LastPommerFan

You keep repeating the bold. It is an AM radio talking point for sure, but I don't think the majority of people would agree with the assessment of his record being indefensible. I think the phrase "his economic record is mixed with a majority of negative baggage" would work better, I disagree with it, but at least it has a foundation that can recognize the actual economic accomplishments that have occurred as a result of some of his policies. The next debate will be more in the Presidents wheelhouse. The audience will bring up DADT, Gay Marriage, Reproductive Rights, and all the other ridiculous social policies that Romney is forced to hold to cater to the social conservative part of the GOP coalition. The president will kill him on these for two reasons: The GOP Planks are way too far right and Mitt Romney doesn't actually support them. There are some Americans who are not comfortable setting up a christian theocracy as a trade off for fiscal conservatism.

Could it have been a rope-a-dope?

Not even this?

interestingly, the new playoff format is having no effect on the current situation in the AL. The Rangers and O's would be playing a one game playoff either way.

Your company seems to think it can hit it's higher sales targets without these people for the last 4 months of the year. I'll bet you a lunch that the sales are equal or better to previous quarters and profits are higher due to lower costs. All this without the tax taking place. If I was an investor and you could meet your sales target with fewer workers, I'd be pissed if you didn't lay them off. As for the drop in the R&D budget, if congress would pass the president's jobs bills, specifically the R&D Tax Credit, your company could protect the profits that they reinvest in the company. Unforetunately this would not meet the goal of ensuring president Obama is a one term president.

So your company is going to miss shipments to customers this year because of a tax that goes into effect next year? If anything your customers should be clamoring to get devices before the tax goes into place. I think your CEO is doing what all CEOs do and that is call for lower taxes (their job is profits after all). If you've had layoffs this year, they are due to lower demand this year. Not expected lower demand next year. Are your sales giong to be higher in the 4th quarter this year than last year, or lower?

Exactly, but disheartening his Dem base before the election would make him persona non grata in the party.

Assumptions I make about politicians. Nothing more.

I think his reasons for waiting are 90% driven by his national political aspirations. 10% by a concern for the environment.

Nay, the first is as much a fact as any other mathematics result. The second is as much a theory as gravity. Even you agree with it: The economic uncertainty is coming from congressional gridlock on self imposed taxmageddon/sequestration, European debt, and China's slowing growth. None of these are an Obama Policy. The first is a result of the Tea Party holding america's full faith and credit hostage, and the other two are clearly outside the control of any american politician. You can either trust me or go back and rewatch the clip (i just did) and the president never used the word special, he simply states that businesses can take a deduction, which they can. Romney's response was the biggest boldfaced lie I have seen a politician venture since Clinton's Denial. Only this one is actually relevant to governing the United States. The stimulus grants were spent over the course of 3 years, and have not even all been spent yet. Is it so shocking that green energy companies would support the democratic platform? And most of these companies are still operating and employing americans. Again, the president can't move the oil, if it is on private lands, they're gonna drill more on private lands. Not even close to enough. Give the middle class and poor further monetary relief in the form of continued payroll tax breaks and additional income tax relief to spur domestic consumer demand while balancing the budget with a mix of revenue and cuts to protect important public investments in research, energy, and education that will help us transition to a better economy for the future. Is that better? Are you denying that employment opportunities are better now than in January of 2009?

I suspect it would be the largest, and others would have very small impact.

:) gotcha now. Thanks.

:blink: It's the same effect as a tax rate reduction. I don't follow you.

I grant your point, and so does the president, which is why he is also proposing an increase to the allowable tax credit for R&D to give a break to businesses that reinvest those profits in Research. The idea that this tax will cause companies to move overseas is a red herring. The tax applies to imports as well. Moving overseas will not get them out of the tax. a 2.3% increase in the cost of the devices (like replacement hips) will have almost no effect on demand. The companies are freezing hiring because the global economy is slowing, not because of this tax.

It is currently 35% correct.

39.6% is the rate the we (Dems) propose to tax income above $250,000. It is the exact rate that was in place from 1993-2000.

I'm talking about the film, not the ###### song Watson.

My (Unabashed Democratic Party Booster) take on the debate: Romney wins the night hands down. Better attacks, clearer explanation of his values, huge charge to the center, few significant targets set up for future attacks. My (") Input: congratulations to the Governor for being better prepared. I don't buy the "busy running the country" excuse, Clinton and Reagan we NEVER unprepared for a debate. But either Mitt has completely abandoned his primary campaign planks or he is just being a good politician and saying the right things for each venue. His economic plan is based on the theory that putting more cash in the hands of business owners will grow the economy, and that this will result in increased employment. Profits =/= Jobs. Demand == Jobs. Jobs == Demand. Some Facts (Feel free to check them) - You can't cut government spending enough to address the deficit without hurting public employment in a significant way. This will hurt demand. - Businesses don't hire because they take home more of their profits, they hire when their current workforce can't keep up with demand. How many of you work for companies that are raking in the profits, but won't hire that extra employee because they seem to be doing fine without him? This is the failure of supply side, monetarist economics. - I spent the last 2 years of my life moving work overseas (to the UK, Poland, and Hungary). My company (one of the 10 biggest in the world) deducted every dime of our transitional expenses as business expenses (Like every company with semi-conscious accountant would). We made $12B in profits and paid $0 in US taxes for 2010. - The $90B Romney quoted for "green energy in one year" was for 3 years (part of the '09 stimulus) and only about $30B of that was for projects that would qualify as "green energy projects" Some of that went to things like cleaning up nuclear waste sites and clean coal, which the governor said he was in favor of. - The increase in drilling on private lands is a result of the fact that the most recent energy boom is happening in the Eastern United States, where there is significantly less federally owned land. If president Obama is responsible for putting the Marcellus Shale in it's current location, surely we should get the vote of the Christian Right, because he is clearly GOD. Until Romney spells out the deductions that he is intending to cut/close, they don't exist. If they don't exist, a 20% rate reduction is a $5T tax cut. No matter how many times you repeat the denial. Give the middle class and poor a break, boost demand, invest for the future. That is the plan that will work. a 39.6% top marginal rate will hurt the economy no more now than it did in the 1990s, and it will help close the deficit without harming our efforts to invest in a transition to a better future.

EXACTLY!

Except Lewis Carroll's book was written 100 years earlier and has literally nothing to do with drugs.

Question for the board: If you had to pick between watching hockey with replacement players, or watching hockey with replacement owners, which would you choose? Keep in mind that replacement owners means giving up all the existing team names, logos, history, etc.

My $0.02 on the "Debates": What we have now in presidential politics is mostly not a debate. It's a soundbite convention. Debate involves a battle of ideas, with a back and forth between the sides, some cross-examination, and a focus on a few issues. From what history I know, the peak of political debates in this country was in the 1850s when Lincoln was campaigning against Douglas for Illinois Senate. What we have now is a moderator moving the candidates through a series of 2-minute campaign ads. Connecting your policies to American values has been replaced by the pivot as the most important "debate" tactic. A fun game tonight: The Debate Pivot Drinking Game! Every time a candidate's answer has nothing to do with the actual question, take a drink. If you're paying close attention, we should have that "get drunk and rant" thread going gangbusters tonight.

You seriously need to put that blanket in the dryer.

Officially blocked. http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/02/politics/pennsylvania-voter-id/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

This experiment needs it's own thread. I am 100% confident it will be amazing.