PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
May 30, 2005
14,541
0
0
34
#1


What goes here:

-General politics
-Humorous opinions and musings
-bitter meltdowns



What doesn't go here:

-specific stuff like a typical debate, speech, or newspiece.
-racist stuff
-the scary realization that Newt Gingrich has an outside chance at controlling our foreign policy next year. :(
-foreskin discussion of ANY sort. All future comments on this non-issue will force the community to ostracize that member...forever
-sub-clause (if legislation comes down in any way limiting or expanding on circumcision rights, then only non-self righteous talk is allowed!)
This OP can be updated, but I wanted the gang to all have a place to play, and give people a reason to view the Community Forum. :p



Past PoliGAF MegaThreads from 2011/2012:

US PoliGAF 2012 | The Romney VeepStakes: Waiting for Chris Christie to Sing…
PoliGAF 2011: Forum member gridlock causes inaction on thread title naming crisis
PoliGAF 2011: Of Weiners, Boehners, Santorum, and Teabags


The 2012 Republican Primaries:

Florida, January 31
 
Jul 6, 2008
5,189
0
0
#2
What goes here:

-General politics
-Humorous opinions and musings
-bitter meltdowns



What doesn't go here:

-specific stuff like a typical debate, speech, or newspiece.
-racist stuff
-the scary realization that Newt Gingrich has an outside chance at controlling our foreign policy next year. :(


This OP can be updated, but I wanted the gang to all have a place to play, and give people a reason to view the Community Forum. :p
kosmobodycount.net

2
 
Dec 16, 2006
8,959
0
0
#7
People supporting that douche of a man in Newt Gingrich is why I root for natural disasters.
If you're going to wish a disaster on a place like West Virginia where Gingeich will likely win, give me a heads up so I can get my family and I out, please?

"YEEEEAH TORNADOES!!!! DESTROY THAT TOWN!!!"
^^ how I imagine rooting for a natural disaster to go.
 
Dec 16, 2006
8,959
0
0
#14
This is a good thing. Preferable would be to have progressive rates with few deductions and loopholes. Start at 10%, working their way up to 35%. I see no reason why else people who live off of capital gains should expect to pay anything less than the equivalent income tax.
Bububu Punishing job creators
 

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
May 30, 2005
14,541
0
0
34
#18
Bububu Punishing job creators
Simple: lower the corporate tax rate (but also make them pay it...looking at you, GE!!) That way, businesses keep more money, but people who take a so-called $1 salary, but actually live ludicrously wealthy off of dividends and such still pay their fair share.
 
Apr 22, 2008
44,148
0
0
26
#29
Ugh, the market sell-off coming this December could be worse than Oct-Dec 2008.


If you're going to raise capital gains taxes, you have to do it slowly. If not, hello, Recession 2.0 in 2013 with 10+% national unemployment.
Bahaha. Yeah right. Reagan raised taxes during a recession, and, well...
The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, then criticized as the largest tax increase in history, scaled back corporate tax breaks, increased unemployment-insurance levies, and raised excise taxes on cigarettes, among other changes.

“The goal is simple and just: to see to it that everyone pays his fair share,” Reagan said in August 1982. He predicted the tax increase would help the economy because it would reduce the deficit, which he said would lead to lower interest rates.

Reagan later signed the Highway Revenue Act of 1982, which temporarily doubled the gasoline tax. Both measures came as millions struggled with the 1981-1982 recession, when the jobless rate was stuck at about 10 percent for almost a year.
 
Apr 22, 2008
44,148
0
0
26
#33
Two encouraging bits of news!

SB 810, California's single-payer bill, will likely come up for a vote before the full chamber before or on January 31st. It needs to do so before it can move on to the state's House. For you CA single-payer supporters, call your state senators!

Democrats are set to re-introduce the Disclose Act, but modified a bit to attract Republican support and address Super PACs.
 
Feb 8, 2005
3,493
0
0
www.entdepot.com
#34
Apparently there is already a bill to prevent congressional insider trading, but Eric Cantor shelved it?

http://www.louise.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=90&Itemid=139

On January 26, 2009, Congresswoman Slaughter and Congressman Baird introduced HR 1148, the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act. The STOCK Act prohibits, by SEC rule, any members of Congress, Congressional staff, or Executive Agency employee from buying or selling stocks, bonds, or commodities based on nonpublic information they obtain because of their status.

The STOCK Act also prohibits anyone outside of Congress or the Executive Branch from making investment decisions on nonpublic information received from a Member of Congress, Congressional staff, or Executive Branch employee.

The legislation prohibits, by House Rule, Members or staff from disclosing material nonpublic information to individuals or firms if they believe that information will be used to inform stock trading decisions.

The STOCK Act requires Members of Congress and staff (those subject to financial disclosure requirements) to report the purchase, sale, or exchange of any stock, bond, or commodity transaction exceeding $1,000 within 90 days. Stocks in blind trust or mutual funds would be exempt from reporting.

Finally, the legislation requires firms that specialize in "political intelligence" to register with the House and Senate, as lobbying firms are required to do.

In the final months of 2011, the STOCK received an sudden surge of support from Members of Congress after a report by 60 Minutes about possible insider trading by Members of Congress. On December 6, 2011, Rep. Slaughter testified at a hearing by the House Financial Services Committee regaring the STOCK Act.

On December 7, 2011, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor indefinitely postponed a scheduled markup of the legislation. The bill currently has 235 co-sponsors- 153 Democrats and 82 Republicans. A bill needs 218 votes for passage by the House of Representatives.
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Jun 6, 2004
20,904
0
0
#35
Two encouraging bits of news!

SB 810, California's single-payer bill, will likely come up for a vote before the full chamber before or on January 31st. It needs to do so before it can move on to the state's House. For you CA single-payer supporters, call your state senators!

Democrats are set to re-introduce the Disclose Act, but modified a bit to attract Republican support and address Super PACs.
Any details on this bill? I'm glad to see something moving forward for single payer, but unless there are mechanisms to leverage lower costs, and recommendations to help reduce unbeneficial procedures/tests, then it still won't fix the underlying problem.
 
Feb 28, 2009
9,062
0
0
Tokyo
#38
15% to 35-39% is modest?...

I have no idea how some of you guys think an instant 100-150% raise in the federal capital gains tax will not have any major consequences. Stop watching MSNBC, and watch Bloomberg instead.
Show me how it will, you know, with statistical models and other observed evidence, and maybe I will believe you when you claim it may have major consequences.

Just repeatedly claiming A will happen when B occurs, without any actual evidence does not make it true.
 
Jan 23, 2009
7,400
0
0
#39
Hey, that's my line. :p

I think we're close enough that polls are now worth watching, less for day to day movement than for macro trends, which is why I though it noteworthy. IIRC it was around this time last cycle that Dems were starting to get nervous, as the trendlines pointed to the outcome we ended up with. It's important not to overstate their significance at this point, but I think it's something worth keeping an eye on.

Where we are as summer exits and folks start to really tune into the fall election will prove much more important.
Haha. You are one of the more reasonable members, so I presumed there had to be a more nuanced reason. And I could not agree more. We are approaching the horizon where the polls can identify macro trends. That is one of the reasons I noted my qualified optimism.
How does one illuminate a black hole?
Touche.
 
Jul 6, 2008
5,189
0
0
#40
15% to 35-39% is modest?...

I have no idea how some of you guys think an instant 100-150% raise in the federal capital gains tax will not have any major consequences. Stop watching MSNBC, and watch Bloomberg instead.

I have no idea how you think an instant increase in the federal capital gains tax is a Lehman-style event. Explain that to me.
 
Feb 8, 2005
3,493
0
0
www.entdepot.com
#41
15% to 35-39% is modest?...

I have no idea how some of you guys think an instant 100-150% raise in the federal capital gains tax will not have any major consequences. Stop watching MSNBC, and watch Bloomberg instead.
This again?

Jared Bernstein:
Post 1
Follow-up


Plotting the top cap gains rate against real business investment doesn’t show much (biz investment is in natural logs to show proportional growth over this long time series). The cap gains rate bounces around based more on politics than policy, while investment pretty much grows with the cycle. Hard to see anything in the picture supporting the view that either the level or changes in cap gains taxes play a determinant role in investment decisions.


Now, in this case I’m the first to say that this tax difference affects behavior, but it’s not real economic behavior—the stuff that generates investment, jobs and good stuff like that. It’s tax lawyer fun-and-games designed to label everything a cap gain so you can take advantage of the rate differential. Here’s some evidence for this claim.

First, if you plot real business investment against the gap between the cap gains and the ordinary rate, you certainly don’t see much of a correlation between the tax gap and real investment. In fact, the correlation between the tax gap and investment growth is .04 and that between the change in the tax gap and investment growth is 0.12, neither of which are statistically significant.
 
Oct 23, 2010
6,034
0
0
Bloomington, IN
#42
This is a good thing. Preferable would be to have progressive rates with few deductions and loopholes. Start at 10%, working their way up to 35%. I see no reason why else people who live off of capital gains should expect to pay anything less than the equivalent income tax.
Simple: lower the corporate tax rate (but also make them pay it...looking at you, GE!!) That way, businesses keep more money, but people who take a so-called $1 salary, but actually live ludicrously wealthy off of dividends and such still pay their fair share.
I agree with both of these.
I see no reason to keep the corporate tax rate at 35%, especially when nobody pays that rate. I would be fine with lowering it to 20-25% and actually making them pay it.
 
Apr 22, 2008
44,148
0
0
26
#44
Any details on this bill? I'm glad to see something moving forward for single payer, but unless there are mechanisms to leverage lower costs, and recommendations to help reduce unbeneficial procedures/tests, then it still won't fix the underlying problem.
I was going to post a "let me google that for you" link, but...I'll let it pass. This time.

1. Fact sheet
2. Overview
http://i.imgur.com/iqDsR.jpg[/IMG
I have no idea how you think an instant increase in the federal capital gains tax is a Lehman-style event. Explain that to me.[/QUOTE]

I think he's just trolling, given his "go to Bloomberg!" comment, which in my response to him I posted an article from Bloomberg.
 
Aug 11, 2010
2,563
0
0
Boston
#48

I have no idea how you think an instant increase in the federal capital gains tax is a Lehman-style event. Explain that to me.
There are sizable differences between 18%, 25%, and 39%. The latter is what essentially many here are advocating: end the Bush tax cuts and put the cap gains tax rates equal to federal income tax rates.

Raising the top rate to 18% would result in a minor sell-off.

Raising it to 25% would result in a substantial sell-off.

Raising it to 39% would result in a massive, near Lehman-like sell-off. If reelected, neither Obama nor most of Congress would obviously ever support this. So, people here need to drop whole "capital gains taxes should equal to income taxes" concept. It's pure idealistic fantasy.
 

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
May 30, 2005
14,541
0
0
34
#49
Polls Used for the Projections
Jan. 24

American Research Group

Survey of 300 likely voters
538 poll weight:

Mitt Romney 44 %
Newt Gingrich 34
Rick Santorum 8
Ron Paul 7
Jan. 23-24

CNN/Time/Opinion Research

Survey of 172 likely voters
538 poll weight:

Mitt Romney 38 %
Newt Gingrich 29
Rick Santorum 11
Ron Paul 9
Jan. 23

We Ask America

Survey of 946 likely voters
538 poll weight:

Mitt Romney 34 %
Newt Gingrich 32
Rick Santorum 9
Ron Paul 8
Jan. 23

American Research Group

Survey of 300 likely voters
538 poll weight:

Mitt Romney 37 %
Newt Gingrich 34
Rick Santorum 10
Ron Paul 7
Jan. 22-23

PPP

Survey of 921 likely voters
538 poll weight:

Newt Gingrich 38 %
Mitt Romney 33
Rick Santorum 13
Ron Paul 10
Jan. 22-23

Cherry Communications

Survey of 504 registered voters
538 poll weight:

Newt Gingrich 33 %
Mitt Romney 33
Rick Santorum 10
Ron Paul 6


Well...Newt had a good run. All the polls released in the last two days show Mitt up, and he is definitely back in the driver's seat. Let's see what happens when we replace his gaffe gears with firmware upgrades...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.