraced, by the likes of Gov. Jan "Old Brown Shoe" Brewer...  IMO... 

Terry

[Hicks]

The developing narrative on the right is that anyone who complains about Mitt's debate fabrications is just trying to make "excuses" for Obama's "loss".

I don't think people are that dumb, lies are lies regardless of Obama's performance.

This morning one of the headlines on FN.com was "Media's new debate excuse -- 'he lied'" (referring to the "liberal media" and Romney, respectively). Then there's this. And this.

I'm not doubting that they are trying to spin it that way, I'm just at the very least hoping that those in the middle aren't buying it.

Of course the conservative choir will eat it up, but those people would still vote for Romney if the NY Times had a picture of him eating babies for breakfast. 

The people that matter are those that can still be swayed at this point, and I would tend to think they have a bit more ability to analyze information or else they would have been herded to one side or the other long ago.

[sls.stormyrider]

of course, if the NYT showed Romney eating babies for breakfast, it would be the liberal media at it again

[Hicks]

of course, if the NYT showed Romney eating babies for breakfast, it would be the liberal media at it again

Exactly.

ETA:  I'm pretty sure he really does eat babies for breakfast btw.

[VDB]

Well, the polls are swinging Romney's way, so unless that's just coincidence, it seems like the debate helped him. So it's not just the conservative faithful who happily lapped it up.