PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jul 6, 2008
5,189
0
0
#51
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.
It's already clear that you think raising the capital gains tax will result in a sell-off, despite some evidence to the contrary that's been posted. Why do you think a sell-off will occur? What evidence do you have to support that hypothesis?
 
Apr 22, 2008
44,148
0
0
26
#52
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.
So your argument has gone to "don't raise taxes during a recession" to "don't raise taxes ever!".

Bravo. And you don't back up whatever you're saying. Bravo, indeed.
 

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
May 30, 2005
14,541
0
0
34
#54
Agreed. I have no doubt Newt is going to be relentless tomorrow, if he plays his card right he could pull off another reversal like he did in South Carolina.
Too little, too late? Early voting leaned heavily towards Mitt, early voting still going on should benefit him as well. We will see, I guess, but if Romney can eke out another couple points by tomorrow, it might not matter.
 
Feb 2, 2010
2,420
0
0
#57
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.
The only fantasy is you bringing up the magical 39% number. Most of us want a work 'toward' that end result, even if it is over time, and is hard coded into the financial system so they get ready for those changes. Its part of the reason the new tax wasn't supposed to trigger till 2013. If the fickle people on wall street want to do a sell off on tax rate changes that have been known for years, then I just don't give a damn. Also 60% increase, the 15-25% is the only one on the table, so stop bringing up the 39% non-sense as if its coming next year. Also if they do a sell off over 15-20%, then I hope they made up for that difference when Bush administration cut that capital gains last decade. I have no sympathy what so ever for those that panic over something that was in the books for years.
 
Aug 31, 2009
47,614
0
805
#58
Too little, too late? Early voting leaned heavily towards Mitt, early voting still going on should benefit him as well. We will see, I guess, but if Romney can eke out another couple points by tomorrow, it might not matter.
Before SC Debate, Newt was trailing Mitt but after the debate, the polls were reversed.
 
Jun 3, 2010
1,075
0
0
#59
Too little, too late? Early voting leaned heavily towards Mitt, early voting still going on should benefit him as well. We will see, I guess, but if Romney can eke out another couple points by tomorrow, it might not matter.
It's possible, but I suspect the majority of Florida's voters are going to be casting their ballets on the day of the actual primary. Keep in mind that we already know Florida has a fair number of undecided voters, and they are obviously not going to be taking place is early voting.
 
May 24, 2005
38,501
1,515
1,320
#64
U.S. special forces rescue Somalia aid workers
From Chris Lawrence, CNN
updated 6:41 PM EST, Wed January 25, 2012









U.S. Special Forces parachuted overnight into Somalia from fixed-wing planes, then advanced on foot to a compound holding two kidnapped international aid workers and freed them, U.S. officials said Wednesday. The nine gunmen holding the hostages -- an American and a Dane -- were killed, the officials said.

Jessica Buchanan, 32, and Poul Thisted, 60, had been held since October 25, when they were abducted in Galkayo, central Somalia, after they visited humanitarian projects, said the Danish Refugee Council, the agency for which they worked.
Neither was harmed, the aid group said.
They were taken to a regional medical facility, Pentagon spokesman George Little said Wednesday.

"They are not hospitalized," said Andreas Kamm, secretary-general of the Danish Refugee Council, so "we take it as a sign that they're OK."
Obama to Panetta: 'Good job' on rescue Navy SEALs strike again
The pair phoned their families from the African nation of Djibouti after the rescue, said Ann Mary Olsen of the Danish Refugee Council, according to Danish TV2 reporter Thorkild Dahl.
Navy SEALs from the unit that killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden last year in Pakistan participated in the mission, a U.S. official said, without specifying whether any of the same individuals were on both assaults.

Pentagon spokesman Little said the rescue team included special operations troops from different branches of the military but would not specify which branches.
The SEALs are part of the Naval Special Warfare Development Group, formerly known as SEAL Team Six.

The special forces troops took fire as they fought their way into a compound where the hostages were held, the official said, adding the troops believed that the kidnappers were shooting. The official is not authorized to speak to the media and asked not to be named.
Nine gunmen were killed in the strike, Little said, adding that they had explosives nearby. There were no known survivors among the kidnappers, he added.
The American assault team did not suffer any casualties, the Pentagon said.
The special forces took the hostages from the compound and onto waiting helicopters
, the U.S. official said.

The United States was in close contact with Denmark before, during and after the raid, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said.
White House spokesman Jay Carney, traveling Wednesday with President Barack Obama to Iowa, said the commander-in-chief learned of the success of the mission at 6:43 p.m. Tuesday, more than two hours before he delivered the State of the Union address.
"The decision to go ahead with this rescue mission was made because there was information concerning the deteriorating health of Ms. Buchanan, as well as a window of opportunity to execute this mission," Carney said.
Obama, who had given the go-ahead at 9 p.m. Monday
, was updated on its progress throughout Tuesday, Carney said.

Minutes after concluding his speech, at 10:32 p.m., the president telephoned Buchanan's father to inform him of the mission's success, Carney said.
John Buchanan told CNN he was "flabbergasted" when Obama called up out of the blue.
"He said, 'John, this is Barack Obama. I'm calling because I have great news for you. Your daughter has been rescued by our military
.'
"Then he referred to his daughters, obviously had a human element there. Then he said something to the effect of, 'People just can't do this to our citizens, especially young people who are trying to help others.' "

"I'm extremely proud and glad to be an American," Buchanan said. "I didn't know this was going to transpire. I'm glad it did."
He said Jessica was "doing well, under the circumstances."
Buchanan said he planned to fly Thursday to meet his daughter, but he could not say where that would take place.

At his State of the Union address, before news broke of the rescue, Obama told Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, "Leon, good job tonight. Good job tonight."
The hostages were safe at that point, but the mission was not yet complete as the American assault team had not departed Somalia, Little said.
In a statement, Obama thanked the special operations forces for their "extraordinary courage and capabilities."
"The United States will not tolerate the abduction of our people, and will spare no effort to secure the safety of our citizens and to bring their captors to justice," Obama said. "This is yet another message to the world that the United States of America will stand strongly against any threats to our people."

Panetta monitored the rescue from the White House, Little said.
In a statement, Panetta called the raid "a testament to the superb skills of courageous service members who risked their lives to save others."
Speaking on ABC's "Good Morning America," Vice President Joe Biden said of the special forces: "It just takes your breath away, their capacity and their bravery and their incredible timing."
Capt. John Kirby, another Pentagon spokesman, said the abductors were ordinary criminals.

"They were kidnappers. We don't have any indication that they were connected to any terrorist group or ideological group at that point," he said.
"They were not Al-Shabaab," Little said, referring to the al Qaeda-linked Islamist militia that holds sway over parts of Somalia.
He said the sense of urgency with regard to the hostage situation had increased from mid-January.

"It's safe to say that within the last week or so, we were able to connect enough dots that we could make the decisions that were made," Kirby said, referring to the intelligence U.S. officials had to go on.

The area where the hostages were seized is known as a hub for pirates, rather than an area of Islamic militant activity.
A number of high-profile abductions of foreigners have occurred in Somalia and in Kenya, close to the largely lawless Somali border.
Some of the kidnappings have been blamed on Al-Shabaab, while criminals seeking ransoms seem to have carried out others.

In an exclusive interview with CNN, Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga congratulated the United States on the rescue and said he supported further U.S. and NATO action on the ground in Somalia.
"We would really like to see more concerted international effort in dealing with issues of international terrorism," he said.
"This action will send a very clearly signal to the Al-Shabaab that it doesn't matter how long they hold (their) hostages, the international community will continue to keep them on the radar."

Kenya sent troops over the border into Somalia in October to take on Al-Shabaab in response to abductions of aid workers and tourists.
The U.S. raid comes nearly three years after Navy snipers killed three pirates who had taken hostage the captain of the Maersk Alabama off Somalia.
U.S. forces did not coordinate the raid with local officials, but residents welcomed the outcome as a warning to other groups to cease the kidnapping of foreigners, said Abdirahman Mohamud Farole, president of Puntland, a semiautonomous region of Somalia.
Thisted, the rescued Dane, is a senior aid worker, said Olsen of the Danish Refugee Council.

Local authorities gave conflicting casualty figures after the raid. Some officials said seven gunmen were killed, but Mohamed Ahmed Aalin, president of Galmudug state, said nine were killed and five others detained by U.S. forces.
The aid workers were part of the Danish Refugee Council's demining unit, which aims to make civilians safe from landmines and unexploded ordnance.
"We have been congratulated from all corners of the Somali society, and we have been told of celebrations in the the capital Mogadishu, in Galkayo and in the streets of Adado, where the local community has worked very hard to help Poul and Jessica," Olsen said. "Their efforts have not been wasted."
Buchanan has been employed as a regional education adviser with the mine clearance unit of DRC since May; Thisted, a community safety manager with the demining unit, has been working in Somaliland and Somalia since June 2009.


#############


Some boss stuff went down last night. These guys are just amazing. I was wondering why Obama was congratulating Leon Panetta so much last night before the speech.
 
Apr 3, 2007
8,122
0
0
#65
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.
?????

It never resulted in a massive sell off before so why should it now?
 
Jun 9, 2005
12,924
0
0
Washington
#67
Seen a couple articles today about Geithner not staying on for a second term. I don't think anyone will be to broken up to see him go.

Probably won't be replaced by anyone particularly great...
 
Nov 12, 2011
13,196
0
0
#70
Three observations from the most recent debate:

1) We should all be HIGHLY suspicious anytime the phrase "revenue neutral" is used to describe a tax reform. Both Romney and Gingrich state that their plans will be revenue neutral while cutting taxes on business and capital gains taxes (e.g. Romney made it clear he would pay exactly zero in taxes under Gingrich's proposed system). So...if business and wealthy investors are paying less in taxes, where is that increased revenue going to come from? Revenue neutral means higher taxes for middle class Americans and the poor.

2) In a matter of about five minutes, I believe I heard both Santorum and Gingrich declare war on Iran AND Cuba. Gingrich was saying he would keep all options on the table and would immediately begin to implement covert measures to end Castro's regime. You know, the same sort of covert tactics that worked out so wonderfully in the Bay of Pigs. Santorum was struggling to try and link jihadism with Cuba, which is a stretch by any rational train of thought. I work in the intelligence community so I at least understand the gist of what he meant about jihadism spreading to parts of Central and South America...but Cuba?!? You have to be kidding me.

3) I firmly believe Newt joined this campaign to sell books. That's it. I'm sure he was just as surprised as the rest of us when things started taking off. "Hell, maybe I'll give this an honest shot and see where it takes us." Recall a few months ago when his entire platform was on life support. Now he's neck and neck with Romney. I think that says more about the negative qualities of the field of candidates than anything positive about Newt.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Jul 17, 2005
42,029
2
0
#71
I can't believe we were cast away like some kind of nomadic tribe. :(

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.
Where are you getting the 39% number?

edit: Also too:


Today's United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll showed Democrats with an 11-point lead over Republicans in a generic ballot question asked to registered voters. When asked if they would "rather see the Republicans keep control" of the House or see "the Democrats win enough seats to take over control of the House," 48 percent chose the Democrats, and 37 percent chose the GOP.
:O :O :O
 
Oct 23, 2010
6,034
0
0
Bloomington, IN
#72
^Wow at that poll. 11 point lead for Democrats on a general ballot before Obama even starts campaigning? As long as the economy doesn't start taking a shit I could see the Dems taking back the House and keeping the senate. Hopefully that would be followed by eliminating the fillibuster and actually getting shit done.
 
Apr 17, 2007
33,496
0
0
#75
Even if the capital gains tax doubled, nobody would stop investing. Do you really think that Romney would rather sit on his 250Million out of spite because of the tax, or would he rather make another $24M after tax even if it's less than the $33M he made after tax in 2010?
 
Jan 22, 2008
31,856
0
0
#77
Even if the capital gains tax doubled, nobody would stop investing. Do you really think that Romney would rather sit on his 250Million out of spite because of the tax, or would he rather make another $24M after tax even if it's less than the $33M he made after tax in 2010?
There was a study done on capital gains taxes awhile back. Showed no significant difference in investment when Bush cut them. Even during the 90s, too.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Jul 17, 2005
42,029
2
0
#79
Even if the capital gains tax doubled, nobody would stop investing. Do you really think that Romney would rather sit on his 250Million out of spite because of the tax, or would he rather make another $24M after tax even if it's less than the $33M he made after tax in 2010?
Are you stupid? If you're making $24 million, as opposed to $33 million, you might as well be making ZERO dollars if the gubment's gonna steal that much of your income.
 
Jul 6, 2008
5,189
0
0
#81
Yeah, this is dumb. Should have kept the megathread.
This IS the megathread, don't you see?!

^Wow at that poll. 11 point lead for Democrats on a general ballot before Obama even starts campaigning? As long as the economy doesn't start taking a shit I could see the Dems taking back the House and keeping the senate. Hopefully that would be followed by eliminating the fillibuster and actually getting shit done.
They had the chance to kill the filibuster at the beginning of this Congress with a simple majority. They bitched out. Don't get your hopes up.
 
Apr 22, 2008
44,148
0
0
26
#82
This IS the megathread, don't you see?!


They had the chance to kill the filibuster at the beginning of this Congress with a simple majority. They bitched out. Don't get your hopes up.
What would have been the point with the Republican house? Anyway, Jonathan Bernstein seems to think, accurately, that the filibuster will get an overhaul the next time one party controls Congress and the Presidency. Can't find the relevant article at the moment.
 

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
Jun 7, 2004
14,254
0
0
#84
They had the chance to kill the filibuster at the beginning of this Congress with a simple majority. They bitched out. Don't get your hopes up.
This.

Though I wonder if an effective tactic would be to phase it out over a number of years. If you push out the final adoption you could make a case that neither party would have a specific advantage as there is no indication who would be in control at that point.

Something along the lines of reduce the threshold for cloture by one each year until it is gone.
 
Jul 6, 2008
5,189
0
0
#85
There has to be a change.
In the filibuster? I'm thoroughly disinclined to bet on anything other than inertia at this point. Filibuster reform would be the responsible thing to do, but I don't see why we should expect the Senate to be any more willing to fix it next year.


What would have been the point with the Republican house? Anyway, Jonathan Bernstein seems to think, accurately, that the filibuster will get an overhaul the next time one party controls Congress and the Presidency. Can't find the relevant article at the moment.
The presidency doesn't have anything to do with it, as far as I know. It's a house-rules issue, not a constitutional one. They could have fixed it. They punted.
 
Apr 22, 2008
44,148
0
0
26
#86
In the filibuster? I'm thoroughly disinclined to bet on anything other than inertia at this point. Filibuster reform would be the responsible thing to do, but I don't see why we should expect the Senate to be any more willing to fix it next year.



The presidency doesn't have anything to do with it, as far as I know. It's a house-rules issue, not a constitutional one. They could have fixed it. They punted.
Wow. That completely sailed over your head. What would be the point of reforming the filibuster if you have to deal with a presidential veto to pass your legislation?

With the Republican-controlled House, eliminating the filibuster would have been hugely consequential, politically, with no benefit.
 
Jul 6, 2008
5,189
0
0
#87
Wow. That completely sailed over your head. What would be the point of reforming the filibuster if you have to deal with a presidential veto to pass your legislation?

With the Republican-controlled House, eliminating the filibuster would have been hugely consequential, politically, with no benefit.
The point is to have the Senate to function properly? How does that go over your head?
 
Apr 22, 2008
44,148
0
0
26
#88
The point is to have the Senate to function properly? How does that go over your head?
I already addressed the pointlessness of adjusting the filibuster with a divided government. You're going to need a supermajority to pass anything anyway in a divided government. There would have been nothing to gain from it.

In addition, the Democrats were rebuked by quite a margin in 2010. Making a power-grab in the Senate, and that's what it will look like no matter what, but even moreso under those circumstances, at that time was not be the best time.
 
Jun 7, 2004
77,909
2
0
Oregon
#89
I already addressed the pointlessness of adjusting the filibuster with a divided government.
It would not be pointless. Right now, Republicans effectively control both houses of Congress. With a reformed filibuster, Dems would have actual leverage and negotiating power.

Right now, the House can propose their version of a bill, and pass it, and the Senate Dems can propose their version of a bill, and it cannot even get to the floor for a vote.

Without the filibuster, the House can pass their version of a bill, and the Senate could pass theirs - and then negotiations begin. It would materially impact the legislation being passed and remove the biggest bottleneck on the federal government right now.
 
Jul 6, 2008
5,189
0
0
#90
I already addressed the pointlessness of adjusting the filibuster with a divided government. You're going to need a supermajority to pass anything anyway in a divided government. There would have been nothing to gain from it.

In addition, the Democrats were rebuked by quite a margin in 2010. Making a power-grab in the Senate, and that's what it will look like no matter what, but even moreso under those circumstances, at that time was not be the best time.
Yeah, who needs federal judges?
 
Feb 28, 2009
9,062
0
0
Tokyo
#91
Even if the capital gains tax doubled, nobody would stop investing. Do you really think that Romney would rather sit on his 250Million out of spite because of the tax, or would he rather make another $24M after tax even if it's less than the $33M he made after tax in 2010?
Exactly. Capitalists are going to use their money to maximize their money earning capability. I highly doubt that means putting it under their mattress out of protest of the tax increase.
 
Apr 22, 2008
44,148
0
0
26
#95
It would not be pointless. Right now, Republicans effectively control both houses of Congress. With a reformed filibuster, Dems would have actual leverage and negotiating power.

Right now, the House can propose their version of a bill, and pass it, and the Senate Dems can propose their version of a bill, and it cannot even get to the floor for a vote.

Without the filibuster, the House can pass their version of a bill, and the Senate could pass theirs - and then negotiations begin. It would materially impact the legislation being passed and remove the biggest bottleneck on the federal government right now.
Disagree. In all my paying attention over the last two years, I cannot think of a single situation in which being able to pass a bill would have given the Senate more leverage. Republicans can't pass anything in the Senate on their own and Democrats determine what gets brought to the floor of the chamber. Plus, Obama's veto looms large. And that's not even beginning to touch the politics of the situation right after the large Republican gains in 2010.
Yeah, who needs federal judges?
Check again. I've been talking about legislative benefits only. The politics of judicial filibusters, from what I've read, are different from that of legislative filibusters. That should have been dealt with, thankfully Reid has voiced support for Obama's request on judges and ninety day limit.



This is apparently supposed to be a negative comic.
I approve. I like how the rich man is depicted as your typical fat cat.
 
Jul 6, 2008
5,189
0
0
#96
This place is completely dead....I dont like the community side.
I'm not sure everyone knows we're here yet. And nothing's happening today. It'll be fine.

Check again. I've been talking about legislative benefits only. The politics of judicial filibusters, from what I've read are different from that of legislative filibusters. That should have been dealt with, thankfully Reid has voiced support for Obama's request on judges and ninety day limit.
The distinction you're not sure exists is the one you've been talking about? Can't imagine why that was unclear.

Hang on, you're still wrong.

And if Reid had the opportunity to change something and waited until he was taken to task in SOTU, I don't see any reason to be optimistic about changes to the filibuster going forward.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.