U.S. Politics

Page 148 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Glenn_Wilson said:
Very happy to see that it is buisness as usuall in the election thread.

President Obama will win easy and the economy will pick back up. That is how this will play out. So I have no idea why you liberals without a direction even come in here and worry with it?

:eek:
You and Scott are really not going to enjoy the next 4 years, are you. btw the libs are the ones with direction - eg the ACA - its the cons that have no direction other than to say no to any sort of forward progress- health care, stimulus, auto bailout? No, no, no. All the cons have is "tax cuts!". Not a single other idea. It's what we've been telling you for a while now.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
What was that about Obamacare?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/president-obama-mitt-romney-deadlocked-in-race-poll-finds/2012/07/09/gJQAaJwdZW_story.html

Americans split evenly on the Supreme Court’s recent 5 to 4 decision upholding Obama’s health-care law, with 42 percent approving of the decision and 44 percent opposing it. But in a significant change, the legislation is now viewed less negatively than it was before the ruling. In the new survey, 47 percent support the law and 47 percent oppose it. In April, 39 percent backed it and 53 percent opposed it.
The more people learn about it and understand it, the more popular it becomes.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
ManInFull said:
Well, I still suspect that it will have more of negative impact on Obama's chances of being re-elected--more people will go to the polls because they are against it.
Be pretty minimal impact:

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1774

Those who are against it aren't voting for Obama anyway and those who support the ACA will be voting for Obama anyway, but more notably according to this poll 59% of all Americans and 63% of independents say the SCOTUS decision will make no difference in whether they vote for Obama. And that percentage will grow by November, when the decision has faded.

And it's offset by this:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155627/Mitt-Romney-Wealth-Costs-One-Five-Voters.aspx

19% of Indies are less likely to vote for Romney because of his wealth.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Then there's the Gov of Maine, Paul LePage, in a class of his own:

Standing by Brock's side at the Sheraton in South Burlington, the Maine governor said, "What I am trying to say is the Holocaust was a horrific crime against humanity and, frankly, I would never want to see that repeated. Maybe the IRS is not quite as bad -- yet."

LePage then said, "They're headed in that direction."

Asked if he had a sense of what the Gestapo did during the second world war, LePage said, "Yeah, they killed a lot of people." Asked whether the IRS "was headed in the direction of killing a lot of people," LePage answered: "Yeah."

So, in the mind of the governor of Maine, the IRS reminds him of Nazis, then he's sorry, then he's comfortable saying the IRS is headed in the "direction" of Nazis and "killing a lot of people."

During the same appearance, LePage was asked if his comments might be seen as offensive. "Well, let's put it this way," he replied. "I apologize to Jewish Americans if they feel offended. But I also apologize to Japanese Americans that were put in prison during World War II." Asked whether the IRS is heading in the direction of interning people, LePage said: "I don't know. I don't know."

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/12/12705424-paul-lepage-falls-keeps-digging?lite
This guy is who Rs in Maine chose to represent them. Good job.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Speaks for itself:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/americans-want-to-slash-defense-spending-but-washington-isnt-listening/2012/05/10/gIQAyAzQGU_blog.html

On average, Smith and his co-authors found the public wants $103.5 billion in defense budget cuts, or 18 percent of the current budget; Republicans want $74 billion cut, on average, Democrats want a $124.4 billion cut, and independents want a $112.2 billion reduction. Participants evaluated 87 percent of defense discretionary spending, so their cuts might even be higher if the entire defense budget were covered.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
....find below reference to what may be one of the bigger hidden agendas in the upcoming election...and here is the link to the video clip referred to in the quote below...

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Components/Video/_Player/swfs/embed_V2/embedV2_20010901.swf?settings=32545640&launch=48203918&width=660&height=385

"This is one of those patented Maddow Show first segments. It starts one place, moves to another place, and suddenly ties everything together with a bang.

Macao is introduced at the 1:00 mark. Once you get past the athletes-and-smog reference, you're into the main part. If you really feel the need to speed along, start at 2:10 — but be sure not to miss China-U.S. population graph at 2:10.

That population ratio — 4:1 — is the key to the whole segment. 4:1 helps define the size of the gold mine Sheldon Adelson is working.

"Macao ... is the gambling capital of the world" (3:20; my emphasis). That's a whole lot of gold to work with.

Maddow's bottom line has to do with the risk of Adelson being prosecuted under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

My bottom line is that the Chinese government is pumping money as fast as it can into the pockets of Las Vegas–and–Macao casino owner Sheldon Adelson. And with that money Adelson is buying as much U.S. election as he can.

Any guesses whether Obama and his seemingly White House–directed Justice Dept. will actually do anything like a meaningful prosecution. (Hint: Jon Corzine is still a free man, and last I heard, still an Obama fundraiser.)

Watch (to watch large in a separate tab, click here). Stay at least through the start of the interview at 12:00, though the interview with ProPublica is excellent."

Cheers

blutto
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,279
0
0
This is funnier:

National Review to Romney: Release More Tax Returns

The conservative National Review joined the growing chorus of pundits and politicians on both sides of the aisle calling on Mitt Romney to release additional tax returns.

The publication posted an editorial Wednesday morning urging the presumptive Republican presidential nominee to adhere to tradition by releasing more than just his 2010 and 2011 returns.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Who else, Mr. President?

When President Barack Obama hauled off and slapped American small-business owners in the mouth the other day, I wanted to dream of my father.

But I didn't have to close my eyes to see my dad. I could do it with my eyes open.

All I had to do was think of the driveway of our home, and my dad's car gone before dawn, that old white Chrysler with a push-button transmission. It always started, but there was a hole in the floor and his feet got wet in the rain. So he patched it with concrete mix and kept on driving it to the little supermarket he ran with my Uncle George.

He'd return home long after dark, physically and mentally exhausted, take a plate of food, talk with us for a few minutes, then flop in that big chair in front of the TV. Even before his cigarette was out, he'd begin to snore.

The next day he'd wake up and do it again. Day after day, decade after decade. Weekdays and weekends, no vacations, no time to see our games, no money for extras, not even forMcDonald's. My dad and Uncle George, and my mom and my late Aunt Mary, killing themselves in their small supermarket on the South Side of Chicago.
There was no federal bailout money for us. No Republican corporate welfare. No Democratic handouts. No bipartisan lobbyists working the angles. No Tony Rezkos. No offshore accounts. No Obama bucks.

Just two immigrant brothers and their families risking everything, balancing on the economic high wire, building a business in America. They sacrificed, paid their bills, counted pennies to pay rent and purchase health care and food and not much else. And for their troubles they were muscled by the politicos, by the city inspectors and the chiselers and the weasels, all those smiling extortionists who held the government hammer over all of our heads.

I thought about this after I heard what Obama told a campaign crowd the other day, speaking about business owners and why they were successful.
If you've got a business, you didn't build that? Somebody else made that happen?

Somebody else, Mr. President? Who, exactly? Government?

One of my earliest memories as a boy at the store was that of the government men coming from City Hall. One was tall and beefy. The other was wiry. They wanted steaks.

We didn't eat red steaks at home or yellow bananas. We took home the brown bananas and the brown steaks because we couldn't sell them. But the government men liked the big, red steaks, the fat rib-eyes two to a shrink-wrapped package. You could put 20 or so in a shopping bag.

"Thanks, Greek," they'd say.

That was government.
Still is.

Obama's changed. Gone is that young knight drawing the sword from the stone, selling Hopium to the adoring media, preaching an end to the broken politics of the past. These days, he wears a new presidential persona: the multimillionaire with the Chicago clout, playing the class warrior, fighting for that second term.

And he offers an American dream much different from my father's. Open your eyes and you can see it too. He stands there at the front of the mob, in his shirt sleeves, swinging that government hammer, exhorting the crowd to use its votes and take what it wants.
+1


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-met-kass-0718-20120718,0,2313230.column?dssReturn
 
Of course he's going to say whatever it takes to get elected. Obama will do the same, though I have to admit Mitt may be the king of doing this.

I'm really out of the loop on this election as I gave up on it being anything other than completely corrupted by money. But there is a good article in Time magazine this past week on pro's and con's of why each guy might win. Worth looking at if you have the time (no pun intended). Not online, unfortunately.

Okay, I'm back out of the thread with nothing to say. Carry on as you were.
 
Nov 17, 2009
2,388
0
0
gooner said:
His father released his tax returns for the 12 previous years in the 60s when he was running. I remember that point was made to Romney in one of the Republican debates and he completely dodged the question when asked would he do the same. Rick Perry has come out and said you should be as open and transparent as possible when running for public office. This could be an own goal on Romney's part.
The odd thing about the tax returns is that it's not a new attack against Romney.

In 2004, George W. Bush attacked Kerry on his tax returns (as he/his wife were extremely wealthy). After resisting for a few days, Kerry decided to release 20 years worth of tax returns. And the issue went away.

There is only one reason NOT to release the returns... something there is damaging. So damaging that he'd rather take the heat from not releasing the returns to avoid it coming to light. My guess is that there are a lot of years he paid NO taxes, and he doesn't want that information out there when the debate over taxation of the wealthy comes up.
 
Nov 17, 2009
2,388
0
0
VeloCity said:
Obama starting to open up significant gaps in FL, PA, and OH.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/01/us/politics/polls-give-obama-edge-in-pennsylvania-ohio-and-florida.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper

FL: +6
PA: +11
OH: +6

Nearly impossible for Romney if he loses all three of those states.
While I'm not sure about how good a poll that is, there are a couple of points.

First... it's likely voters, not registered voters or all americans. That makes it more favorable for Obama as most of the time the likely voter polls tend to look better for Republicans.

Second, Obama is over 50% in those polls. The key thing with that is that if those polls were accurate, even if EVERY undecided voter went for Romney, Obama would still win those states.

There's a difference from being ahead 50-44 (like Obama is in Ohio) and 46-40.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rip:30 said:
OBAMACARE

First, we can see that this is a big tax, particularly on the poor. Most of the uninsured will end up paying at least $1,000. A single filer earning $25,000 will pay $695, which is 2.78 percent of his income. A family of four earning $25,000 will pay $2,085, which is 8.34 percent of their income. A family of four earning $20,000 (not shown) will also pay $2085, which is more than 10 percent of their income.
Second, higher income families generally pay a higher amount, but actually a smaller percent of their income, making this a regressive tax. While a family of four earning $20,000 will pay more than 10 percent of income, the same family earning $100,000 will pay about 2 percent of income.
The CBO in 2010 estimated that 3.9 million people would pay the tax in 2016, and the vast majority would be low- and middle-income households (76 percent would earn less than 500 percent of the federal poverty level, or about $120,000 for a family of four).[6] Recall that this was before the Supreme Court’s decision to allow states to opt out of Medicaid expansion, so depending on how states react, we can expect a larger number of low- and middle-income households to pay the tax. The American Action Forum estimates that if only six states choose to opt out of Medicaid expansion this would reduce Medicaid enrollees by about 4.4 million. Of those, 3.2 million would choose to purchase private insurance through exchanges, leaving 1.2 million who would potentially be subject to the tax, which is in addition to the 3.9 million estimated by the CBO
http://taxfoundation.org/article/taxing-uninsured-latest-estimates
 
Nov 17, 2009
2,388
0
0
First off... many of the income levels in question would get free medical care through medicaid. The only one in doubt is the single person without dependents. They WOULD have if states had been required to enact the medicaid changes, but as they won't be forced to do that they may fall into a hole not anticipated by the legislation if the state chooses not to make those changes.

Second, the dollars are the penalty for NOT having insurance. If people in the low income levels get insurance, nearly all of it will be covered by tax credits designed to help those on the low end of the income spectrum be able to get the insurance provided from the exchanges at hugely subsidized rates. So you'd have to almost TRY to pay the penalty/tax and avoid getting insurance at a lower income level.

And Third... technically it's not a tax. The Supreme Court said that it was valid under the taxation authority, but specifically it was NOT a tax but rather a penalty... because if it were a tax then they couldn't rule on it until it had been in effect.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
kurtinsc said:
First off... many of the income levels in question would get free medical care through medicaid. The only one in doubt is the single person without dependents. They WOULD have if states had been required to enact the medicaid changes, but as they won't be forced to do that they may fall into a hole not anticipated by the legislation if the state chooses not to make those changes.

Second, the dollars are the penalty for NOT having insurance. If people in the low income levels get insurance, nearly all of it will be covered by tax credits designed to help those on the low end of the income spectrum be able to get the insurance provided from the exchanges at hugely subsidized rates. So you'd have to almost TRY to pay the penalty/tax and avoid getting insurance at a lower income level.

And Third... technically it's not a tax. The Supreme Court said that it was valid under the taxation authority, but specifically it was NOT a tax but rather a penalty... because if it were a tax then they couldn't rule on it until it had been in effect.



Chief Justice Roberts wrote in his majority opinion that the Affordable Care Act’s mandate to purchase health insurance may “reasonably be characterized as a tax [and because] the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.”
Meanwhile, the Obama administration has long asserted that the mandate—the bill’s fulcrum, really—is necessary to ensure that other provisions of the law function smoothly. That is, supporters view the mandate as essential to market based reform; without it, they argue, many healthy people would remain without insurance coverage, premiums for individuals and employers would accelerate, and insurance markets could become unstable. When the uninsured who can afford premiums do become ill, unaffordable health care costs are often absorbed by the rest of the population.
Unfortunately, the penalty-tax that the individual mandate imposes will soon constitute one of the most regressive taxes in the United States. (The terms “penalty” and “tax” here are effectively fungible. Whatever the nomenclature, it’s the functional equivalent of a tax.) The penalty-tax structure authorized by this law inherently disadvantages low income earners who, in effect, pay proportionally more on fewer dollars. Taxes imposed here are uncannily akin to the regression rates of sales and social security taxes. Take a look at the scatter chart below:


http://www.nationofchange.org/obamacare-regressive-taxation-1341327776

"Progressive Journalism for Positive Action"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
MarieDGarzai Non-Cycling Discussions 2
Similar threads
The Politics of Sport

ASK THE COMMUNITY