***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[cj863]

aside from medicare and it's primarily the practitioners doing it.

Sigh guess I'll quote myself again...

 

[createdestroy]

draconian tax hikes

tax rate of one of the most successful periods in the last 40 years (90's) = draconian????????????????/

 

[duba169]

Karl Rove's American Crossroads group has been on a charm offense in the wake of widespread Republican losses in Tuesday's election, attempting to reassure donors who gave the group more than $300 million to spend on candidates who largely were defeated. So far, Rove has refused to take any blame for the losses, and on Friday, a spokesman for the group said that its supporters were standing by them.

"We've been talking to a lot of our donors," said American Crossroads spokesman Jonathan Collegio on MSNBC. "Everyone is disappointed with the results, but everyone also fully understands the contribution we had in the 2012 election."

Crossroads held calls with its big donors on Thursday, to go over what happened in the election.

Privately, donors don't seem to be quite as reassured as Collegio said.

"The billionaire donors I hear are livid," one GOP operative told The Huffington Post. "There is some holy hell to pay. Karl Rove has a lot of explaining to do … I don't know how you tell your donors that we spent $390 million and got nothing."

Rove and Crossroads have aggressively been deflecting the blame. Rove, for example, has blamed the timing of Hurricane Sandy, accused President Barack Obama of suppressing the vote and argued that the former GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney did not respond quickly enough to the Obama campaign's attacks.

On Friday, Collegio identified another culprit: the Senate candidates and a weak GOP recruitment process.


"On the Senate side, we did -- and I'll be the first person to admit -- have some pretty big problems on the candidate-recruitment side," he said. "I would argue that over the last two election cycles, Republicans have probably lost at least six Senate seats -- not because of any bad messaging coming from our party, but because we had some candidates that were outraised and that frankly were not ready for the platform that's a Republican Senate candidate, where there's an enormous amount of scrutiny. So instead of talking about our message of cutting the debt and taxes, we ended up on a lot of tangential issues that should never have been debated, because we had some very, very weak candidates."

The two conservative candidates whose races became dominated by discussion over their controversial comments about rape -- Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) and Indiana's Richard Mourdock -- were certainly surprises for the party when they won their primaries and put the GOP in a weaker position in the general election. They were also dealt a setback when Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) said she was retiring, and the more liberal Angus King (I) ended up winning. In other races like Ohio, Michigan and Florida, the Republican candidates never really seemed really for prime-time.

Still, the defeats of all these candidates call into question the wisdom of Republican donors giving so much money to Rove, and whether they should instead have invested more into recruitment, grassroots organizing or research. But Collegio argued that without Rove's operation, the election would have been an even bigger Democratic victory.

"The critical thing that gets lost with all of this analysis, is the president did a very, very good job raising a lot of money; he outspent Mitt Romney on television by $154 million over the campaign," he said. "And even that is understated by the fact that Mitt Romney was buying all of his ad time late, which meant that he was paying higher prices. The Crossroads groups and a lot of the outside groups that were spending money were really balancing out a really good and well-executed campaign by the president, but one where the Democrats had a really big financial advantage. Not only at the presidential level, but at the Senate level."

 

[superantigen]

I'll just leave this here...

[COLOR=#red]Study: Tax Cuts for the Rich Don't Spur Growth[/COLOR]


Cutting taxes for the wealthy does not generate faster economic growth, according to a new report. But those cuts may widen the income gap between the rich and the rest, according to a new report.

[COLOR=#red]A study from the Congressional Research Service -- the non-partisan research office for Congress -- shows that "there is little evidence over the past 65 years that tax cuts for the highest earners are associated with savings, investment or productivity growth."
In fact, the study found that higher tax rates for the wealthy are statistically associated with higher levels of growth.[/COLOR]
The finding is likely to fuel to the already bitter political fight over taxing the rich, with President Obama and the Democrats calling for higher taxes on the wealthy to reduce the deficit and fund spending. Mitt Romney and the GOP advocate lower marginal tax rates for top earners, saying they fuel investment and job creation.

The CRS study looked at tax rates and economic growth since 1945. The top tax rate in 1945 was above 90 percent, and fell to 70 percent in the 1960s and to a low of 28 percent in 1986.
The top current rate is 35 percent. The tax rate for capital gains was 25 percent in the 1940s and 1950s, then went up to 35 percent in the 1970s, before coming down to 15 percent today - the lowest rate in more than 65 years.

Lowering these rates for the wealthy, the study found, isn't aligned with significant improvement in any of the areas it examined. Pushing tax rates down had a "negligible effect" on private saving, and while it does note a relationship between investing and capital gains rates, the correlations "are not statistically significant," the study says.

"Top tax rates," it concludes, "do not necessarily have a demonstrably significant relationship with investment."
The study said that lower marginal rates have a "slight positive effect" on productivity while lower capital gains rates have a "slight negative association" with productivity. But, again, neither effect was considered statistically significant.

Do higher taxes on the rich lead to faster economic growth? Not necessarily. The paper says that while growth accelerated with higher taxes on the rich, the relationship is "not strong" and may be "coincidental," since broader economic factors may be responsible for that growth.
There is one part of the economy, however, that is changed by tax cuts for the rich: inequality. The study says that the biggest change in the distribution of U.S. income has been with the top 0.1 percent of earners - not the one percent.

The share of total income going to the top 0.1 percent hovered around 4 percent during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, then rose to 12 percent by the mid-2000s. During this period, the average tax rate paid by the 0.1 percent fell from more than 40 percent to below 25 percent.
The study said that "as top tax rates are reduced, the share of income accruing to the top of the income distribution increases" and that "these relationships are statistically significant."

In other words, cutting taxes on the rich may not grow the economic pie. But the study found that those cuts can effect "how that economic pie is sliced."



http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tax-cuts-rich-dont-spur-151649273.html

[COLOR=#red]Economist Stands By Tax Cut Study After GOP Successfully Demands Its Withdrawal[/COLOR]


The author of a Congressional Research Service study, who found no evidence that tax cuts for high income earners lead to economic growth, is standing by his work, after the legislative branch’s nonpartisan research arm withdrew the report under pressure from Republican leaders. And Democratic principals are demanding to know why CRS caved to GOP pressure.

CRS quietly and quickly pulled the six-week old report, despite the wishes of the research arm’s economic team, the New York Times reported Thursday.

“I wasn’t involved in the decision, as a matter of fact I was on vacation when the decision was made, so I can’t really add anything to what was reported in the NY Times,” Thomas Hungerford, the author of the study, told TPM in an email Thursday afternoon. “However, I certainly stand behind my work.”

Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI) — the top tax writing Democrat in the House — wants CRS to answer for its decision.

“I was deeply disturbed to hear that Mr. Hungerford’s report was taken down in response to political pressure from Congressional Republicans who had ideological objections to the report’s factual findings and conclusion,” Levin wrote in a letter (PDF) to CRS Director Mary Mazanec. “It would be completely inappropriate for CRS to censor one of its analysts simply because participants in the political process found his or her conclusion in conflict with their partisan position. I would like your explanation as to why this report was removed from the CRS website, who made that decision and what considerations led to it.”...


http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/11/crs-withdraws-study-taxes-growth-mcconnell-hatch.php

...

 

[Betonblck]

 

[duba169]

Study doesn't prove want you wanna hear? Cancel the study, call it biased. So messed up man. Needs change fast

 

[fantastic4our]

History has always shown that the trickle down theory doesn't work. The middle class, generally when they have more money in their pocket, they spend it.

 

[elderwatsondiggs]

[COLOR=#red]Petraeus was banging a chick named Paula Broadwell, who was writing his biography with the title "All In" ...how appropriate [/COLOR]

[COLOR=#red]The FBI was investigating it the whole time. Now please stop with the conspiracy rumors.[/COLOR]

 

[blakep267]

[COLOR=#red]Petraeus was banging a chick named Paula Broadwell, who was writing his biography with the title "All In" ...how appropriate [/COLOR]

yup. the only way she could write the final chapter was for her to get that work

 

[elderwatsondiggs]

yup. the only way she could write the final chapter was for her to get that work

 

[Nike Jordan]

Another round of tears...

 

[luckyluchiano]

I counted zero Minorities. I guess all of White america is going to self destruct and vanish?

 

[kix4kix]

It would be easier to hate Romney supporters if only their young women weren't so hot

 

[Nike Jordan]

It would be easier to hate Romney supporters if only their young women weren't so hot

Dumb blondes.

 

[yungchris504]

I can't embed but here is a video about this white chick using a racial slur and wanting the president assassinated peep her response



of course its been posted

 

[illoquent aka dsk]

Look at the HURT on those people's faces, man.

You'd think they were told they gotta suck a ***** **** for some Trukfit to continue living.

 

[Peep Game]

Look at the HURT on those people's faces, man. You'd think they were told they gotta suck a ***** **** for some Trukfit to continue living.

for real. And I bet some are NTers

 

[mr delorean]

Look at the HURT on those people's faces, man.

your first rodeo? yea, supporters of the loser always look like that.

 

[Betonblck]

this is why im a fan of da fiscal cliff, if they dont get their act together then everyone is gonna feel da pain equally[/S].

Shut up. All you do is spew bs conservative rhetoric then try and rerock it like it's a different product. Fraud is virtually nonexistent aside from medicare and it's primarily the practitioners doing it. Do yourself a favor and stop spitting that tired fox news bs over and over.

Seriously, like dude tries to behave like a conservative, but doesn't even properly represent their message or their Image(is their a DR equalivalant to Uncle Tom?)
[/quote]

Yea, Republicans look down on people like him. A minority that doesn't own property.

 

[longstroke]

Another round of tears...

Absolutely one of the most comforting posts I've ever witnessed on Nike Talk, since my many years of visiting here. 

Thanks, it's greatly appreciated.

 

[a baboon cow]

Absolutely one of the most comforting posts I've ever witnessed on Nike Talk, since my many years of visiting here. 

Thanks, it's greatly appreciated.

Are OptimusPrime?

 

[Mark Antony]

Those are a lot of pictures of various venues. To not come across a single non-white face is telling.



And I'd love to see hood in a champion hoodie and some foams at the front of one of those conservative rallies.

 

[longstroke]

Are OptimusPrime?

No, I am LONGSTROKE.

Get it right.

 

[rashi]

[COLOR=#red]Petraeus was banging a chick named Paula Broadwell, who was writing his biography with the title "All In" ...how appropriate [/COLOR]

[COLOR=#red]The FBI was investigating it the whole time. Now please stop with the conspiracy rumors.[/COLOR]

Which makes it more interesting for "Conspiracies". There was numerous instances in this book that chronicled the infighting and how each agency (and cited with sources) was used against each other to get rid of agents and/or upper command. The CIA, FBI, NSA, ect. tricks are getting old.

I swear, when I saw that this author was under FBI "investigation", this is the first book that came to mind. This stuff has been done before. The timing of this "resignation" is almost comical if it wasn't so serious.

 

[Ace Ready]

Those are a lot of pictures of various venues. To not come across a single non-white face is telling.



And I'd love to see hood in a champion hoodie and some foams at the front of one of those conservative rallies.

lol

looking at those pics it looks like they didn't want Obama to win :\