2012 Elections

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 11:04 am

Isgrimnur wrote:It's beginning to look a lot like caucus season everywhere you go:

Nevada’s jump ahead in the GOP presidential nominating calendar has prompted new rounds of finger pointing, insider wrangling and political threats. But some Republicans worry the biggest losers may turn out to be voters.

Republicans in the Western state announced earlier this week that they would hold their caucuses on Jan. 14, a shift that triggered a domino effect forcing other states to rethink the timing of their own contests. And now, despite private warnings from Republican officials in Washington, it’s looking more and more likely that Iowa and New Hampshire could schedule the nation’s first presidential voting for the height of the coming holiday season.
...
Nevada is among a host of states that violated party rules by pushing up their elections to garner more influence in the presidential nominating process. It’s unclear whether there will be any consequences. An RNC spokesman declined to comment publicly Thursday.

The spotlight now turns to New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner, who has the sole discretion to schedule the Granite State’s first-in-the-nation primary. Iowa Republican Party Chairman Matt Strawn said he would like to schedule Iowa’s caucuses for Jan. 5, hoping that Gardner sets the New Hampshire primary for Jan. 10.
...
Gardner, who has set eight primary elections over the last three decades, said he is not likely to make a decision before Oct. 17. Strawn said he would make a decision in the next week to 10 days.

One consideration is a provision in New Hampshire law that directs Gardner to schedule the primary at least seven days before any other similar contest. It remains to be seen whether Gardner will interpret the Nevada election — which entail caucuses — as “similar” or not. Recent history offers a handful of examples of a New Hampshire primary less than a week before caucuses in other states.

Awesome. Fuck the process! Seriously. It's so broken that much like what seems like everything else at the federal level, it needs an enema... or a better class of criminal or something. I'm all for the shakeup. I want Michigan primaries in November and screw all the influence in Iowa and New Hampshire. What are the parties going to do, threaten to not take our votes or campaign contributions? Tell us they are going to win without us? Fine go the fuck ahead and quit Florida and Nevada and Michigan and Ohio and I don't know who else but go ahead and see where you end up.

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 11:11 am

I think Jon Stewart summarized it well on Wednesday's show. Florida is moving up, so then Iowa and NH will move up, and then Michigan will move up, and then Florida will move up, and... well in short the election happened last week and Donald Trump is our new Presitent.

Arcanis · Post by **Arcanis** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 11:18 am

Both parties need to set a single day for their primary elections. Any votes before that day will be ignored. That way we can quit having 2-4 states determine for the whole country who is going to be running in a nation wide campaign.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 1:12 pm

They're saying January 3rd for Iowa now. That suggest to me that Michigan should pencil in December 12th. Not too close to the Holidays and all.

Exodor · Post by **Exodor** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:18 pm

Real Clear Politics has a pretty cool interactive graph showing the state of the Republican primary race.

What really caught my eye is the color they chose for Mr. Santorum on the graph:

I'm going to assume that was a deliberate choice.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 11:42 am

Romney gives the military-industrial complex a big sloppy kiss

Some of the elements centered on building America’s military might, including accelerating the construction of Navy vessels and reinvigorating the nation’s missile defense program. On Thursday, Romney had also called for boosting troop levels by 100,000.

“God did not create this country to be a nation of followers,’’ Romney said, adding “America must lead the world, or someone else will.’’

Holy hell. OK, granted he was speaking to a group of soldiers in the heart of the American war machine, and granted Mitt has a long history of telling an audience what it wants to hear. Still, I don't think God created this country to conquer the world, either. In fact, I don't think...oh, never mind.

If I was entertaining any thoughts of supporting him, those just went out the window. OK, I wasn't. But still. This line is long enough already unless the rest of the world decides to gang up on us.

And expanding the Navy? Really? I guess the Iranian naval threat really spooked ol' Mitt.

Freezer-TPF- · Post by **Freezer-TPF-** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 1:41 pm

I knew that RINO Romney wanted bigger government and to expand the federal workforce. No wonder that he's been running for president for 5 years and still hasn't closed the deal.

Grundbegriff · Post by **Grundbegriff** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:19 pm

I think it's hilarious when people call Romney a RINO, as if there hasn't always been a moderate, corporate wing to the Republican Party. Name "Rockefeller" ring a bell?

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 3:38 pm

It occurred to me after I posted that 100,000 new troops plus fattening up arms makers probably constitutes his jobs plan. He should have spelled it out for us slow kids.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 4:45 pm

Grundbegriff wrote:I think it's hilarious when people call Romney a RINO, as if there hasn't always been a moderate, corporate wing to the Republican Party. Name "Rockefeller" ring a bell?

Vaguely. Wasn't he in Dwight Eisenhower's party?

Carpet_pissr · Post by **Carpet_pissr** » Sun Oct 09, 2011 9:01 am

Kraken wrote:If I was entertaining any thoughts of supporting him, those just went out the window. OK, I wasn't. But still.

Stole the words right from my brain. What a moron. Even top brass are testifying saying they can do with less money!

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 8:28 am

Here's me from another thread, back before Perry came up short in his first debates:

It's totally going to be Perry-Rubio. This will fire up the base (even beyond the Tea Party) while making a play for Hispanics. It has all kinds of aura, including the launch of a new generation of virile male conservative leadership. It plays on-screen like Clinton-Gore, back when Gore was svelte.

Wow. Perry seemed so inevitable a few weeks ago. Everybody on the Right wanted him to be the perfect candidate, and he seemed like he was until he stepped outside of Texas.

So who do people think it's going to be? At the moment a Romney-Cain ticket seems plausible, since they could bill themselves as the "Businessman's Ticket," with Cain also serving as Mitt's ambassador to the Tea Party.

But I think Cain would be a liability in a general election. His schtick is all about simple solutions (9-9-9, two-page legislation) that sound bold until someone asks for details he can't supply. And his grasp of international issues seems pretty weak. Isn't picking a charismatic but insubstantial VP the same mistake McCain made?

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 8:43 am

There's no way Romney is going to absorb Cain. Haven't you heard? His 9-9-9 plan is really just 666 upside down -- and we all know what that means.

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 9:56 am

That now makes me think of Bachman as the Church Lady.

Carpet_pissr · Post by **Carpet_pissr** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 10:04 am

Zarathud wrote:That now makes me think of Bachman as the Church Lady.

Ripe for a JibJab video.

SpaceLord · Post by **SpaceLord** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 11:17 am

Does the 9-9-9 plan call for 9% taxes across the board? If so, errr...

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 11:26 am

Holman wrote: Isn't picking a charismatic but insubstantial VP the same mistake McCain made?

Is Cain a diva?

Arcanis · Post by **Arcanis** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 11:32 am

SpaceLord wrote:Does the 9-9-9 plan call for 9% taxes across the board? If so, errr...

It states lowest possible is 9%
summary of it from the link is ditch most taxes & deductions and have 9% tax on business, individual gross income, and a federal sales tax. All of this to set up a transition to the "fair tax". I heard some talk about this the other day and that it is a plan that has been tossed around economist circles for 20 years, but never got any traction. I don't know how well it would work but at least some of it sounds good to me, but i'm not an economist so my idea of what kind of reactions such a plan would cause probably aren't very accurate.

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 11:45 am

Arcanis wrote:
SpaceLord wrote:Does the 9-9-9 plan call for 9% taxes across the board? If so, errr...
It states lowest possible is 9%
summary of it from the link is ditch most taxes & deductions and have 9% tax on business, individual gross income, and a federal sales tax. All of this to set up a transition to the "fair tax". I heard some talk about this the other day and that it is a plan that has been tossed around economist circles for 20 years, but never got any traction. I don't know how well it would work but at least some of it sounds good to me, but i'm not an economist so my idea of what kind of reactions such a plan would cause probably aren't very accurate.

Seems like that wouldn't be enough revenue.

Arcanis · Post by **Arcanis** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 11:55 am

noxiousdog wrote:
Arcanis wrote:
SpaceLord wrote:Does the 9-9-9 plan call for 9% taxes across the board? If so, errr...
It states lowest possible is 9%
summary of it from the link is ditch most taxes & deductions and have 9% tax on business, individual gross income, and a federal sales tax. All of this to set up a transition to the "fair tax". I heard some talk about this the other day and that it is a plan that has been tossed around economist circles for 20 years, but never got any traction. I don't know how well it would work but at least some of it sounds good to me, but i'm not an economist so my idea of what kind of reactions such a plan would cause probably aren't very accurate.
Seems like that wouldn't be enough revenue.

I think it depends on the details. As there would be a larger tax base, there are no loopholes (only deduction is for charitable donations), in theory it revs up the economy so 9% of a bigger pie, and the sales tax should generate a lot as well. Then again we are talking about guessing at what people will do with their money, so all bets are off. That is also intended to be phase 1 and moving to a fair tax plan which would hopefully be a long term solution, no details on that in the link.

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 12:26 pm

Arcanis wrote: I think it depends on the details. As there would be a larger tax base, there are no loopholes (only deduction is for charitable donations), in theory it revs up the economy so 9% of a bigger pie, and the sales tax should generate a lot as well. Then again we are talking about guessing at what people will do with their money, so all bets are off. That is also intended to be phase 1 and moving to a fair tax plan which would hopefully be a long term solution, no details on that in the link.

There's no chance. He's excluding capital gains, he's excluding payroll, and he's excluding corporate taxes. Buffett estimates that he currently pays 17% of his income to taxes, and you're reducing it to 9%?

No chance.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 3:45 pm

If I understand 9-9-9, it's 9% income tax, 9% sales tax and 9% corporate tax. So in theory if he spent all his money (and really it would hold true for everyone), he would be paying .09 + .09*.91 = .09 + .0819 ~= 17%, but of course, he won't spend anywhere near all of his money.

Meanwhile, people who make substantially less and do spend most or all of there money would pay a larger percentage of their money on taxes than him.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 3:58 pm

Defiant wrote:If I understand 9-9-9, it's 9% income tax, 9% sales tax and 9% corporate tax. So in theory if he spent all his money (and really it would hold true for everyone), he would be paying .09 + .09*.91 = .09 + .0819 ~= 17%, but of course, he won't spend anywhere near all of his money.

Meanwhile, people who make substantially less and do spend most or all of there money would pay a larger percentage of their money on taxes than him.

...unless the VAT exempts food, clothing, and medicine, as most states' sales taxes do.

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 4:08 pm

Defiant wrote:If I understand 9-9-9, it's 9% income tax, 9% sales tax and 9% corporate tax. So in theory if he spent all his money (and really it would hold true for everyone), he would be paying .09 + .09*.91 = .09 + .0819 ~= 17%, but of course, he won't spend anywhere near all of his money.

Meanwhile, people who make substantially less and do spend most or all of there money would pay a larger percentage of their money on taxes than him.

Not correct. Currently his 'income' that contributes to AGI includes capital gains taxed at at least 15%. That would be completely exempt. So his 'income' instead of reading $2,000,000 or so (iirc) would be $150,000 (berkshire salary), and ~50,000 from assorted speaking engagements and board seats.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 5:05 pm

noxiousdog wrote:Currently his 'income' that contributes to AGI includes capital gains taxed at at least 15%.

Well, if you're going to use income to mean something different than what Cain means...

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 5:07 pm

Kraken wrote:
Defiant wrote:If I understand 9-9-9, it's 9% income tax, 9% sales tax and 9% corporate tax. So in theory if he spent all his money (and really it would hold true for everyone), he would be paying .09 + .09*.91 = .09 + .0819 ~= 17%, but of course, he won't spend anywhere near all of his money.

Meanwhile, people who make substantially less and do spend most or all of there money would pay a larger percentage of their money on taxes than him.
...unless the VAT exempts food, clothing, and medicine, as most states' sales taxes do.

I would still imagine that there are quite a lot of people who spend a greater percentage of their money on non-exempted items than Buffett does.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 10:44 pm

Michele Bachmann wrote:When you take the 9-9-9 plan and turn it upside down, I think the devil's in the details

http://news.yahoo.com/herman-cains-sudd ... 40597.html" target="_blank

Anonymous Bosch · Post by **Anonymous Bosch** » Fri Oct 14, 2011 11:20 am

Alas, this old photo of a young Mitt Romney and his chums at Bain Capital, playing with money, does not bode well for Romney:

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Fri Oct 14, 2011 11:23 am

msduncan · Post by **msduncan** » Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:09 pm

I'm getting closer to deciding that this guy is the one I'm pulling the lever (scratching the bubble?) for:

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:51 pm

Caucus Fallout: New Vegas*

Jon Huntsman is boycotting next week's Republican presidential debate in Nevada.

The former Utah governor and other candidates say Nevada has unfairly shifted the date of its presidential caucuses. But Huntsman becomes the first to announce plans to skip next Tuesday's nationally-televised GOP debate in protest.
...
Huntsman's decision is not a huge surprise. His rival Mitt Romney has strong political support in Nevada. And Huntsman has staked his political future on New Hampshire.

*I don't actually know where in Nevada the debate's being held...

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Fri Oct 14, 2011 1:42 pm

msduncan wrote:I'm getting closer to deciding that this guy is the one I'm pulling the lever (scratching the bubble?) for:

You'd better donate a lot of cash then, or at least put your money (and time) where your mouth is, because he isn't a serious candidate with his current bankroll and his organization is pretty thin.

msduncan · Post by **msduncan** » Fri Oct 14, 2011 3:28 pm

Pyperkub wrote:
msduncan wrote:I'm getting closer to deciding that this guy is the one I'm pulling the lever (scratching the bubble?) for:

You'd better donate a lot of cash then, or at least put your money (and time) where your mouth is, because he isn't a serious candidate with his current bankroll and his organization is pretty thin.

I didn't say he was going to win. I said I may vote for him.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Fri Oct 14, 2011 3:29 pm

msduncan wrote:I didn't say he was going to win. I said I may vote for him.

Ah well, there is that. It's not quite as satisfying as being an Alabama fan...

Biyobi · Post by **Biyobi** » Fri Oct 14, 2011 4:00 pm

msduncan wrote:I'm getting closer to deciding that this guy is the one I'm pulling the lever (scratching the bubble?) for:

I think if that hat was in a houndstooth pattern your vote would already be locked in.

em2nought · Post by **em2nought** » Fri Oct 14, 2011 4:17 pm

Biyobi wrote:
msduncan wrote:I'm getting closer to deciding that this guy is the one I'm pulling the lever (scratching the bubble?) for:

I think if that hat was in a houndstooth pattern your vote would already be locked in.

Needs some Joe Paterno glasses to satisfy me.

Mr. Fed · Post by **Mr. Fed** » Fri Oct 14, 2011 5:04 pm

msduncan wrote:
Pyperkub wrote:
msduncan wrote:I'm getting closer to deciding that this guy is the one I'm pulling the lever (scratching the bubble?) for:

You'd better donate a lot of cash then, or at least put your money (and time) where your mouth is, because he isn't a serious candidate with his current bankroll and his organization is pretty thin.
I didn't say he was going to win. I said I may vote for him.

That's the same spirit in which I would vote for Huntsman or Johnson.

AWS260 · Post by **AWS260** » Fri Oct 14, 2011 5:52 pm

Bachmann calls for higher taxes.

Daily Finance wrote:Speaking on Fox News, the Minnesota congresswoman stated that she wants to adopt Ronald Reagan's tax plan, a rate structure that is much higher than current tax rates.
***
During the Reagan years, the total effective tax rate ranged from 29.2% to 30.7%. By comparison, today's rate is 27.7%. In other words, depending upon which year of Reagan's presidency one considers, Bachmann's proposal would raise taxes by between 1.5% and 3%, across the board.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sat Oct 15, 2011 8:09 am

Rick Perry's family feels your pain:

Anita Perry, the wife of Texas Gov. Rick Perry, said she sympathized with the unemployed Friday because her son resigned from his job at Deutsche Bank to campaign for his father, reports CNN.

"He resigned his job two weeks ago because he can't go out and campaign with his father because of SEC regulations," she said at a Pendleton, S.C. diner, in response to a middle-aged voter who lost his six-figure job and now works as a handyman. "My son lost his job because of this administration," she added. CNN reports that the SEC recently adopted stricter rules for investment advisers undertaking political activity.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Sat Oct 15, 2011 8:16 am

Holman wrote:Rick Perry's family feels your pain:

Anita Perry, the wife of Texas Gov. Rick Perry, said she sympathized with the unemployed Friday because her son resigned from his job at Deutsche Bank to campaign for his father, reports CNN.

"He resigned his job two weeks ago because he can't go out and campaign with his father because of SEC regulations," she said at a Pendleton, S.C. diner, in response to a middle-aged voter who lost his six-figure job and now works as a handyman. "My son lost his job because of this administration," she added. CNN reports that the SEC recently adopted stricter rules for investment advisers undertaking political activity.