Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
And Here. We. Go. 2012 Presidential Election: Obama v. Romney And Here. We. Go. 2012 Presidential Election: Obama v. Romney

07-12-2012 , 06:44 PM
Fox is reporting that the Obama Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is rewriting the Clinton welfare reform law of 1996 by waiving the work requirement it imposed. They are returning welfare to free money without a work requirement. I want the details of this new policy.

Welfare reform was one of the big reforms of the Clinton years.
07-12-2012 , 07:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gusmahler
WTF are you talking about? You accused me of saying something I didn't say, so I didn't respond.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gusmahler
Thing is, that's not what's being proposed. Obama wants to raise taxes on those who make $250k. Since when is a guy who makes $250k "someone who has every conceivable luxury at their disposal."
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
How much more is the guy who's making $250k going to pay under Obama's plan? How about someone making $300k?
There was another one but I can't remember where. You have a tendency to hit and run with your 'fact checks' then just ignore any counter arguments.
07-12-2012 , 07:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by blager
Fox is reporting that the Obama Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is rewriting the Clinton welfare reform law of 1996 by waiving the work requirement it imposed. They are returning welfare to free money without a work requirement. I want the details of this new policy.

Welfare reform was one of the big reforms of the Clinton years.
I know California made GAIN (welfare-to-work, with training etc.) non-compulsory - because it was much more expensive than just handing out free money (in the short run). I'm going to go way out on a twig and guess this is happening in other cash-strapped states and FNC is somehow blaming Obama. Real stretch I know.
07-12-2012 , 07:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
There was another one but I can't remember where. You have a tendency to hit and run with your 'fact checks' then just ignore any counter arguments.
It's all about context: someone who said people who enough money for every luxury in the world can afford to pay more in taxes.

I responded: the tax cuts affect more than just people who can afford every luxury in the world. It affects people who make as little as $250k.

You responded with your question about how much they are affected. Answer I don't know. Probably not much. But it's also not relevant to the point I was trying to make: the tax hike doesn't just affect those who can afford every luxury in the world. It affects a lot of people who, while they make a lot of money by most standards, certainly can't afford every luxury in the world.
07-12-2012 , 07:47 PM
Well, everyone else in the thread knows exactly how much someone making exactly $250k is going to pay extra if Obama has his way.

Spoiler:
$0
07-12-2012 , 08:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWookie
Well, everyone else in the thread knows exactly how much someone making exactly $250k is going to pay extra if Obama has his way.

Spoiler:
$0
Amazingly everyone in this thread is wrong. An individual making $250,000 may see his taxes increase. An individual making $250,000 will only see no increase in taxes if he is married and his wife makes no money.

Obama has called upon Congress to keep the tax cut for individuals making less than $200k and families making less than $250k.
07-12-2012 , 09:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gusmahler
It's all about context: someone who said people who enough money for every luxury in the world can afford to pay more in taxes.

I responded: the tax cuts affect more than just people who can afford every luxury in the world. It affects people who make as little as $250k.

You responded with your question about how much they are affected. Answer I don't know. Probably not much. But it's also not relevant to the point I was trying to make: the tax hike doesn't just affect those who can afford every luxury in the world. It affects a lot of people who, while they make a lot of money by most standards, certainly can't afford every luxury in the world.
Doesn't that like, bother you or something? It's a math problem.

It's not even like Obama is proposing some radical new policy, he's advocating a return to tax rates that existed in the US during your lifetime. How can you not know?
07-12-2012 , 10:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
Doesn't that like, bother you or something? It's a math problem.

It's not even like Obama is proposing some radical new policy, he's advocating a return to tax rates that existed in the US during your lifetime. How can you not know?
No one knows. The bill hasn't even been written yet.
07-12-2012 , 11:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zikzak
Well, this is what happens when you shove a cigar into your intern's hooha:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeach...f_Bill_Clinton
That shoving the cigar into her hooha is such an ugly term. I far prefer to say he used the intern as a humidor.
07-12-2012 , 11:18 PM
A+
07-12-2012 , 11:29 PM
yeah this really is bull **** mitt trying to claim no responsibility for anything that happened at a company he was CEO of cuz he wasnt paying attention to it. josh marshall makes that point...http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archive....php?ref=fpblg

Quote:
Running my own little company and him being a bona-fide high-flyer, I never imagined I’d be in a position to teach Mitt Romney a basic lesson about corporate governance and running a business. But here goes: The CEO is in charge and he’s responsible for what happens in the company.

This is not only morally true; it’s legally true. If Bain had committed bad acts during the period in question, Romney would undoubtedly be on the hook for it, regardless of whether he’d done the bad acts personally or even known about the bad acts. Whether you were paying attention or not would be and is irrelevant. And just as irrelevant if you’d delegated your responsibilities to someone else. Just doesn’t matter. You’re CEO, you’re responsible. End of story.

(It’s a separate and interesting question why an acting CEO was never appointed if Romney was off in another state for years working full-time doing something else.)

To say that you were CEO, owner, Chairman of the Board and all the rest and yet had no responsibility for anything that happened just amounts to elaborate buck-passing. And that’s why this is a losing battle for Romney. Every technical argument about delegation, lack of knowledge and everything else just drives home the point.
07-12-2012 , 11:30 PM
and more josh marshall...http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archive....php?ref=fpblg

Quote:
The reason this issue is in dispute at all is because Mitt Romney wants full political inoculation from anything Bain did between early 1999 and 2002, when he definitely truly left the company. He wasn’t in charge, except in a narrow, technical sense; he’d delegated his duties; Bain’s business practices from that period can’t be hung around his neck.

If you’re not already belly-laughing think about it this way.

For Romney to be truly off the hook politically for the stuff Bain was doing, he’d have to claim not lack of control, but lack of knowledge. And that’s just not going to wash with anyone. He could try going the “I didn’t have even the slightest idea what the company I technically still owned was doing” route, but he’d be marking himself as either dishonest or incompetent.

And yet that’s really his only out. Just a guess, but if, hypothetically speaking, he’d learned during the 1999-2002 stretch that Bain had made a practice of poisoning the water supply in a Midwestern factory town, he’d have severed all ties, legal and otherwise, with the company.

But that didn’t happen. More likely, Bain went on doing what it had always done, and with Romney’s tacit stamp of approval. So he owns it.
07-12-2012 , 11:35 PM
Star Obama supporter doesn't know about **** Obama's done, she confesses:

"I don't know, because I'm a star I don't know about all this ****."




07-12-2012 , 11:37 PM
whats really ridiculous is the fact checkers buying this argument. CEO not responsible cuz he was working hard elsewhere. what really is great for obama is romney has lost the ability to argue bain is great and outsourcing is american, or whatever he was trying to say at first, when he is explaining with his exculpatory "i had nothing to do with it" well then "it" must be bad. to think we owe this all to newt. mitt didnt want to release even one tax return. look for "what else is he hiding" all summer as new **** comes to light.
07-12-2012 , 11:38 PM
uh huh anatta, really don't think this is having the effect you think it is.... or that anyone outside of dailykos mouthbreathers give a ****.
07-12-2012 , 11:45 PM
RMoney is just so incredibly unlikable. This isnt helping.
07-12-2012 , 11:50 PM
really. u dont think "do u think working for bain is a positive or negative" will take if not a major hit in the negative, at least continue to drag on him? its a big story thats not going away and its mitts only strong quality, businessman. kennedy ruined him with it. obamas team accused him of a felony today during a conference call. thats not newsworthy beyond kos. uh huh. he cant brag about bain and jobs anymore he is defensive saying "i know nothing" how is he gonna pivot to i know how jobs are created with this relentless assault that is coming?

btw anatta just recently noticed u talk to everyone else who disagrees with ur narrow idiotic white bread view of the world with the same ass hole style as u talk to the great one and honestly he hasnt read anything from u that is true, insightful, clever or cool. ur just sad and everyone seems to think so. but maybe ur next 50000 post will have something worth reading.

Last edited by anatta2; 07-12-2012 at 11:57 PM.
07-12-2012 , 11:54 PM
ikes,

it is a right wing myth that voters like rich jerks.
07-12-2012 , 11:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gusmahler
It's all about context: someone who said people who enough money for every luxury in the world can afford to pay more in taxes.

I responded: the tax cuts affect more than just people who can afford every luxury in the world. It affects people who make as little as $250k.

You responded with your question about how much they are affected. Answer I don't know.
Absolutely. ****ing. Amazing.

When Riverman and I riff on conservatives being baffled by marginal tax rates, do you have any idea what we're talking about, or that we're talking about you? Or is it like with a three-year-old where you can just say whatever you want and if they don't hear their name they just tune it out?

If Obama raises taxes 4% on the top marginal tax rate, which starts at $250k for a family, how much more does a family making $250k have to pay?

Last edited by suzzer99; 07-13-2012 at 12:04 AM.
07-13-2012 , 12:00 AM
I don't follow politics that closely, but from the last few days it does seems like Obama's campaign is going to be based around showing Romney as a racist rich guy. All I have heard on the news all day is Romney may be a felon and he is racist. Going to be fun to watch after labor day.
07-13-2012 , 12:07 AM
well after the speech to NAACP he got around his folk at a fundraiser and broke out a "you people" meaning the negroes just want free stuff...not quite that bad but umm this guy isnt a good politician man imo. he hasnt been saying anything so the gaff a week isnt on display but this guy man his team is slow, off message, and he cant campaign for votes with people.
07-13-2012 , 12:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
Absolutely. ****ing. Amazing.

When Riverman and I riff on conservatives being baffled by marginal tax rates, do you have any idea what we're talking about, or that we're talking about you? Or is it like with a three-year-old where you can just say whatever you want and if they don't hear their name they just tune it out?

If Obama raises taxes 4% on the top marginal tax rate, which starts at $250k for a family, how much more does a family making $250k have to pay?
I've written down my answer, but I am going to wait for gusmahler to respond first.
07-13-2012 , 12:14 AM
As an Independent that has leaned Republican most elections, this is a lock for Obama. Romney is the biggest mouth-breathing moran I have ever seen. Not that people think Obama is our great savior anymore, but they still think he is better than the alternative.

Plus Obama's wins against the Somali Pirates and getting Osama make him strong on national security, so the biggest fear card the republicans can throw at him is already void.
07-13-2012 , 12:26 AM
What part of the country you in Shoe? Hoping you are not in OH,VA, FL.......
07-13-2012 , 12:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by seattlelou
What part of the country you in Shoe? Hoping you are not in OH,VA, FL.......
A Walker supporter in WI that will not be voting for Romney, and there are a lot more like me.

The party needs to change it's social values big time and Romney will be just as bad fiscally as Obama, so I'd actually prefer they lose and hopefully moderate some.

      
m