Let the campaign begin!

Mitt Romney flipped-flopped 4 times when asked if he'd completely repeal the ACA or if he would keep some of it, including the bit about pre-existing conditions. That's gotta be a record

That's the Mitt Romney I was waiting to see. Paul Ryan joined right in on the flip-flopping and got roasted by anchors on multiple news networks, with his interview with CBS being the worst of the bunch. Romney has also lost 5 points in the polls to Obama. It's also said that the Romney campaign fear losing Ohio and have been campaigning there furiously. Disastrous day for Romney/Ryan.

-----------------

Conversely, the weekend as well as today couldn't have gone better for Obama, who is enjoying a 6 point bump in the polls after the convention. He also out-fundraised Romney for the first time in the election. He nailed Romney repeatedly on his campaign's refusal to pick a stance on healthcare as well as reveal details as to what he's going to cut in the national budget.

Obama can do very little wrong at the moment, despite the poor jobs numbers that came out last Friday. The fact that he's now leading Romney outright after such a bad report says wonders about Romney's failure to win over voters.

McLewis wrote:Mitt Romney flipped-flopped 4 times when asked if he'd completely repair the ACA or if he would keep some of it, including the bit about pre-existing conditions. That's gotta be a record

That's the Mitt Romney I was waiting to see. Paul Ryan joined right in on the flip-flopping and got roasted by anchors on multiple news networks, with his interview with CBS being the worst of the bunch. Romney has also lost 5 points in the polls to Obama. It's also said that the Romney campaign fear losing Ohio and have been campaigning there furiously. Disastrous day for Romney/Ryan.

-----------------

Conversely, the weekend as well as today couldn't have gone better for Obama, who is enjoying a 6 point bump in the polls after the convention. He also out-fundraised Romney for the first time in the election. He nailed Romney repeatedly on his campaign's refusal to pick a stance on healthcare as well as reveal details as to what he's going to cut in the national budget.

Obama can do very little wrong at the moment, despite the poor jobs numbers that came out last Friday. The fact that he's now leading Romney outright after such a bad report says wonders about Romney's failure to win over voters.

Romney has never been against healthcare reform he just always said that he would repeal Obamacare and replace it with his own plan. Seeing that Obama's plan was based on Romney's Mass state plan then they wouldnt be too far apart on the outside but probably very different on the inside workings. Problem is that most people think that Romney's Plan = GOP Plan. Romney is a new england country club republican however must still paint him as George W Bush for some reason.



Ryan's interview with Norah O'Donnell was horrific, I dont understand what has happened to the campaign. They are obviously falling apart...fast, bill clinton didnt help. Romney needs to go into specifics, problem is most constitutions dont want any spending cuts and they like their tax exclusions, although the economy and the deficit are the two most important issues today nobody wants to do anything about it.

I still think its a toss up however, polls mean nothing this far our. The debates this October 3rd will be very important, Im expecting them to be the most watched in history as well as the deciding factor of the election (unless we get a financial meltdown or act of god).

Wow I just realized at a meeting today that Obama is in fact planning to cut corporate tax rates to 25% for manufacturers same rate as romney. Why hasnt this been talked about more by democrats? This should be same rate as the UK

Maybe Obama and Turbo Tax Geithner are getting it after all, huge amount of points have been added in my book

The Obama administration on Wednesday unveiled its corporate tax reform plan, calling for lowering the corporate rate from 35 to 28 percent while closing loopholes elsewhere.

Officials billed the proposed changes as a way to make America more attractive to businesses while also raising revenue for the government

"It's a framework that lowers the corporate tax rate and broadens the tax base in order to increase competitiveness for companies across the nation," Obama said in a written statement. He added: "This reform is fully paid for, and it won't add a dime to the deficit."

Officials have said the reforms would actually raise money, despite the decrease in the rate, by making changes to provisions which Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner called "fundamentally unfair." The plan aims to raise $250 billion over 10 years.

Manufacturers would receive incentives so that their effective tax rate would be 25 percent. But corporations with overseas operations would also face a minimum tax on their foreign earnings, while taxes on oil and gas companies would reportedly see their taxes go up while losing many large deductions and subsidies.

Geithner, who unveiled the details publicly on Wednesday, said the current code is bad for business, claiming the overhaul would make the system more globally competitive.

"Our tax system should not give companies an incentive to locate production overseas or engage in accounting games to shift profits abroad, eroding the U.S. tax base. Introducing the principle of a minimum tax on foreign earnings would help address these problems and discourage a global race to the bottom in tax rates," reads an outline provided by a senior administration official.

The outline says the manufacturing deduction -- emphasizing clean energy research and development -- would reduce the effective rate on manufacturing to no more than 25 percent.

Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, applauded the president for his overall goal of lowering rates and closing loopholes. However, he said the "corporate-only" plan "fails to address the need for comprehensive reform of our tax code." Urging the president to "keep going," he said the administration would find a "ready and willing partner" in House Republicans when it comes to pro-growth tax reform.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee, made clear Wednesday he was not impressed. He complained that the new plan lacked detail.

"I'd hoped the White House would recognize the severity of the problem with a real plan and real leadership. But, after months of promises, we instead got a set of bullet points designed more for the campaign trail than an actual blueprint for fixing our tax code," Hatch said in a statement. "The devil's in the details when it comes to reforming our tax system -- details that are sorely missing in what was released today. Unfortunately, this so-called framework is murky, ill-defined and contradictory to the goal of reducing complexity and making our tax code more efficient."

Despite Hatch's concerns, the announcement Wednesday at the Treasury Department was meant to fill in details of the tax reform outline Obama gave during his State of the Union address.

The president said at the time he wants to lower the overall corporate tax rate "for the first time in 25 years." The U.S. corporate rate of 35 percent is one of the highest in the world.

The White House is calling for more "fairness" and "simplicity" in the system, and in a bid to move companies back to the U.S., it would seek a minimum tax on global profits. Currently, many corporations do not invest overseas profits in the United States to avoid the 35 percent tax rate.

Geithner told a House committee last week that the administration wants to create more incentives for corporations to invest in the United States. While the rate itself may be among the highest in the world. Geithner argued that the effective rate is much lower because of all the loopholes in the system.

"We want to bring down the rate, and we think we can, to a level that's closer to the average of that of our major competitors," Geithner told the House Ways and Means Committee.

During his State of the Union address, Obama pitched the tax reform as a way to "knock down barriers that stand in the way" of economic success.


He described the tax code as the product of a "parade of lobbyists" rigging the system.

"Those with accountants or lawyers to work the system can end up paying no taxes at all. But all the rest are hit with one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. It makes no sense, and it has to change," Obama said in January. He urged Congress to "simplify" the system, get rid of loopholes and use the savings to lower the corporate rate.

Many members of both parties have said they favor overhauling the nation's individual and corporate tax systems, which they complain have rates that are too high and are riddled with too many deductions.

The corporate tax debate has also become an element of presidential politics. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has called for a 25 percent rate while former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has said he would cut the corporate tax rate to 12.5 percent, and Rick Santorum called for exempting domestic manufacturers from the corporate tax and halve the top rate for other businesses.

As an Australian, I seriously worry for the World if the Republicans get back in power. Especially Romney.

SECRET VIDEO: Romney Tells Millionaire Donors What He REALLY Thinks of Obama Voters

During a private fundraiser earlier this year, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told a small group of wealthy contributors what he truly thinks of all the voters who support President Barack Obama. He dismissed these Americans as freeloaders who pay no taxes, who don't assume responsibility for their lives, and who think government should take care of them. Fielding a question from a donor about how he could triumph in November, Romney replied:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.

Romney went on: "[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

Mother Jones has obtained video of Romney at this intimate fundraiser—where he candidly discussed his campaign strategy and foreign policy ideas in stark terms he does not use in public—and has confirmed its authenticity. To protect the confidential source who provided the video, we have blurred some of the image, and we will not identify the date or location of the event, which occurred after Romney had clinched the Republican presidential nomination. [UPDATE: We can now report that this fundraiser was held at the Boca Raton home of controversial private equity manager Marc Leder on May 17 and we've removed the blurring from the video. See the original blurred videos here.]

Here is Romney expressing his disdain for Americans who back the president:



At the dinner, Romney often stuck to familiar talking points. But there were moments when he went beyond the familiar campaign lines. Describing his family background, he quipped about his father, "Had he been born of Mexican parents, I'd have a better shot of winning this." Contending that he is a self-made millionaire who earned his own fortune, Romney insisted, "I have inherited nothing." He remarked, "There is a perception, 'Oh, we were born with a silver spoon, he never had to earn anything and so forth.' Frankly, I was born with a silver spoon, which is the greatest gift you can have: which is to get born in America."

Romney told the contributors that "women are open to supporting me," but that "we are having a much harder time with Hispanic voters, and if the Hispanic voting bloc becomes as committed to the Democrats as the African American voting block has in the past, why, we're in trouble as a party and, I think, as a nation." When one attendee asked how this group could help Romney sell himself to others, he answered, "Frankly, what I need you to do is to raise millions of dollars." He added, "The fact that I'm either tied or close to the president…that's very interesting."

Asked why he wouldn't go full-throttle and assail Obama as corrupt, Romney explained the internal thinking of his campaign and revealed that he and his aides, in response to focus-group studies conducted by his consultants, were hesitant to hammer the president too hard out of fear of alienating independents who voted for Obama in 2008:



We speak with voters across the country about their perceptions. Those people I told you—the 5 to 6 or 7 percent that we have to bring onto our side—they all voted for Barack Obama four years ago. So, and by the way, when you say to them, "Do you think Barack Obama is a failure?" they overwhelmingly say no. They like him. But when you say, "Are you disappointed that his policies haven't worked?" they say yes. And because they voted for him, they don't want to be told that they were wrong, that he's a bad guy, that he did bad things, that he's corrupt. Those people that we have to get, they want to believe they did the right thing, but he just wasn't up to the task. They love the phrase that he's "over his head." But if we're—but we, but you see, you and I, we spend our day with Republicans. We spend our days with people who agree with us. And these people are people who voted for him and don't agree with us. And so the things that animate us are not the things that animate them. And the best success I have at speaking with those people is saying, you know, the president has been a disappointment. He told you he'd keep unemployment below 8 percent. Hasn't been below eight percent since. Fifty percent of kids coming out of school can't get a job. Fifty percent. Fifty percent of the kids in high school in our 50 largest cities won't graduate from high school. What're they gonna do? These are the kinds of things that I can say to that audience that they nod their head and say, "Yeah, I think you're right." What he's going to do, by the way, is try and vilify me as someone who's been successful, or who's, you know, closed businesses or laid people off, and is an evil bad guy. And that may work.

To assure the donors that he and his campaign knew what they were doing, Romney boasted about the consultants he had retained, emphasizing that several had worked for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:



I have a very good team of extraordinarily experienced, highly successful consultants, a couple of people in particular who have done races around the world. I didn't realize it. These guys in the US—the Karl Rove equivalents—they do races all over the world: in Armenia, in Africa, in Israel. I mean, they work for Bibi Netanyahu in his race. So they do these races and they see which ads work, and which processes work best, and we have ideas about what we do over the course of the campaign. I'd tell them to you, but I'd have to shoot you.

When one donor said he was disappointed that Romney wasn't attacking Obama with sufficient intellectual firepower, Romney groused that the campaign trail was no place for high-minded and detail-oriented arguments:



Well, I wrote a book that lays out my view for what has to happen in the country, and people who are fascinated by policy will read the book. We have a website that lays out white papers on a whole series of issues that I care about. I have to tell you, I don't think this will have a significant impact on my electability. I wish it did. I think our ads will have a much bigger impact. I think the debates will have a big impact…My dad used to say, "Being right early is not good in politics." And in a setting like this, a highly intellectual subject—discussion on a whole series of important topics typically doesn't win elections. And there are, there are, there are—for instance, this president won because of "hope and change."

Romney, who spoke confidently throughout the event and seemed quite at ease with the well-heeled group, insisted that his election in and of itself would lead to economic growth and that the markets would react favorably if his chances seemed good in the fall:



hey'll probably be looking at what the polls are saying. If it looks like I'm going to win, the markets will be happy. If it looks like the president's going to win, the markets should not be terribly happy. It depends of course which markets you're talking about, which types of commodities and so forth, but my own view is that if we win on November 6th, there will be a great deal of optimism about the future of this country. We'll see capital come back and we'll see—without actually doing anything—we'll actually get a boost in the economy. If the president gets reelected, I don't know what will happen. I can—I can never predict what the markets will do. Sometimes it does the exact opposite of what I would have expected. But my own view is that if we get a "Taxageddon," as they call it, January 1st, with this president, and with a Congress that can't work together, it's—it really is frightening.

At the dinner, Romney also said that the campaign purposefully was using Ann Romney "sparingly…so that people don't get tired of her." And he noted that he had turned down an invitation from Saturday Night Live because such an appearance "has the potential of looking slapstick and not presidential."

Here was Romney raw and unplugged—sort of unscripted. With this crowd of fellow millionaires, he apparently felt free to utter what he really believes and would never dare say out in the open. He displayed a high degree of disgust for nearly half of his fellow citizens, lumping all Obama voters into a mass of shiftless moochers who don't contribute much, if anything, to society, and he indicated that he viewed the election as a battle between strivers (such as himself and the donors before him) and parasitic free-riders who lack character, fortitude, and initiative. Yet Romney explained to his patrons that he could not speak such harsh words about Obama in public, lest he insult those independent voters who sided with Obama in 2008 and whom he desperately needs in this election. These were sentiments not to be shared with the voters; it was inside information, available only to the select few who had paid for the privilege of experiencing the real Romney.

Who in the world will vote for Romney after his disgraceful speech. He is an idiot

wait... so romney's actually a douche who doesn't care about half of the country he wants to preside over?

who would have thought?

Damnn, lotta ammunition for the Obama campaign there.

che wrote:wait... so romney's actually a douche who doesn't care about half of the country he wants to preside over?

who would have thought?

He doesnt think targeting their vote would be beneficial to his campaign in terms of resource allocation, they will not benefit from his tax reduction but will benifit from Obozos welfare and foodstamps. This is classical state dependence in play.

as someone said "In 1954 Stalingrad, 100% of population would not vote for Romney"

Full vid

Yuri Yukuv wrote:

He doesnt think targeting their vote would be beneficial to his campaign in terms of resource allocation, they will not benefit from his tax reduction but will benifit from Obozos welfare and foodstamps. This is classical state dependence in play.

just so we're clear... you think ALL of these 47% are welfare recipients yes?

che wrote:

Yuri Yukuv wrote:

He doesnt think targeting their vote would be beneficial to his campaign in terms of resource allocation, they will not benefit from his tax reduction but will benifit from Obozos welfare and foodstamps. This is classical state dependence in play.

just so we're clear... you think ALL of these 47% are welfare recipients yes?

its obvious that if you have a job in the US you dont get welfare and unemployment is not 47%, I dont know about the case where you live.

the 47% is the percentage of people who dont pay taxes to the federal government. There are many types of welfare though

I like the way this thread is polling. The only thing I love more than soccer is politics.

Live and die by fivethirtyeight.com

47%, the number of people that don't pay income taxes, is an over-inflated number. If you're a student through college you're probably not paying income taxes, nor if you are retired, but that makes you part of the "47%". That doesn't mean you rely on government.

Anyways, if I were one of his campaign donors and I heard that he thought that Obama already had 47% of the vote, I wouldn't give him any money, because that means Obama just needs to convince another 4.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:47%, the number of people that don't pay income taxes, is an over-inflated number. If you're a student through college you're probably not paying income taxes, nor if you are retired, but that makes you part of the "47%". That doesn't mean you rely on government.

Anyways, if I were one of his campaign donors and I heard that he thought that Obama already had 47% of the vote, I wouldn't give him any money, because that means Obama just needs to convince another 4.

A candidate can win the presidential election without winning the popular vote.

Sure, I'm not saying it's not possible, but it's only happened a handful of times (I believe 3), right? And it doesn't exactly inspire confidence in potential donors, which was my main point.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Sure, I'm not saying it's not possible, but it's only happened a handful of times (I believe 3), right? And it doesn't exactly inspire confidence in potential donors, which was my main point.

Obama's chances of winning the electoral vote are +65% last time I checked, were already seeing alot of money coming from wallstreet to Obama in the past week or two.

What I found telling from that Romney video is that the man doesn't know the difference between a nuke and a dirty bomb. Pretty scary for a man who's campaigning for control over the largest cache of nukes in the world.

From an evolutionary point of view, Mitt Romney should get 100 percent of the female vote. All of it. He should get Michelle Obama’s vote. You can insert your own Mormon polygamy joke here, but the ladies do tend to flock to successful executives and entrepreneurs. Saleh al-Rajhi, billionaire banker, left behind 61 children when he cashed out last year. We don’t do harems here, of course, but Romney is exactly the kind of guy who in another time and place would have the option of maintaining one. He’s a boss. Given that we are no longer roaming the veldt for the most part, money is a reasonable stand-in for social status. Romney’s net worth is more than that of the last eight U.S. presidents combined. He set up a trust for his grandkids and kicked in about seven times Barack Obama’s net worth, which at $11.8 million is not inconsiderable but probably less than Romney’s tax bill in a good year. If he hadn’t given away so much money to his church, charities, and grandkids, Mitt Romney would have more money than Jay-Z.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/08/22/kevin_d_williamson_national_review_evolutionary_speaking_romney_should_get_100_percent_of_the_female_vote_.html?wpisrc=obnetwork

BTW regarding those 47% of America not paying income tax, they include pensioners, the working poor, and people who pay payroll tax. People on actual welfare are more like 1%, which is funny, because that's also around the amount of truth in Romneys claims. :X

VivaStPauli wrote:BTW regarding those 47% of America not paying income tax, they include pensioners, the working poor, and people who pay payroll tax. People on actual welfare are more like 1%, which is funny, because that's also around the amount of truth in Romneys claims. :X

Payroll taxes are not really taxes as they will go into a government sanctioned program that will benefit the person paying directly.

The point is that by increasing progressive marginal tax rates while decreasing the tax base it will result in less people who are incentivized to care about the federal finances and more who are incentivized to increase taxes on the rich.

In europe we see a system that is opposite of that especially with the VAT tax, which is one reason weve seen more fiscal discipline and less instances of financal repression (well maybe draghi will change that).

Im really perplexed to see a German preach against that when thats all the CDU has been pushing down Europeans throats.

But it's not about that, it's about Romney making it seem like half of the population is living off the other half, which is not the case at all. Income is a bad way to measure class difference, although it obviously makes sense from a fiscal point of view.

Good article on what Romney should've said instead: http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444450004578004421263428686.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop&mg=reno-wsj

BarrileteCosmico wrote:From an evolutionary point of view, Mitt Romney should get 100 percent of the female vote. All of it. He should get Michelle Obama’s vote. You can insert your own Mormon polygamy joke here, but the ladies do tend to flock to successful executives and entrepreneurs. Saleh al-Rajhi, billionaire banker, left behind 61 children when he cashed out last year. We don’t do harems here, of course, but Romney is exactly the kind of guy who in another time and place would have the option of maintaining one. He’s a boss. Given that we are no longer roaming the veldt for the most part, money is a reasonable stand-in for social status. Romney’s net worth is more than that of the last eight U.S. presidents combined. He set up a trust for his grandkids and kicked in about seven times Barack Obama’s net worth, which at $11.8 million is not inconsiderable but probably less than Romney’s tax bill in a good year. If he hadn’t given away so much money to his church, charities, and grandkids, Mitt Romney would have more money than Jay-Z.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/08/22/kevin_d_williamson_national_review_evolutionary_speaking_romney_should_get_100_percent_of_the_female_vote_.html?wpisrc=obnetwork

You might want to have a look at the gender gap in voting. Women most certainly are not supporting Romney, no matter whether nature, nurture, or economics plays the biggest role. This evolution nonsense is fairly sexist, honestly.

RedOranje wrote:

BarrileteCosmico wrote:From an evolutionary point of view, Mitt Romney should get 100 percent of the female vote. All of it. He should get Michelle Obama’s vote. You can insert your own Mormon polygamy joke here, but the ladies do tend to flock to successful executives and entrepreneurs. Saleh al-Rajhi, billionaire banker, left behind 61 children when he cashed out last year. We don’t do harems here, of course, but Romney is exactly the kind of guy who in another time and place would have the option of maintaining one. He’s a boss. Given that we are no longer roaming the veldt for the most part, money is a reasonable stand-in for social status. Romney’s net worth is more than that of the last eight U.S. presidents combined. He set up a trust for his grandkids and kicked in about seven times Barack Obama’s net worth, which at $11.8 million is not inconsiderable but probably less than Romney’s tax bill in a good year. If he hadn’t given away so much money to his church, charities, and grandkids, Mitt Romney would have more money than Jay-Z.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/08/22/kevin_d_williamson_national_review_evolutionary_speaking_romney_should_get_100_percent_of_the_female_vote_.html?wpisrc=obnetwork

You might want to have a look at the gender gap in voting. Women most certainly are not supporting Romney, no matter whether nature, nurture, or economics plays the biggest role. This evolution nonsense is fairly sexist, honestly.

May sound sexist but when delved into the deeper realms of evolutionary psychology (and its psychometric science to back it up) and its ontogenistic tendencies, he far closer to being right than wrong. Even the most staunch feminist movement cannot dispute generational phylogeny.

Although most of it wouldn't make a difference in voting for obvious reasons.

If you look at voting statistics, the "nature over nurture" argument just doesn't hold up, and he's (or at the very least the article he's parroting) suggesting it SHOULD apply to voting.