Burgold Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 I am curious how much of the increase is due to the addition of drug benefits for medicare...you know the one from Bush. I am also curious how much of it is driven by demographics as an agin population becomes increasingly elidgable for more of the social safety net including social security. Good point... I do suspect unemployment has a good bit to do with it too though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 You don't think the economic collapse we're currently working our way out of had anything to do with that? How dare you suggest that the worst economic environment since the Great Depression could have contributed in any significant way to an increase in people relying upon Federal programs....you fiend!! Don't you know that you are not allowed to acknowledge that a world crippling economy collapsed BEFORE Obama took office and that the effects of that economy such as a 10% unemployment and increase in welfare (corporate or otherwise) became fully realized under the Obama administration like a tide rising! You aren't allowed to do this at all, nor are you allowed to suggest that any Republican ever contributed to increases in social welfare reliance in the form of corporate subsidies. Just shameful I say!! Not to mention that had Obama followed the suggestion of no small number of Republicans to just let the auto industry crash and the banks which are the pillars of the world economic system fail the number of unemployed and we think was high before would have skyrocketed not only here but globally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFan44 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 of course not....no more than Obama had anything to do with that either.he is simply present....and not responsible for anything before,during or after;) You know, like Bush and the mortgage mess ; ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Sean Hannity is a handsome, smooth talking scumbag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Sean Hannity is a handsome, smooth talking scumbag. You give him too much credit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 The Big Man's in the hood. http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-politics/20120215/US.Obama/?cid=hero_media_sea Obama promoting steps to boost US trade SAN FRANCISCO — President Barack Obama is outlining new steps to boost U.S. exports during a visit to a Boeing assembly plant in Washington state, calling on Congress to continue financing a national export credit agency crucial to a goal of doubling exports by 2014.Obama was to tour the Boeing facility in Everett on Friday, promoting foreign trade and manufacturing at the end of a three-day trip that included a stop at a Milwaukee padlock manufacturer. Congress extended the Export-Import Bank's authorization through May of this year, but White House officials said the bank will reach its lending limit at the end of March. Obama has pointed to the bank as a key player in helping promote U.S. exports. At the same time, Obama was to announce that Boeing will participate in an Export-Import Bank program that helps companies advance money to suppliers on export-related contracts. Administration officials said Boeing would be committing to more than $700 million in short-term credit this year. Officials said the arrangement would help Boeing compete for foreign clients against European jet maker Airbus. Officials said the administration intends to use the Export-Import Bank to help U.S. companies counter foreign companies that are getting unfair assistance from their governments. (more at lin-k <----) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted February 22, 2012 Author Share Posted February 22, 2012 Obama proposes lowering corporate tax rate to 28 percentThe Obama administration proposed a major overhaul of the nation’s corporate tax code on Wednesday, an election-year gambit that aims to draw a contrast over a key policy issue with the Republicans vying to replace him. The plan would lower the nation’s corporate tax rate to 28 percent. At the same time, he wants to boost overall revenues from corporate taxation by banning numerous deductions and loopholes that save companies tens of billions of dollars a year on their tax bills, according to a senior administration official. “The current tax code was written for a different economy in a different era. It needs to be reformed and modernized,” Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said in outlining the proposal in the early afternoon. “Our corporate tax rate is now on pace to become the highest among all developed economies,” Geithner said. “The rate is high in order to pay for a tax code full of special benefits for certain industries and certain activities... Whatever you call them, they are subsidies. They are spending through the tax code. And they are expensive, costing billions of dollars a year.” The current U.S. corporate tax rate of 35 percent is one of the highest in the world, but the abundance of loopholes and deductions enable many businesses to pay far less than that — or nothing at all. Companies in the United States pay almost half the taxes that companies in other rich countries pay, compared with the size of the economy, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Obama is also targeting oil and gas companies for tax increases while promising special breaks for manufacturing companies, according to a senior administration official. The prognosis for the overhaul plan in Congress is unclear. Many Republicans, including the leading presidential candidates, have favored reducing taxes on businesses well below what the president is proposing. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who has called for a 25 percent tax rate for corporations, is planning to speak on tax reform later this week, while his rivals for the GOP nomination have called for far lower tax rates. Despite those disagreements, Republicans and Democrats have shown support for a tax strategy that reduces rates across the board while eliminating special-interest loopholes. More from the link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Nothing wrong with reducing the 35% paper rate, as long as it doesn't actually reduce revenues. Closing loopholes seems like a big plus, given that the average effective tax rate paid by corporations is something like 15-17% (or was when I last checked). That's roughly a 50-60% discount vs. the paper rate, which is absurd. When the paper rate is pulling that hard in one direction and loopholes can pull that hard in the other, it's time to move each substantially closer to the other and make it clear: if you enjoy making use of our stable societal infrastructure to provide a service and turn a profit, then you should pay transparently to maintain the very same infrastructure that made your profit possible. But I get nervous about projections that assume certain behaviors of taypaxing (and -dodging) companies. It seems they rarely behave as expected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Strange ... I don't have anyone on ignore, but I can't see H_h's original post. Is this some sort of premium content you have to subscribe to now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrypticVillain Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Strange ... I don't have anyone on ignore, but I can't see H_h's original post. Is this some sort of premium content you have to subscribe to now? Thought I was the only one.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 This is just something to campaign on. In reality, if he and dems have full control there will be no tax cuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USS Redskins Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Latest Gallup has Romney up by 4pts over Obama... not saying that Obama will lose but with gas prices looking to exceed 4.00 per gallon and if unemployment starts climbing again, well, then Obama may start to look at those return flights to Chicago. http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/212225-gallup-romney-leads-obama-by-four-points Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejaydana Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 then Obama may start to look at those return flights to Chicago.[/url] we can only hope for this outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 I still think Romney has a real shot at the (big) win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckus Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Latest Gallup has Romney up by 4pts over Obama... not saying that Obama will lose but with gas prices looking to exceed 4.00 per gallon and if unemployment starts climbing again, well, then Obama may start to look at those return flights to Chicago.http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/212225-gallup-romney-leads-obama-by-four-points An AP Poll from yesterday (I think yesterday?) shows Obama beats any GOP candidate by a fairly wide margin head-to-head. Polls seem to be all over the place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 I think the President wins the election but fails to break 300 EVs I think I have him projected at something like 296 EV's right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejaydana Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 I really don't know how much to read into these polling numbers. Rasmussen is a fairly good source but watching those debates none of the GOP candidates seem very strong to me at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 I really don't know how much to read into these polling numbers. Rasmussen is a fairly good source but watching those debates none of the GOP candidates seem very strong to me at the moment. Rasmussen is a pretty terrible source, IMO. Their polls are consistently right leaning (the way they frame their questions, how they break up their demographics, how they interpret data, etc) and get almost consistently different results than the average of other polls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejaydana Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Rasmussen is a pretty terrible source, IMO. Their polls are consistently right leaning (the way they frame their questions, how they break up their demographics, how they interpret data, etc) and get almost consistently different results than the average of other polls. Well, the AP is not a trusted source either imho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoVaO Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 I'll repeat what I said in Romney's thread: Gallup has been screwy for a while. Gallup has consistently been Obama's poorest poll. It's like they overcompensated for their 2008 result in which they had Obama winning by 11 points. In 2010, their final generic house poll was R +15, when the actual result was more like R +6. Can you spot the outlier? http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...andidates.html Obama is ahead 49-43.9 vs. Romney in the RCP average. And then you consider the recent state polling that has been released, it's clear Gallup's poll is well off the mark. That said, of course gas is a worry. Probably the biggest headwind this economy faces right now, even more than Europe at the moment. ---------- Post added February-23rd-2012 at 04:55 PM ---------- Rasmussen is a pretty terrible source, IMO. Their polls are consistently right leaning (the way they frame their questions, how they break up their demographics, how they interpret data, etc) and get almost consistently different results than the average of other polls. The funny thing is that Rasmussen has Obama beating Romney by 10 right now, beating Romney in Virginia by 6, and destroying his competition in New Mexico by like 20 points. Go figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenspandan Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 rasmussen polls ONLY using automated landline phone calls. for a variety of reasons, this skews their polling data older and more conservative (in general). i don't think the bias is particularly intentional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 I think the President wins the election but fails to break 300 EVsI think I have him projected at something like 296 EV's right now. If Ricky Santanna wins the nomination; Obama might break 400 EVs. Obama has the black vote. Obama has the majority of the hispanic vote, only die hard conservative hispanics will vote for Republicans. Obama will have the liberal and moderate single and married woman vote. Obama will have the traditional union vote. Obama will probably get enough of the swing vote to push him over to reelection. Quite Frankly, I don't really don't see Obama losing to many states he won in 2008 if any. ---------- Post added February-23rd-2012 at 05:20 PM ---------- Obama is already talking about he will have 5 more years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Is it fair that some of Mr. Obama's largest campaign contributors received federal loan guarantees on their investments in renewable energy projects that went bust?http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204369404577206980068367936.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h would a ban on political donations from those recieving federal loans be a good idea? who is watching the watchers You know, we could get rid of this speculation about politicians and where their campaign cash comes from if we'd outlaw all campaign contributions except from registered voters and only for the candidates that directly affect them and with strict limits, like $1,000 and go back to the Fair Doctrine Act. Also, Rdskns2000, you forgot to add the liberal and moderate single and married men. They have skin in the game too, as far as contraception goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejaydana Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 If Ricky Santanna wins the nomination; Obama might break 400 EVs.Obama has the black vote. Obama has the majority of the hispanic vote, only die hard conservative hispanics will vote for Republicans. Obama will have the liberal and moderate single and married woman vote. Obama will have the traditional union vote. Obama will probably get enough of the swing vote to push him over to reelection. Quite Frankly, I don't really don't see Obama losing to many states he won in 2008 if any. ---------- Post added February-23rd-2012 at 05:20 PM ---------- Obama is already talking about he will have 5 more years. I think you're potentially over-estimating both the black vote for him as well as the youth vote. I'm not saying the black vote won't trend to him, of course it will and overwhelmingly so, but I think you're much more likely to see a lack of voting on the Dems side in several demographics. The fact that unemployment for 18-25 year olds is at historic highs shouldn't help things for him either and the youth vote is notoriously (and historically) apathetic. Who cares if Obama is talking about another 5 years? Is he going to say he's not going to win? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Gas at $5+ and another government shutdown circa Sept/Oct would be awfully inconvenient. Unfortunately, the alternative to Obama will be just as bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.