Romney/Ryan Lose 2012 Election Thread

[Wrong Direction]

Hogwash, it has been tattooed on Boehner's forehead that raising taxes will hurt the job creators, as such the implication is that lowering taxes will free them up to create jobs. Saying that they have parsed that language is nothing short of living in denial of reality.

Not at all hogwash. All things being equal, lower taxes are better for jobs. That's a conservative position. However, if you have lower taxes and a collapse of our housing market, the lower taxes aren't going to be enough to save the jobs. If you have lower taxes and gas prices double, lower taxes aren't enough. If you have lower taxes and the Euro goes boom. Lower taxes aren't enough.

However, in every case, I'd generally argue that lower taxes are better than higher taxes AND any of those other adverse outcomes. I'd also argue that not all tax cuts are equal. Also, people from Ron Paul's camp aside, I don't know of any conservative who doesn't believe in something like the Laffer curve. In other words, some taxation is needed to support necessary functions. You'll find pretty broad agreement amongst conservatives that our spending is so inefficient and wasteful that cutting that is preferable to raising taxes. You hear only a very small minority arguing that we don't need taxes.

Personally, I'm a little out of step with mainstream Republican thought these days, but not far. I definitely want a much flatter system, with very few write-offs. I believe that would broaden the tax base sufficiently enough to lower corporate taxes. Lowering corporate taxes would also help spur job creation, IMO. Where I differ is on the differential between capital gains taxes and income taxes. Philosophically, I just don't understand why there's a differential. I know the political theories on why Clinton and Gingrich did this in the 90's, but I don't fully understand the economic theory behind it.

[Prosperity]

Circularly, the demand is down because the consumer has less, because companies have laid off and havent expanded.

---------- Post added January-18th-2012 at 01:41 PM ----------

Shhh. No room for reason.

The reason they dumped the jobs in the first place was anticipating a drop in demand, maybe because of they viewed that as an inevitable outcome of the apparent financial collapse we were facing a few years ago. The ACTUAL lack of demand in the past few years has been slowing growth.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Occupy Wall Street was not a coincidence.

Coincidence to what? I'm confused.

[Wrong Direction]

Coincidence to what? I'm confused.

Tinfoil hat world here, but I don't think it's a coincidence that a left-leaning movement generally against Wall St. was created months before the right was very likely to nominate basically a Wall St. fat cat.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Tinfoil hat world here, but I don't think it's a coincidence that a left-leaning movement generally against Wall St. was created months before the right was very likely to nominate basically a Wall St. fat cat.

Wow.

Honestly, I think you have the cart before the horse there.

[Predicto]

Tinfoil hat world here, but I don't think it's a coincidence that a left-leaning movement generally against Wall St. was created months before the right was very likely to nominate basically a Wall St. fat cat.

*blink blink*

wha? Oh come on.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Oh boy:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/confirmed-more-on-romney-and-his-offshoring/2012/01/18/gIQAf9Gz8P_blog.html?tid=sm_twitter_washingtonpost

As one of the wealthiest candidates to run for president in recent times, Romney has used a variety of techniques to help minimize the taxes on his estimated $250 million fortune. In addition to paying the lower tax rate on his investment income, Romney has as much as $8 million invested in at least 12 funds listed on a Cayman Islands registry. Another investment, which Romney reports as being worth between $5 million and $25 million, shows up on securities records as having been domiciled in the Caymans.

Official documents reviewed by ABC News show that Bain Capital, the private equity partnership Romney once ran, has set up some 138 secretive offshore funds in the Caymans.

Tax experts agree that Romney remains subject to American taxes. But they say the offshore accounts have provided him — and Bain — with other potential financial benefits, such as higher management fees and greater foreign interest, all at the expense of the U.S. Treasury. Rebecca J. Wilkins, a tax policy expert with Citizens for Tax Justice, said the federal government loses an estimated $100 billion a year because of tax havens.

[Jack] Blum, the D.C. tax lawyer, said working through an offshore investment vehicle allows the investor to “avoid a whole series of small traps in the tax code that ordinary people would face if they paid tax on an onshore basis.”

Wilkins agreed, saying the “primary advantage to setting those funds up in an offshore jurisdiction like the Cayman Islands or Bermuda is it helps the investors avoid tax.”

“It helps U.S. investors avoid U.S. tax,” said Wilkins, “it helps foreign investors avoid taxes in their home country, so it’s not illegal or improper to set those funds up in a foreign jurisdiction, but it makes it more attractive to investors because it helps them avoid paying taxes on that income.”

Also: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/romney-parks-millions-offshore-tax-haven/story?id=15378566

That hurts.

[@DCGoldPants]

So, the primary in S.C. is in a few days. You have a state that has some of the highest unemployment going on.....and this breaks. Newt, Ron and the Ricks are probably getting ready to talk on this over and over again.

[Larry]

So, the primary in S.C. is in a few days. You have a state that has some of the highest unemployment going on.....and this breaks. Newt, Ron and the Ricks are probably getting ready to talk on this over and over again.

While casually forgetting to mention that "Oh, BTW, under my tax plan? Romney's taxes would be zero."

[SnyderShrugged]

It appears that there were some vote miscounts in Iowa, and that means Romney isnt the first GOP candidate to win the back to back primary/caucus races like they were trumpeting before.

Santorum wins now in a statistical tie , Paul still a statistical second. Less than 4k vote margin between santorum/romney and Paul.

Wonder if this will be reported by the big networks or just ignored like they often do?

http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20120119/NEWS02/120119011/New-Iowa-tally-Santorum-34-votes-ahead-Romney?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CHome

New Iowa tally: Santorum 34 votes ahead of Romney

TOTALS

Rick Santorum: 29,839

Mitt Romney: 29,805

Ron Paul: 26,036

Newt Gingrich: 16,163

Rick Perry: 12,557

Michele Bachmann: 6,046

Jon Huntsman: 739

Others: No preference, 147; Herman Cain, 45; Sarah Palin, 23; Buddy Roemer, 17; Fred Karger, 10; Gary Johnson, 8; Donald Trump, 5; Paul Ryan, 3; Condoleeza Rice, 2; Roy Moore, 2; Ben Lange, 2; Mike Huckabee, 2; Rudy Giuliani, 2; Tim Pawlenty, 2; Scott Walker, 1; John McCain, 1; Ralph Nader, 1; Pat Buchanan, 1; Robert D. Ray, 1; Jared Blankenship, 1.

[@DCGoldPants]

Chuck Todd is talking about it right now on Morning Joe how quickly this changes Romney from potentially going 3-0 to 1-2 with the win coming from the least conservative state of the 3.

[SnyderShrugged]

Chuck Todd is talking about it right now on Morning Joe how quickly this changes Romney from potentially going 3-0 to 1-2 with the win coming from the least conservative state of the 3.

Unfortunately, the misreported numbers (and I call shenanigans) gave him momentum and the whole "electability" factor and it likely impacted NH votes and will still impact SC votes now.

,

[Larry]

Santorum wins now in a statistical tie , Paul still a statistical second.

Uh, minor, semantic point, here. But I think that the correct terminology to describe the results you listed is:

Santorum wins now, Paul still third.

[SnyderShrugged]

Uh, minor, semantic point, here. But I think that the correct terminology to describe the results you listed is:

Santorum wins now, Paul still third.

only by raw vote counts, in effect, he statistically in second and the others are tied for first.

The greater story is that this was known before and they just now released this info.

[twa]

[Larry]

only by raw vote counts, in effect, he statistically in second and the others are tied for first.

Uh, if two people are tied for first, then the next person behind them is third.

You know. You can't be second when there's two people in front of you.

In the 2000 Presidential election, Ralph Nader did not come in second, with 3% of the vote. He came in third.

[SnyderShrugged]

Uh, if two people are tied for first, then the next person behind them is third.

You know. You can't be second when there's two people in front of you.

In the 2000 Presidential election, Ralph Nader did not come in second, with 3% of the vote. He came in third.

you recall I said statistically tied I hope?

and in terms of delegates, thats really what matters. Gore beat Bush in Fl too

[SnyderShrugged]

the plot thickens, makes me wonder who won in those 8 missing precincts

Santorum finished 34 votes ahead of Romney in new Iowa tally; votes from 8 precincts missing

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/report-santorum-finished-34-votes-ahead-of-romney-in-new-iowa-tally-votes-from-8-precincts-missing/2012/01/19/gIQAJGuRAQ_story.html

[visionary]

Apparently Romney has now called Santorum and conceded Iowa.

[Prosperity]

Santorum should have declared himself the winner when he had the chance.

[Stillers6SB]

With Romney, the old question asked to prospective voters

"Who would you rather have a beer with?"

gets changed to:

"Who would you rather have pate and champagne with?"

Dick Harpootlian

[Predicto]

When the difference is 34 votes in a non binding caucus, it really doesn't matter that much who won. Romney did well, and is on a roll. That's the only story that matters.

[Larry]

When the difference is 34 votes in a non binding caucus, it really doesn't matter that much who won. Romney did well, and is on a roll. That's the only story that matters.

Now, I suspect (I'll admit that I don't know), that there's benefits that come from having the word "Winner" after your name.

Face it, a lot of donors and similar people, donate to the person who they think is going to win.

In some ways, it's like the stock market. Things move based on people's opinions of which way they're going to move.

(Well, that, and on the behind-the-scenes manipulations of insiders.)

[Predicto]

Now, I suspect (I'll admit that I don't know), that there's benefits that come from having the word "Winner" after your name.

Face it, a lot of donors and similar people, donate to the person who they think is going to win.

In some ways, it's like the stock market. Things move based on people's opinions of which way they're going to move.

(Well, that, and on the behind-the-scenes manipulations of insiders.)

Sure. But at the same time, we are talking about a change of 40 or so votes in a country of over 300 million people. I doubt that anyone really thinks those 40 votes are going to change anyone's idea about Santorum's real chance to get the nomination.

[grhqofb5]

Ok, why is he so nervous about releasing his tax returns. Newt said it best- the republican party has a right to know before the nomination whether he has a problem. If there's no problem, release the returns. If there is, best to come out with it now as well. He's stammering around, appears to have something to hide.