2012 Elections in the USA

[QUOTE=Member #2041;427490]Right, but he IS the guy who is overwhelmingly responsible for the job losses since 2007, since the vast preponderance of those took place in 2007 and 2008, when he WAS President, and the first half of 2009, before the next guy's policies could kick in to ameliorate the crisis that occurred on the first guy's watch.[/quote]If you were in any way consistent in your way of thinking about things, you'd be banging on the table to throw the current administration out of office.

In your way of thinking, Bush is responsible for everything that happened under his watch (a sentiment, with which, I am mostly in agreement), while Obama is responsible for nothing that transpired during his watch, except that he led the mission to kill Bin Laden.

What color is the sky, in your world?

[quote=]The simple truth is that anyone who quotes a jobs statistic that starts in 2007 and tries to hang it on Obama is either simply a disingenuous liar, or so stupid and ill-informed about economics that he doesn't understand that unemployment is actually a lagging indicator, to the tune of about 9 months.[/quote]Why? Is Obama's reign the only period of relevance here? Who ever said that unemployment was a leading indicator (assuming that you have any clue what that might mean)? You do not need to be an economist to drive down the street and see what seems to be every other house with a "for sale" sign in front of it. Why would all these people sell their houses at the worst possible time? Why don't they just stay put and do it in a few years? Why are so many shops at the Mall boarded up? Why are almost 50 million people on food stamps? Why are so many former white collar workers on Medicaid? You can cherry pick numbers all day long but, it won't change the reality of our situation.

[quote=]I'd agree that Obama owns the jobs number from 2H 2009 on. In any case, this sort of deception and misrepresentation of reality by righties is what we've come to expect from a bunch of folks who recognize that they can't make their case on the merits and reality, and so resort to outright deceptions like these, and stupid batshit crazy stuff like Obama being a Kenyan-born Muslim Marxist who didn't legitimately get his degrees from Columbia and Harvard. It's all cut from the same cloth.[/quote]This was no normal transition of power and the incoming president's impact preceded his inauguration. Obama's influence on the economy started when McCain pulled out of the campaign to get back to Washington to [I have no f*cking idea what he thought he was going to do]. Obama, Reid and Pelosi were up to their eyeballs in TARP (Q4'08) and the $1T of payoffs to his supports (unions and bundlers) that some people euphemistically called "Stimulus" (Feb '09). He didn't own the profligate spending of the Bush administration (at that point) rather he doubled down on it as soon as possible. Rather than cut the deficit by 50%, as promised, he increased it by 50%.

I didn't say that Obama was born outside the US, I said that I believe he told Columbia and HLS that he was from a foreign country in order to better his treatment from admissions to scholarship. I also stated very clearly that degrees acquired by the beneficiaries of racial preferences are not illegitimate.

Please, don't let the facts get in the way of your narrative, after all, you're a liberal and it would be unfair of us to expect you to act otherwise.

[quote=]As my lawyer friend says, when you have the facts, you argue the facts, when you have the law, you argue the law. When you have neither, you baffle them with bullshit. The degree to which the right has had to resort to baffling with bullshit is quite telling.[/QUOTE]Why then is it so difficult for you to actually insert a few facts into any of your posts? I would argue that the guy with the facts seems to be gaining on the guy trying to win via smoke and mirrors.

[QUOTE=Member #2041;427494]That's right, I have no plans to run for President, because I fuck hookers with a high rate of frequency, and that's a disqualifier for the office.[/quote]Since when? Womanizing and wh*re mongering are completely acceptable traits, so long as the candidate is a liberal. In fact, through some strange form of magic, these traits actually make you an untouchable protector of women (like Ted Kennedy).

[quote=]But, in any case, I certainly appreciate Tiny12 mustering all of his intellectual prowess to come up with this post.[/QUOTE]His post is spot on. He can clearly see that you can't be deprogrammed by conventional methods, like the truth. However, being the humanitarian that I am, I find it difficult to give up on anyone, including lost souls, like yourself.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;427499]However, being the humanitarian that I am, I find it difficult to give up on anyone, including lost souls, like yourself.[/QUOTE]Well, good luck with that, because, conveniently, this forum has an ignore list, which I use for the folks who's political discourse tends to veer into the batshit crazy space that I described earlier.

[QUOTE=Member #2041;427501]Well, good luck with that, because, conveniently, this forum has an ignore list, which I use for the folks who's political discourse tends to veer into the batshit crazy space that I described earlier.[/QUOTE]It is your prerogative to insulate yourself from those with differing opinions and a firmer grasp on the facts. That seemed to work well for Obama in the first debate.

Why did you chose to respond just to that part of my posts as opposed to maybe this part:

[quote=]Why then is it so difficult for you to actually insert a few facts into any of your posts?[/quote]

Is will there be enough time and intestinal fortitude for the House to impeach the President?

So many high crimes and misdemeanors, it an abundance of riches: fast and furious (the first POTUS to be directly complicit in the murder of more than 100 nonmilitary, foreign nationals) ; Bengazigate (the cover up of the intentional misinformation program foisted on the US public) ; the deliberate manipulation of national labor and unemployment statistics for political and personal gain; the intentional solicitation and collection of illegal foreign campaign contributions (RICO-caliber conspiracy to circumvent federal election laws) and the payoffs to Obama's cronie capitalists like Solyndra and Fisker (Al Gore).

This administration if so corrupt, it is hard to believe. If this had taken place during a Republican administration, not only would the press be banging the impeachment drum, so would I.

Even if Obama wins reelection, his second term is going to be gridlocked because he and his minions are going to be hamstrung by the proliferation of meritorious Congressional investigations. Had this been a Republican, in addition to the press drumbeat, Holder, Rice, Jarret and Axlerod would have all been forced out (and / or sacrificed) , by now. Could you imagine how the press would howl about the fact that one of our ambassadors was killed because the State Department was cutting their protection detail at the same time it was further subsidizing Government Motors (beyond the oversight of Congress) by purchasing Chevy Volts for the Austrian Embassy. Yep, the administration and its State Department willfully contributed to the conditions that enabled Islamic terrorists to kill a US Ambassador in exchange for political window dressing in the form of artificial sales of Obama's electric cars. Wow, I can't believe no one is interested in this story.

Sadly, if Obama loses, I suspect that the Congress will not have the time nor the moral will to fully prosecute these crimes and the bad actors (criminals) will escape responsibility for their crimes and will make millions in the private sector.

Now you know.

[url]http://www.sfweekly.com/2012-10-10/news/taxes-tax-breaks-1-percent-corporations-loopholes-government-congress-corruption-mitt-romney/[/url]

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 427507]Now you know.

[url]http://www.sfweekly.com/2012-10-10/news/taxes-tax-breaks-1-percent-corporations-loopholes-government-congress-corruption-mitt-romney/[/url][/QUOTE]Both Obama and Romney want to bring down marginal corporate tax rates and eliminate loopholes like these. Just as it took someone like Nixon to normalize relations with China, so I believe that Romney is more likely to actually accomplish this.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;427514]Both Obama and Romney want to bring down marginal corporate tax rates and eliminate loopholes like these. Just as it took someone like Nixon to normalize relations with China, so I believe that Romney is more likely to actually accomplish this.[/QUOTE]And yet Romney lacks the gonads / character to actually state what loopholes he'll do away with. Unlike you, I am quite sure he'll get rid of every loophole he specifically says that he'll get rid of prior to the election, and not one single additional one.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;427514]Both Obama and Romney want to bring down marginal corporate tax rates and eliminate loopholes like these. Just as it took someone like Nixon to normalize relations with China, so I believe that Romney is more likely to actually accomplish this.[/QUOTE]The corporate tax is an economic fiction that should be eliminated and the rate makes no difference. [B]Shareholders[/B] and consumers are sharing the corporate income tax burden, since corporations are only legal persons and not actual persons.

By "someone like Nixon," you mean a crook, right?

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 427507]Now you know.

[url]http://www.sfweekly.com/2012-10-10/news/taxes-tax-breaks-1-percent-corporations-loopholes-government-congress-corruption-mitt-romney/[/url][/QUOTE]WT, my brother, I don't disagree with you that there are tax loopholes in the individual tax code that favor one segment of society or another. However, it is an apples to oranges comparison to look at corporate taxes through the same lens.

Everyone should learn the following: corporations do not pay taxes, they convey additional monies from their customers to the government. End of story.

If you raise taxes on corporations, they raise prices to their customers and pass through the money. By exploiting corporations ostensibly to take more private wealth from the citizens, the govt is forcing companies to increase their prices. This does two, very negative, things: 1) it further erodes the aggregate, national disposable income that would otherwise be spent in the private sector providing true stimulus in a way that the government can't, and 2) the artificial inflation of the corporations products and services makes them less competitive. Therefore, corporate taxes are particularly egregious because they are a transfer of wealth that inflates prices while simultaneously reducing disposable income. Think about that. We'd be better off with zero corporate taxes and higher individual taxes because we would eliminate the inflationary component.

Everyone of the people quoted in that article knows this to be true, they also know that the majority of people don't understand it.

Here is a good review of the corporate tax and who pays it. To quote the article, the corporate tax is "neither necessary nor desirable." The classic view that the burden was split between corporate shareholders' lower profits and consumers' higher prices according to the elasticity of their respective supply and demand curves is now being challenged by the view that it is split between current and future shareholders but I haven't really examined that. But, either way it is all noise and bullshit and paperwork and a needless drain on corporate resources. If anyone wants a good reason to explain to Joe Six Pack why the corporate tax should go, just tell 'them about all the lawyers and accountants we could get rid of.

[url]http://elsa.berkeley.edu/Auerbach/bearstax.pdf[/url]

Dickhead, I haven't thought it through, but your and Walleye's explanation makes a lot of sense to me. Just as inflation helps elites and hurts others, so an income tax on, say, Walmart, hurts people who don't have a lot of purchasing power. And double taxation of corporate income and dividend income at high rates is definitely a bad thing. About your comment, "Nixon was a crook" -- As you know, but maybe some others don't, Nixon and Republicans were considered hawks, considered more likely to go to war with China than normalize relations. Romney spent a good bit of his career in the corporate world, knows the loopholes and the subsidies, and if he wins his party would probably have majorities in both houses. He's more likely to have success pushing through a restructuring of the corporate income tax system than Obama. While you and Walleye may be right, you'll never see an end to corporate income tax. Like the value added tax in Europe, a tax on corporations is too juicy for politicians to let go, since the people who ultimately pay it, being consumers, don't realize they're actually paying it.

Your point about the massive amount of time required and the fees to accountants and lawyers is a good one too.

Inflation doesn't just help the elites. It helps anyone who has a fixed rate loan. I remember when I worked for the feds and guys would b!tch about inflation, when we had COLA and fixed mortgages. I would tell them,"We want RAGING inflation" and they just looked at me kinda sideways dog-head. And no, I don't hold out any hope of the corporate income tax going away given that it has been 50 years since it was conclusively proven to be bogus.

The team of University of Colorado professors has created a model that has correctly chosen the President every year since 1980. The way they made this prediction and their track record is very interesting, I wonder if they have it right again this time?

[url]http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2012/10/04/updated-election-forecasting-model-still-points-romney-win-university[/url]

Yes I know I never post here but I couldn't resist it, how often do you see Jackson in a tie?

[url]http://www.mnftiu.cc/[/url]

Romney got that bounce, the big bootie bounce.

Don't bother after the first two minutes or so but the song is funny