Let the campaign begin!

I'm not going to paint whites with a broad brush and say if you're white and right-wing, you're probably not going to vote for Obama. It's just not that simple and I really do think people simple can't afford to just vote or not vote for this guy simply because he's different skin color than them. The problem that Obama is having with whites is that the same whites that voted for him 4 years ago along with a huge number of young voters(18-29) are now very skeptical and are actually thinking hard about if they're going to vote for him again. They're actually listening to what Romney has to say and that's not at all good for the President. So I agree a tad with Yuri in that race isn't playing as big a part in this as we think. Just ask Herman Cain or Allen West or Condi Rice who they will be voting for if you want validation of that.

However, we have to remember something. Despite his poor job approval numbers, Obama's likability has been consistently high and he remains to this day, an immensely popular president with all races. People love this guy personally, but it's his policies that he's been repeatedly skewered on.

Romney has taken advantage of this trend by boxing it up as "He's a great guy and he tried, but he failed and now it's time for him to step aside and let someone else have a go." I totally paraphrased that, but that's essentially the tact he's been trying and to be honest, that has resonated with white voters, mainly undecideds and independents, which is a bit worrying considering that Obama smashed McCain with the white vote 4 years ago.

I honestly don't know if he was misinterpreting Viva's post. I think he just misunderstood it honestly.

Also Yuri, there's now only 4 major swing states that the candidates will be focusing on: Ohio, Virginia, Iowa, Wisconsin.

Major Garrett (really don't like him btw) wrote a nice article that details the potential paths to 270 Electoral votes that both candidates can take, here's that part:

According to RealClearPolitics, Obama currently has 201 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win. But that doesn't give Obama electoral votes from Pennsylvania (20), Michigan (16), or Wisconsin (10). Of these three, Romney advisers believe that only one, Wisconsin, is even theoretically winnable. Obama advisers believe they will win all three. That would put Obama at 247 electoral votes. If Obama wins Ohio (18), Iowa (6), Nevada (6), and New Hampshire (4) he would claim 281 electoral votes. That means he could afford to lose New Hampshire and Nevada and still eke out a razor-thin victory of 271 electoral votes.
Romney, according to RCP, has 191 electoral votes. If you add Florida (29), North Carolina (15), and Virginia (13), that brings his total to 248 electoral votes. Add Colorado (9) --which neither campaign is prepared to claim or concede--and Romney's total rises to 257 electoral votes. If Romney wins Ohio (18) in addition to these states, he would have 275 electoral votes. If Romney loses Ohio, he would need to win Iowa, Nevada, and New Hampshire to reach 273 electoral votes. There is a scenario where Romney could lose Ohio and New Hampshire but win Iowa and Nevada and one electoral vote from the 2nd Congressional District in Maine (the state allocates electoral votes by district vote) and capture the bare minimum of 270 electoral votes.

Full article if anyone wants to read it - http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/what-s-next-in-the-obama-romney-duel-20121017

I still dont understand what he means to be honest, how is Obama losing his presidency because he is half black?

I mean unless many of his previous voters suddenly became racist, only scenario I can think of where O loses because of his race is if he moves to the conservative side and losses some liberal votes but cant get enough conservative votes because of Racist elements in that movement.

For me as a Libertarian who voted Obama I think I would vote for him again if he didnt initiate class warfare, repealed patriot act like he said he would, closed gitmo, reinstated habeas corpus fully, pressured states on prisons and drugs, more transparent government, less lobbyists or allowed more skilled workers into this country. These are all lbertarian goals which we agree with the democratic platform, so far i have seen none of this and ive seen liberals become much much more hostile to us (Just like certain posters).

The hate and one sidedness reminds me of 05-08, I dont like how democrats liberals and media personally hate on Romney just because he is successful and pragmatic. They shout at him that he hates the poor and is a liar when he donates +30% of his income to the poor and is honest about plans to cut government. These are my honest opinions and issues, Obama has not addressed any of them and he hasnt even talked about them on campaign wile liberals have become very arrogant and divisive. I feel this is just like GW Bush reelection, who shouldnt have had second term and wouldnt if it wasnt for the war.

That being said , its beyond obvious that Obama will win electoral vote while Romney will be equal or maybe even ahead on popular vote.

Class Warfare: The Mortal Enemy of Economic Growth and Jobs

Our economy is lousy, the labor force participation rate is the lowest in 31 years, we've had 43 consecutive months with unemployment over 8 percent, and a record 47 million people are on food stamps, so one might expect President Obama would welcome as much help as he could get. Surely he would want private sector job creators — investors and entrepreneurs — to have the strongest possible incentives for turning around this Obama "recovery" where household incomes are falling faster than they fell in the Bush recession.

But Obama's priority is class warfare. That's why he relentlessly denounces job creators as "millionaires and billionaires." That's why he demands that they be punished with higher tax rates.

Recently New York Senator Charles Schumer, one of Obama's comrades, vowed that there would be no bipartisan budget deal without higher taxes on the rich.


What is it that drives class warriors? "Fairness," of course, is the familiar battle cry, but according to the IRS the top 1 percent of taxpayers pay about 36 percent of federal income taxes. Before the financial meltdown when the rich were richer, the top 1 percent paid over 40 percent. By any standard, that's a lot — especially considering that as we have heard, 47 percent of taxpayers don't pay any income tax.

We need to understand that class warfare is a mortal enemy of economic growth and jobs. At the very least, class warfare means "progressive" taxation — higher tax rates on investors and entrepreneurs, eventually reaching confiscatory levels. In many places, class warfare has gone much farther with suffocating regulations, exchange controls, asset seizures, arbitrary imprisonment and other measures that suppress private property rights and throttle a market economy.

Confiscatory tax rates cannot be justified as revenue-generators, because they don't raise much money. They discourage work, they drive away investors and entrepreneurs to lower-tax jurisdictions, and there aren't enough rich people to keep the government going very long, even if all their assets were expropriated. If assets were expropriated this year, that would be a one-time event, and next year government would have no choice but to plunder the middle class and the poor.

Whatever tax revenue is realized means less money available for private employers to hire people and less money for consumers to buy things. This offsets any possible benefits from government spending — the theoretical "stimulus" effect is zero.

Actually, the economy suffers when money is taxed away from private individuals and spent by government. In part, this is because regardless how smart politicians and bureaucrats might be, they have only a miniscule fraction of the total knowledge in a society. Politicians and bureaucrats tend to have book learning that's related to academic credentials, whereas specific, practical knowledge needed to make an economy work is dispersed among multitudes of ordinary people. This includes knowledge about the best locations for a particular business, individuals most likely to be good employees, changing consumer preferences, the most suitable business models, technologies and so on.

Private individuals not only have such knowledge, they have stronger incentives than politicians or bureaucrats to use the knowledge effectively. It's well-known that people tend not to be as careful with other people's money as they are with their own money.

It's hard to argue, as class warriors do, that the rich have "too much," meaning compared to average pay or some other arbitrary standard. Pay is a matter of supply and demand. Many people can do good yard work, but it's tough to find individuals capable of turning around a troubled computer company — particularly when large amounts of money and large numbers of jobs are at stake.

In any event, employees aren't really paid by bosses. They're paid by consumers who voluntarily buy a company's goods or services among many possible choices available in the marketplace. Newspapers aren't able to pay as many people or pay as much money like they used to, because more consumers are reading news online for free.

Some people earn large amounts of money by taking risks that other people don't want. Commodities speculators assume the risk that prices of various commodities might go up or down. Insurance companies assume the risk that various adverse events might happen. If confiscatory taxation limits the gains needed to offset losses, fewer people will be willing to help others avoid risks.

Is it fair that some people get rich because they're lucky? No, but government didn't earn the money, either, and it's hard to think of any moral justification for seizing it. If government did seize the money, undoubtedly politicians and bureaucrats with the most clout would make sure it was spent to help enhance their power, and why would that be wonderful? When lawfully-acquired private property is secure, people have incentives to make the most of their luck, by investing some of the money which would make more equity capital available, by saving some of the money which would make more lending possible and/or by spending it which would mean more revenue for private businesses.

Quite apart from incentive effects, progressive taxation has contributed to hideous complexity in the tax code. This is because the higher tax rates go, the stronger the incentives various interest groups have to lobby for special treatment, and since politicians always need more campaign contributions, they're eager to oblige lobbyists. The more complex the tax code, the more arbitrary and capricious enforcement is sure to be. With high top rates, progressive taxation promotes an illusion of "fairness," while causing considerable unfairness.

Lindy L. Paull, who served as chief of staff for the Joint Committee on Taxation, reported: "The Internal Revenue Code consists of nearly 1.4 million words and includes 693 separate sections that impact individual taxpayers. The Treasury Department has issued some 20,000 pages of regulations containing over 8 million words. Individual taxpayers who file an annual Form 1040 must deal with its 79 lines, 144 pages of instructions and 11 schedules totaling 443 lines plus instructions to go with them. There are 19 separate worksheets imbedded in the Form 1040 instructions, and the possibility of filing numerous other forms, depending on the circumstances."

Despite these problems with class warfare, Obama has led America along the class warfare road. He has made it clear he'll try to escalate class warfare if he's elected for a second term.

Argentina's progressive president Christina Kirchner has gone farther and shows what we might expect. Several years ago, she seized private pensions supposedly to help cover government budget deficits. Government spending subsequently soared 40 percent! Frightened Argentines fled the country, carrying suitcases stuffed with cash. The government retaliated by organizing teams of dogs trained to sniff vehicles and luggage for the scent of flight capital.

Class warfare tends to intensify, because people don't like to be pushed around. If government threatens their property or their lives, they're likely to push back. Dedicated class warriors could be counted on to assert their power with more force. Class warfare attracts people who like to use force, which is why class warfare is associated with so many thugs.

During the French Revolution, the Jacobin class warrior Maximilien Robespierre believed in "equality of wealth," and he enforced confiscatory taxes with the guillotine.

Other much-admired class warriors like Lenin, Stalin and Mao were strong believers in executing class enemies.

During the Bolshevik Revolution, Lenin declared class war against wicked capitalists, seizing privately-owned land, banks, wholesale and retail businesses. He triggered a famine in which an estimated 5 million Russians starved to death. Lenin was famously reported to have remarked that "You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs."

Lenin's successor Stalin pursued class war against "kulaks" — supposedly rich peasants who might have had several cows. Kulaks were demonized as "bloodsuckers, vampires and profiteers." In 1929, Stalin ordered their property seized, and some 7 million people subsequently starved to death.

Mao denounced "capitalist-roaders," "counter-revolutionaries" and other class enemies. He promoted the "Great Leap Forward" in which as many as 45 million Chinese people were worked, starved or beaten to death between 1958 and 1962.

Where did all this class warfare come from?

According to tax historian E.R.A. Seligman, progressive taxation goes back to Athens during the sixth century B.C.E., but it disappeared in the Roman republic and empire. In some parts of Italy after about 1000 C.E., town populations embraced the idea of taxing people differently, but they persuaded assessors that poor people should pay higher rates than the rich.

The history of taxation abounds with struggles among interest groups, each of which has tried to push tax burdens on somebody else. For example, the Medici family that controlled Renaissance Florence manipulated progressive tax rates to ruin their rivals. As Seligman explained, "Individuals were frequently reduced to beggary, and forced sales of property to pay taxes were a common occurrence." Ruthless tax collectors provoked much political turmoil during the 1400s.

In 1795, the revolutionary French government (the Directorate) imposed a 100 percent tax on income above modest exemptions. Not surprisingly, people subject to the tax scrambled to transfer assets out of harm's way, and the tax yielded only about a fifth of what officials had anticipated. Martin-Michel-Charles Gaudin, the French finance minister at the time, observed that the 100 percent tax caused much resentment, but "no real revenue was to be expected."

The first U.S. income tax was enacted in 1862, during the Civil War, and there were two brackets (three percent of incomes from $600 to $10,000 and five percent for incomes above that). That tax ended in 1871. The Confederacy had a progressive income tax, too.

Progressive taxation didn't become widespread until after 1900. Self-styled "progressives" promoted higher tax rates for the rich. Ironically, though, peacetime progressive tax rates were very low by our standards. High — progressive — tax rates were mainly a consequence of war, notably World War I and World War II. During World War II, FDR issued an executive order that outlawed annual pay exceeding $25,000 (the equivalent of perhaps $200,000 today). High income tax rates persisted into the 1960s, because of the Cold War. Since then, progressives, who claim to love peace, have worked hard to revive high wartime rates. They opposed the Kennedy, Reagan and Bush across-the-board tax cuts of the 1960s, 1980s and 2000s respectively.

Progressive taxation has survived as a dogma that the rich should pay higher tax rates simply because they have more money. Like Obama, Schumer and so many others, today's defenders of class warfare don't feel they need to provide a moral, philosophical or economic justification for it. The case for class warfare boils down to nothing more than envy and resentment.

The last extended discussion about progressive taxation in the United States– on property, personal incomes, corporate incomes and inheritance — was more than a century ago. Farmers were having a hard time, because the number of farms quadrupled between 1850 and 1900, and total cultivated acreage nearly tripled to more than 840 million acres. Soaring food production generated downward pressure on prices for agricultural commodities, and farmers struggled to cut their costs. Farmers resented having to pay higher prices for imported goods, because of high tariffs that were the principal source of federal revenue. The farmers had a point.

Farmers in the South and West wanted an income tax from which they could be exempt, an income tax that would push the tax burden onto the rich who lived in the East. An income tax bill was introduced in nearly every session of Congress during the 1870s and 1880s. "Most of the agitation was by those active in the 'share-the-wealth' and 'soak-the-rich' campaigns," reported historians Roy G. Blakey and Gladys C. Blakey. Those income tax bills were buried by the Republican-controlled House Ways & Means Committee.

More and more people spoke out for a progressive income tax. Felix Adler, who founded the popular Ethical Culture movement, demanded an income tax with rates up to 100 percent. A publication called The Progressive Taxpayer urged higher tax rates on the rich to "maintain among men a certain real equality." Joseph Pulitzer, the New York newspaper publisher, beat the drums for special taxes on high incomes, luxuries and inheritances.

The main political opponents of the income tax were Republicans who defended high tariffs, but there were principled opponents without conflicting interests, too. Economist David A. Wells, who had previously supported an income tax, became a critic. He called graduated rates the beginning of "unmasked confiscation." Tax historian Randolph Paul pointed out that many Democratic newspapers like the New York Times, Brooklyn Eagle and Boston Globe opposed an income tax because it could authorize inquisitorial power to pry into people's private lives.The higher the rates and the more aggressively an income tax was enforced, the more it would promote evasion and capital flight. The Milwaukee Journal warned about "a tax of tyrants." Such critics had a point.

Paradoxically, in 1894, an income tax bill was passed as an amendment to the Wilson-Gorman tariff bill. President Grover Cleveland, a low-tax, free trade Democrat, didn't want an income tax or high tariffs. He refused to sign the final bill, but Congress had enough votes to make it law. The income tax provision was subsequently overturned by the Supreme Court.

As it turned out, most of the arguments offered on behalf of progressive taxation were satisfied by proportional taxation where everybody pays the same rates — in modern lingo, a flat tax. The same rate applied to a higher income yields more tax revenue.

The traditional justification for proportional rates is the idea that people should pay for the most fundamental benefit of government — namely, national defense. The more property people own, the greater their presumed benefit, and the more they should pay. To be sure, governments often start wars and imperil their citizens. Many governments also become tyrannical and seize their citizens' property or worse. There's no precise formula in the taxing business.

Ultimately, the progressive income tax became law, in 1913, because about 98 percent of the people were exempted, and perhaps they anticipated sharing some of the loot. It's not hard to see why that was a formula for legislative success.

But Milton Friedman warned people to "always look a gift horse in the mouth." The presumed "fairness" of our progressive income tax was illusory, even after President Franklin Delano Roosevelt hiked income tax rates during the Great Depression. FDR's New Deal programs, intended to help the middle class and the poor, were funded mainly by the middle class and the poor, because the biggest source of federal revenue during the 1930s was the federal excise tax. It applied to beer, cigarettes, soda, chewing gum and other cheap pleasures enjoyed disproportionately by the middle class and the poor. Under FDR, depression era excise taxes more than doubled. Until 1936, the federal excise tax generated more revenue than the federal personal income tax and the federal corporate income tax combined.

During World War II, the federal income tax became a people's tax. Millions of previously-exempt citizens had to pay it. In 1942, for instance, the IRS received some 28 million tax returns — 1,300 percent more than a decade earlier.

While progressive taxation can make the rich poorer, it makes the poor poorer, too. If the aim is to foster economic growth and jobs, then one needs to forget about class warfare.

Economists in the French Enlightenment (like Jacques Turgot) and the Scottish Enlightenment (like Adam Smith) recognized that essential human institutions such as language, culture, legal customs, mutual aid societies and markets develop spontaneously when governments get out of the way. In The Wealth of Nations, for instance, Smith, who supported proportional taxation, observed that "Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice."

Yuri Yukuv wrote:I still dont understand what he means to be honest, how is Obama losing his presidency because he is half black?

I mean unless many of his previous voters suddenly became racist, only scenario I can think of where O loses because of his race is if he moves to the conservative side and losses some liberal votes but cant get enough conservative votes because of Racist elements in that movement.

For me as a Libertarian who voted Obama I think I would vote for him again if he didnt initiate class warfare, repealed patriot act like he said he would, closed gitmo, reinstated habeas corpus fully, pressured states on prisons and drugs, more transparent government, less lobbyists or allowed more skilled workers into this country. These are all lbertarian goals which we agree with the democratic platform, so far i have seen none of this and ive seen liberals become much much more hostile to us (Just like certain posters).

The hate and one sidedness reminds me of 05-08, I dont like how democrats liberals and media personally hate on Romney just because he is successful and pragmatic. They shout at him that he hates the poor and is a liar when he donates +30% of his income to the poor and is honest about plans to cut government. These are my honest opinions and issues, Obama has not addressed any of them and he hasnt even talked about them on campaign wile liberals have become very arrogant and divisive. I feel this is just like GW Bush reelection, who shouldnt have had second term and wouldnt if it wasnt for the war.

That being said , its beyond obvious that Obama will win electoral vote while Romney will be equal or maybe even ahead on popular vote.

He's not losing the election due to his race. I honestly don't believe that though his approval rating with the black communities has dropped a bit as they feel he has not done enough for them. He's still immensely popular among hispanics as well. If Obama loses this race (and it is his to lose right now), it'll be because he failed to convince this country that he still has the will and the ability to continue the reforms he started in his first term. He would've failed in his task to paint Romney as a plutocratic 1%er, a task that Romney has helped perpetuate with his ridiculous remarks about the poor and the middle class. So yeah, if Obama loses this race, it will be not because of his ethnicity, but because he failed to sway the voters that his policies are better for us than his opponents. Nothing more, nothing less.

The hate and one sidedness reminds me of 05-08, I dont like how democrats liberals and media personally hate on Romney just because he is successful and pragmatic. They shout at him that he hates the poor and is a liar when he donates +30% of his income to the poor and is honest about plans to cut government. These are my honest opinions and issues, Obama has not addressed any of them and he hasnt even talked about them on campaign wile liberals have become very arrogant and divisive. I feel this is just like GW Bush reelection, who shouldnt have had second term and wouldnt if it wasnt for the war.

Incredibly partisan, Yuri. You sounded more like a conservative than a libertarian. You're going on as if the conservative media doesn't do the exact damn thing that you're accusing the liberal media of doing. Why is it so hard to see that these are 2 sides of the same coin? They mirror each other on everything and yet both sides are completely oblivious to this or at least they pretend to me. It's utterly bemusing and frankly laughable that this simple truth continues to elude both liberals and conservatives.

I will say this though. I personally do not like Romney and I did not like Bush. Both have that same snarky, aloof "I'm better than you and there's nothing you can do about it." demeanor about them. I saw a clip of Ann Romney on the View today getting grilled by Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar and she had absolutely no answer for anything they asked her. And these were frakking women's issues ffs. She is supposed to be the Romney Campaign's representative for women and yet she just smiled and deflected. That woman is as close to a contemporary Marie Antoinette as we are likely ever to see. She doesn't give a shit about what women go through in this country and you can see on her face every time her husband decides to throw her in front of the camera. Why would a woman want to vote for such a candidate who's wife acts like that?

Yuri Yukuv wrote:But Obama's priority is class warfare.

Stopped reading there. Thats garbage.

Right up there with Herman Cain's gem: "The objective of the Liberals is to destroy America" ...F*cking Idiotic.

Well you have to remember, that the directive of the right is to muddy the terms they use, they can't even tell you what "class warfare" is, they've made the term so broad, it doesn't mean anything anymore. Every single policy that (re)distributes funds is class warfare, basically.

Food stamps? Class warfare. Medicaid? Class warfare. Veteran's hospitals? Class warfare. The army? Class warfare. Health care? Class warfare.

Anything not outlined by an Ayn Rand novel basically is.

McLewis wrote:

Incredibly partisan, Yuri. You sounded more like a conservative than a libertarian. You're going on as if the conservative media doesn't do the exact damn thing that you're accusing the liberal media of doing. Why is it so hard to see that these are 2 sides of the same coin? They mirror each other on everything and yet both sides are completely oblivious to this or at least they pretend to me. It's utterly bemusing and frankly laughable that this simple truth continues to elude both liberals and conservatives.

I will say this though. I personally do not like Romney and I did not like Bush. Both have that same snarky, aloof "I'm better than you and there's nothing you can do about it." demeanor about them. I saw a clip of Ann Romney on the View today getting grilled by Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar and she had absolutely no answer for anything they asked her. And these were frakking women's issues ffs. She is supposed to be the Romney Campaign's representative for women and yet she just smiled and deflected. That woman is as close to a contemporary Marie Antoinette as we are likely ever to see. She doesn't give a shit about what women go through in this country and you can see on her face every time her husband decides to throw her in front of the camera. Why would a woman want to vote for such a candidate who's wife acts like that?

Thats the thing Im not mentioning the liberal media vs the conservative media ie MSNBC vs Fox or NYT vs WSJ. Im talking about media in general, CNN and the likes which are supposed to be neutral. They are obviously pro-status quo just like they were in middle of bush years, this was dangerous then and is dangerous now.

VivaStPauli wrote:Well you have to remember, that the directive of the right is to muddy the terms they use, they can't even tell you what "class warfare" is, they've made the term so broad, it doesn't mean anything anymore. Every single policy that (re)distributes funds is class warfare, basically.

Food stamps? Class warfare. Medicaid? Class warfare. Veteran's hospitals? Class warfare. The army? Class warfare. Health care? Class warfare.

Anything not outlined by an Ayn Rand novel basically is.

Its outlined roughly in the article, its when there is use of force to confiscate property from the wealthy for alleged moral reasons (although there is no logical real reasoning for it) usually for fairness as opposed to there actually being economic benefits.

This has been used alot to scapegoat certain people and for political gain.

Obama's Advisers Favor Romney's Tax Reform

President Obama and the press keep saying Governor Romney's goal of revenue-neutral tax reform is vague on specifics and arithmetically impossible, citing a flawed study from the Tax Policy Center that has been debunked by several economists, including Harvey Rosen of Princeton University.

Here is what the director of the Tax Policy Center, Donald Marron, had to say about a tax reform proposal that is nearly identical to Romney's:

President Obama's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform and the Bipartisan Policy Center's Debt Reduction Task Force (on which I served) both endorsed this strategy [of lower marginal tax rates on a broader base] in their recent deficit reduction proposals. The fiscal commission's "Illustrative Tax Plan" would scale back and redesign many of the largest tax preferences (e.g., mortgage interest, employer health insurance, and retirement saving), eliminate many others (e.g., state and local interest), and use the resulting revenue to Romney's:

*

Cut individual tax rates, bringing today's six brackets (10, 15, 25, 28, 33, and 35 percent) down to three (12, 22, and 28 percent);
*

Repeal the alternative minimum tax (AMT), the personal exemption phase-out (PEP), and the phase-out of itemized deductions (Pease);
*

Cut the corporate income tax rate from 35 to 28 percent

How does that tax plan compare with Romney's? Romney would:

*

Cut individual tax rates, bringing today's six brackets (10, 15, 25, 28, 33, and 35 percent) down to 8, 12, 20, 22, 26, and 28 percent;
*

Repeal the alternative minimum tax (AMT), the personal-exemption phase-out (PEP), and the phase-out of itemized deductions (Pease);
*

Cut the corporate income-tax rate from 35 to 25 percent.

When it comes to tax policy, the main difference between Romney's and Obama's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform and Bipartisan Policy Center's Debt Reduction Task Force advisers is that Romney proposes 1) a slightly lower corporate tax rate, and 2) a much lower bottom rate of 8 percent rather than 12 percent. (The fact that there would be six rates rather than three is insignificant.)

Like most other news sources, The Economist (October 6) claims, "Mr. Romney has not specified which loopholes he would close." On the contrary, Romney has been quite specific that he would prefer a firm dollar cap on total deductions. This is a much tougher plan than the president's commission proposed, which cuts or caps some deductions but allows taxpayers to game the others. Romney's plan is even tougher than a proposal from economist Martin Feldstein, which would limit deductions as a percentage of adjusted gross income (AGI). Romney instead proposes a very tight lid on the total of itemized deductions — during the first presidential debate, he suggested a cap no higher than $25,000 to $50,000.

Unlike the Obama plan, the Romney plan would collect huge revenues from many "millionaires and billionaires" such as Warren Buffet and Mitt Romney, who would be unaffected by higher tax rates on salaries but unable to follow their usual practice of deducting millions in charitable donations every year. Charitable donations have long been a nearly constant share of GDP regardless of tax rates, so the surest way to increase charitable donations is to increase GDP.

Aside from the fact that Romney has a stronger, less selective plan for limiting deductions, another key difference is that the President's National Commission and Tax Force proposes a flatter, less progressive structure for individual income-tax rates. Because everyone who pays income tax gets the lowest rate on the first few thousand dollars of income, setting the lowest rate to 12 percent would indeed raise more revenues than an 8 to10 percent rate would (which is also why the 1986 Tax Reform has a minimum tax rate of 15 percent). That modest increase in the lowest tax rate is why the President's National Commission and Tax Force can plausibly claim that their plan would raise more revenue than current law — or, as Marron puts it, "reduce the deficit by $80 billion in 2015 and more in later years." Romney's plan, on the other hand, just aspires to be revenue-neutral in a static sense (ignoring faster economic growth and reduced tax avoidance), but such minor details are properly left to Congress.

In marked contrast with the two groups of experts President Obama appointed to advise him on such matters (including Mr. Marron), the president proposes to do almost the exact opposite of what they advised. Obama would:

*

Raise the top two individual tax rates (including Obamacare taxes) to 39.8 and 43.4 percent, and raise top tax rates on dividends and capital gains to at least 30 percent (the Buffet Rule);
*

Retain the alternative minimum tax (AMT) and bring back rather than repeal the personal-exemption phase-out (PEP) and the phase-out of itemized deductions (Pease);
*

Consider cutting the corporate income-tax rate by an unspecified amount only in exchange for eliminating alleged, inexplicable deductions "for moving a plant overseas."

Nobody who has taken a serious look at designing a more efficient tax policy has ever suggested, as the president does, that we should trade fewer deductions for much higher tax rates on the rewards for investment, education, and entrepreneurship. When it comes to tax policy, some of the president's wisest critics include his own National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform and his Bipartisan Policy Center's Debt Reduction Task Force.

Yuri Yukuv wrote:[Romney would]Cut individual tax rates, bringing today's six brackets (10, 15, 25, 28, 33, and 35 percent) down to 8, 12, 20, 22, 26, and 28 percent

Thats nice, except that its totally false, thats not in Romneys tax plan at all. His tax plan is for a 20% marginal rate cut ACROSS THE BOARD.

Yuri Yukuv wrote:Like most other news sources, The Economist (October 6) claims, "Mr. Romney has not specified which loopholes he would close." On the contrary, Romney has been quite specific that he would prefer a firm dollar cap on total deductions. Romney instead proposes a very tight lid on the total of itemized deductions — during the first presidential debate, he suggested a cap no higher than $25,000 to $50,000.

Okay, capping itemized deductions at 25k will only generate 1.3 trillion in revenue over 10 years....Thats not even half of the $5 Trillion that his plan costs.

Yuri Yukuv wrote:Obama would: Raise the top two individual tax rates (including Obamacare taxes) to 39.8 and 43.4 percent

Untrue. Obama would let the Bush tax cuts expire, which would raise the top two rates to 36% and 39.6% And he would also implement a minimum 30% tax on anyone making more than $1 million per year.

Yuri Yukuv wrote:and raise top tax rates on dividends and capital gains to at least 30 percent

Untrue. The Obama plan would increase maximum capital gains rate to 23.6% ONLY for those earning more than $200,000 ($250,000 for married couples)

Yuri Yukuv wrote:Consider cutting the corporate income-tax rate by an unspecified amount

Untrue. The amount is specified. The new rates would be 25% for manufacturers, 28% for other corporations.

Yuri Yukuv wrote:only in exchange for eliminating alleged, inexplicable deductions "for moving a plant overseas."

Disgraceful. The deductions are not "alleged" or "inexplicable." Anyone who has taken the most basic of tax courses knows that the tax code allows companies to deduct business expenses when calculating their tax liability, INCLUDING the moving of a job to another state or even to another country.




Same old lies.

Yuri Yukuv wrote:

McLewis wrote:

Incredibly partisan, Yuri. You sounded more like a conservative than a libertarian. You're going on as if the conservative media doesn't do the exact damn thing that you're accusing the liberal media of doing. Why is it so hard to see that these are 2 sides of the same coin? They mirror each other on everything and yet both sides are completely oblivious to this or at least they pretend to me. It's utterly bemusing and frankly laughable that this simple truth continues to elude both liberals and conservatives.

I will say this though. I personally do not like Romney and I did not like Bush. Both have that same snarky, aloof "I'm better than you and there's nothing you can do about it." demeanor about them. I saw a clip of Ann Romney on the View today getting grilled by Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar and she had absolutely no answer for anything they asked her. And these were frakking women's issues ffs. She is supposed to be the Romney Campaign's representative for women and yet she just smiled and deflected. That woman is as close to a contemporary Marie Antoinette as we are likely ever to see. She doesn't give a shit about what women go through in this country and you can see on her face every time her husband decides to throw her in front of the camera. Why would a woman want to vote for such a candidate who's wife acts like that?

Thats the thing Im not mentioning the liberal media vs the conservative media ie MSNBC vs Fox or NYT vs WSJ. Im talking about media in general, CNN and the likes which are supposed to be neutral. They are obviously pro-status quo just like they were in middle of bush years, this was dangerous then and is dangerous now.

The difference between the liberal media's hatred of Pres. Bush and the conservative media's hatred of Pres. Obama is that unlike Obama, the population at large despised Bush and his entire administration. Dick Cheney is still one of the most hated men of the last 2 decades I'd say. Karl Rove isn't far behind him either. Can we honestly say the same of Joe Biden and David Axelrod?

Swanhends wrote:

Thats nice, except that its totally false, thats not in Romneys tax plan at all. His tax plan is for a 20% marginal rate cut ACROSS THE BOARD.

Those are 20% reductions, what do you get when you multiply 35*80%? 28%

Swanhends wrote:
Okay, capping itemized deductions at 25k will only generate 1.3 trillion in revenue over 10 years....Thats not even half of the $5 Trillion that his plan costs.

These are on everything including charitable deductions, which means ppl like romney and buffet cant donate to cultural charities like their churches instead of the state. This is a big deal, something that will change our country and I am completely behind it.

Swanhends wrote: Untrue. Obama would let the Bush tax cuts expire, which would raise the top two rates to 36% and 39.6% And he would also implement a minimum 30% tax on anyone making more than $1 million per year.

You are not including medicare and payroll, plus its 30% on any year.

Swanhends wrote:
Untrue. The Obama plan would increase maximum capital gains rate to 23.6% ONLY for those earning more than $200,000 ($250,000 for married couples)

If the proceeds of your sale in a certain year plus other income is over a milion dollars ten you have to pay atleast thirty. A very sizable amount of capital gains is over a million, this move will severely restrict capital movement.

Swanhends wrote:
Untrue. The amount is specified. The new rates would be 25% for manufacturers, 28% for other corporations.

On this I disagree with author, Obama plan will actually raise effective tax rates on corporations.

Swanhends wrote:

Disgraceful. The deductions are not "alleged" or "inexplicable." Anyone who has taken the most basic of tax courses knows that the tax code allows companies to deduct business expenses when calculating their tax liability, INCLUDING the moving of a job to another state or even to another country.




Same old lies.

Thats not really a deduction like O has exclaimed it was specially tailored for moving manufacturing over seas, its a regular business expense that is capitalized. O is increasing regulation, capital gains taxes and decreasing competitiveness. The solution is not trying to influence capital movement but increasing competitiveness.

McLewis wrote:
The difference between the liberal media's hatred of Pres. Bush and the conservative media's hatred of Pres. Obama is that unlike Obama, the population at large despised Bush and his entire administration. Dick Cheney is still one of the most hated men of the last 2 decades I'd say. Karl Rove isn't far behind him either. Can we honestly say the same of Joe Biden and David Axelrod?

For me neoconservatives are just as bad as far left, I consider them two sides of the populist statist coin. My point is not about the polar media but about the middle of spectrum or "neutral" channel, do you remember how little criticism bush received from "neutral" media? I feel same is happening with Obama. The job of the press should be to question authority, I feel this is not happening. I also feel that just like ppl didnt criticize bush because of the wars and he was a "regular american" we are seeing same with obama because of recession and that he is a "likeable guy"

This is what makes me proud of the USA

Yuri Yukuv wrote:

Swanhends wrote:

Thats nice, except that its totally false, thats not in Romneys tax plan at all. His tax plan is for a 20% marginal rate cut ACROSS THE BOARD.

Those are 20% reductions, what do you get when you multiply 35*80%? 28%

I stand corrected here, I misunderstood how his marginal rate cut would take effect, apologies.

Yuri Yukuv wrote:

Swanhends wrote:
Okay, capping itemized deductions at 25k will only generate 1.3 trillion in revenue over 10 years....Thats not even half of the $5 Trillion that his plan costs.

These are on everything including charitable deductions, which means ppl like romney and buffet cant donate to cultural charities like their churches instead of the state. This is a big deal, something that will change our country and I am completely behind it.

Charitable deductions require you to itemize your deductions...So the Tax Policy Centers study would've already taken that into account when they examined the amount of revenue capping itemized deductions would generate.

Yuri Yukuv wrote:

Swanhends wrote: Untrue. Obama would let the Bush tax cuts expire, which would raise the top two rates to 36% and 39.6% And he would also implement a minimum 30% tax on anyone making more than $1 million per year.

You are not including medicare and payroll, plus its 30% on any year.

Why would you include payroll taxes when talking about the income tax rate?.....unless you were trying to spin the information to your favor

Yuri Yukuv wrote:

Swanhends wrote:
Untrue. The Obama plan would increase maximum capital gains rate to 23.6% ONLY for those earning more than $200,000 ($250,000 for married couples)

If the proceeds of your sale in a certain year plus other income is over a milion dollars ten you have to pay atleast thirty. A very sizable amount of capital gains is over a million, this move will severely restrict capital movement.

Well yes, that falls under the "Minimum 30% tax on anyone making over $1 million" that I mentioned. Secondly, though this is a matter of opinion...with the amount of flash/high speed trading and panic movements we see in today's markets restricting capital movements slightly is hardly a bad thing in my book.

Yuri Yukuv wrote:

Swanhends wrote:
Untrue. The amount is specified. The new rates would be 25% for manufacturers, 28% for other corporations.

On this I disagree with author, Obama plan will actually raise effective tax rates on corporations.

Raise them? Pretty much all major corporations, though their stated tax rate is 35%, all pay a lower effective rate than that, so how would lowering their stated tax rate by 7% or 10% increase their effective rate? That doesnt make sense

Yuri Yukuv wrote:

Swanhends wrote:

Disgraceful. The deductions are not "alleged" or "inexplicable." Anyone who has taken the most basic of tax courses knows that the tax code allows companies to deduct business expenses when calculating their tax liability, INCLUDING the moving of a job to another state or even to another country.

Same old lies.

Thats not really a deduction like O has exclaimed it was specially tailored for moving manufacturing over seas, its a regular business expense that is capitalized. O is increasing regulation, capital gains taxes and decreasing competitiveness. The solution is not trying to influence capital movement but increasing competitiveness.

There is no "specific" deduction for moving a plant overseas, but businesses can (and do) claim deductions for moving expenses related to moving a job overseas. That is a fact. Claiming that there is no "specific" deduction is a weak attempt at spin.



Also I did quite enjoy the smith dinner, both politicians were genuinely very funny, which is nice to see. Generally when politicians try to be funny it fails spectacularly, so that was good.

Yuri Yukuv wrote:

McLewis wrote:
The difference between the liberal media's hatred of Pres. Bush and the conservative media's hatred of Pres. Obama is that unlike Obama, the population at large despised Bush and his entire administration. Dick Cheney is still one of the most hated men of the last 2 decades I'd say. Karl Rove isn't far behind him either. Can we honestly say the same of Joe Biden and David Axelrod?

For me neoconservatives are just as bad as far left, I consider them two sides of the populist statist coin. My point is not about the polar media but about the middle of spectrum or "neutral" channel, do you remember how little criticism bush received from "neutral" media? I feel same is happening with Obama. The job of the press should be to question authority, I feel this is not happening. I also feel that just like ppl didnt criticize bush because of the wars and he was a "regular american" we are seeing same with obama because of recession and that he is a "likeable guy"

As cynical as this sounds, I'm of the mind that there is no longer such a thing as a neutral or "non-partisan" media entity. It's become THAT polarized. We have some pretenders like CNN, ABC and PBS, but if you dig into them, you'll eventually hit on something that will lean them left or right.

So if you're looking for a truly independent news source, I do not believe one can be found in this day and age. Not in this country anyway. What I've found is that foreign media such as BBC tends to be as non-partisan as you can hope for.

Ill reply without quoting because its easier

1) You already replied

2) Not everything Tax Policy Centers is right, I am hugely behind capping itemized deductions not just for tax reasons but it also because it warps capital allocation especially in charities and mortgage interest.

3) Im including payroll/medicare because Obamacare funds itself through that and its higher percent on high earners. There is a difference in them so its included.

4) Capital restriction has never been good. Around 45% percent of capital gains taxes happen at highest bracke, why? Because when you go for IPO or private placement of you busness or even sell a real asset (RE and Gold are included IIRC) its usually over USD 1 MM gain so even though you might not be making 1 million yearly rather 200,000 and I have a capital gain of 800,000 I will pay 30%. Lets be honest a big part of capital gains is inflation tax which the government and banks are behind anyways. About HFT and such its not really a tax issue but an issue SEC should really look into.

5) It would increase effective tax rates through removing deductions

6) We both agree on this , Im just saying that O misrepresents it as there being a special deduction. Ill be very interested in seeing how this will be implemented, will software to help telecom of foreign subsidiaries be considered exempt or not? How about Nafta? Will more and more US companies do it the apple way, IE contract manufacturing to an asian company instead of building it themselves?

Yuri Yukuv wrote:Ill reply without quoting because its easier

2) Not everything Tax Policy Centers is right, I am hugely behind capping itemized deductions not just for tax reasons but it also because it warps capital allocation especially in charities and mortgage interest.

I think capping itemized deductions is a good idea as well, but thats not my point. My point is that its not going to raise nearly enough revenue to pay for the $5 trillion that his tax plan costs....And again, this is before we even get to dealing with the debt we already have...

http://www.buzzfeed.com/networkdeskpeon/its-arrested-decision-2012-53wv

Not directly related to the campaign but I think its relevant

Watching the debate now the only thing I think about when Romney speaks is "this is a guy that will say anything to get elected, who knows what he will actually be for once he's in power?"

I think tonight's debate was quite balanced. No clear winner as opposed to the first 2 debates.

I nodded through Romney's thoughts about Pakistan.

Tonight looked mostly like Obama being on the aggressive, and Romney just...agreeing with pretty much everything Obama did in regards to foreign policy

Except when Obama met with foreign leaders in their countries... Romney's dead-set against that type of weak, apologetic practice.

Disappointing debates, no questions about war on drugs, prisons, powers of police, POTUS killing US citizens without trial or the patriot act. What a shame.

Obama "I didn't go to Israel to find political donors and hold fundraisers"

#saveusobama #obama4president