2012 US Presidential Race Catch All

The Conformist wrote:
shoptroll wrote:
The Conformist wrote:

Well nothing comes from the individuals pocket though correct? And if it's paid by the government does that not come out of our taxes?

Yes, depending on your situation. Based on the reddit summary, taxes on incomes over $200k go up 0.9% starting in January. Starting in 2014, it looks like there's additional taxes kicking in on Pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and insurance companies. I assume this is to help pay for it. Plus there's the fine on people who don't have insurance but could[i] afford it (presumably this is validated at tax time like in MA).

I can honestly say that it doesn't really seem fair to tax the rich more than they already do. Many of those people earn that money from hard work. Also by taxing Pharmaceuticals, medical devices and especially insurance company's raise the cost of private health insurance? And in return force more people to drop that insurance and take up obamacare? Thus raising the taxes for individuals once again? I mean it seems like our nations taxes are going to be through the roof by 2015.

Obamacare isn't some separate single-payer option. For most people who currently get insurance via their employer, 'Obamacare' is exactly the same thing they have now. For people who don't have insurance (or their company drops insurance coverage), 'Obamacare' is the ability to buy insurance from a private insurer via a public exchange. So someone who decided to drop their coverage to buy Obamacare would just be wasting time, as they'd end up buying it from a similar private company (or even the same one).

Johnvanjim wrote:

Also consider that many of the richest individuals in the nation, Romney included, are paying significantly reduced taxes in the form of long term capital gains rates, currently at 15%. Less than an upper middle class taxpayer with no loopholes at 35%.

No kidding. I'd love it if my primary form of income was only taxed at 15%.

Farscry wrote:

No kidding. I'd love it if my primary form of income was only taxed at 15%.

Pfft, look at that 7% rate back in the 1910's!

Also interesting is that they US heydays that the GOP is always trying to conjure up (those wonderful 40's and 50's) just so happened to be accompanied by a primarily 90% tax rate on the wealthy. But they always seem to leave that part out of their propaganda.

Farscry wrote:

Also interesting is that they US heydays that the GOP is always trying to conjure up (those wonderful 40's and 50's) just so happened to be accompanied by a primarily 90% tax rate on the wealthy. But they always seem to leave that part out of their propaganda.

They also conveniently leave out that was the presidencies of FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower. Oops.

Farscry wrote:

Also interesting is that they US heydays that the GOP is always trying to conjure up (those wonderful 40's and 50's) just so happened to be accompanied by a primarily 90% tax rate on the wealthy. But they always seem to leave that part out of their propaganda.

The interesting fact that the chart leaves out is that during the highest tax rate times, the income taxable was the modern day equivalent of over $75,000,000 per year (1936-42) and then later income over $2,300,000-$2,800,000 per year. (1942-64) Today the top tax bracket starts at $379,150.

Income tax history

Nomad wrote:

Today the top tax bracket starts at $379,150.

Huh, that is interesting. I could've sworn the top bracket started significantly higher than that (which I would not find objectionable).

Also interesting on that page (among a whole SLEW of interesting stuff; geez, information density is at a high level there) is seeing that the effective corporate tax rate has hit an all time low during the Obama administration.

Nomad wrote:
Farscry wrote:

Also interesting is that they US heydays that the GOP is always trying to conjure up (those wonderful 40's and 50's) just so happened to be accompanied by a primarily 90% tax rate on the wealthy. But they always seem to leave that part out of their propaganda.

The interesting fact that the chart leaves out is that during the highest tax rate times, the income taxable was the modern day equivalent of over $75,000,000 per year (1936-42) and then later income over $2,300,000-$2,800,000 per year. (1942-64) Today the top tax bracket starts at $379,150.

Income tax history

From your link, the highest marginal tax rate in the US was 94%, which was in 1944 and kicked in at $200,000 (roughly $2.54M in today's dollars).

But let's take the tax rate from 1946-1964. Highest marginal tax rate was 91%, and also kicked in at $200,000 (roughly $2.30M in today's dollars, based on 1946 values). When we adjust the incomes to take inflation into account, someone earning the equivalent of $379,150 would have fallen into the 65% marginal tax rate bracket.

Values taken from the Tax Foundation's U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1913-2011 (Nominal and Inflation-Adjusted Brackets) paper (warning, PDF).

Farscry wrote:
Nomad wrote:

Today the top tax bracket starts at $379,150.

Huh, that is interesting. I could've sworn the top bracket started significantly higher than that (which I would not find objectionable).

Also interesting on that page (among a whole SLEW of interesting stuff; geez, information density is at a high level there) is seeing that the effective corporate tax rate has hit an all time low during the Obama administration.

All Republicans need to do is suddenly shift socially liberal and fiscally liberal (they're halfway there!) and we'll have a name-ideal switch like we did decades ago!

It's also important to look at the idea of 'hard work'. If tax were proportionate to effort, then manual labourers should be paying the least.

And Romney concedes FL. 332-206

While I know Republicans have stated that they're looking at long-term strategies to adjust to the changing demographic I'm not entirely certain they really see a problem with the core of their platform. Here's the thing, while they lost the White House they still maintain control of the House and within states and counties I believe I read an article that said Republicans have around 61% control of elected offices nationwide (though it's quite possible I'm completely making that up because I couldn't find a link to verify that). Either way, they're still getting almost half of the popular vote and they're certainly not hurting on the local level. I don't know that I would describe that as a "thumping". They've still got plenty of power, right now, and I have a feeling the party leaders are going to be talking more about tweaking their message to appeal to this or that subgroup but they're certainly not going to talk about radically redefining or splitting the party.

I wonder how much of the control of the House can be attributed to successful gerrymandering.

A lot of people are claiming that but I see one caveat. Michelle Bachman narrowly won reelection. And this is in an election that saw a tsunami of binders full of women elected.

I think people are pointing to this or that and I just know it is not the complete story. I think you just can't lump a single cause for an election that saw: marijuana legalized in some states, a president reelected with 8% unemployment, record number of women elected, gay marriage triumphant in a handful of states, people in long lines to vote when their homes had just been destroyed by a vicious hurricane, etc.

24 minutes of insane, drunken rambling from a woman astoundingly angry at the election results. This could not be more NSFW language-wise.

IF YOU HAD ONLY SHARED HER FACEBOOK LINKS AND LIKED HER YOUTUBE VIDEOS, THIS COUNTRY COULD HAVE BEEN SAVED.

So. Funny.

DSGamer wrote:

I wonder how much of the control of the House can be attributed to successful gerrymandering.

I'd say Most.

fangblackbone wrote:

A lot of people are claiming that but I see one caveat. Michelle Bachman narrowly won reelection. And this is in an election that saw a tsunami of binders full of women elected.

Minnesota is probably one of the least gerrymandered states. Our last redistricting was done by a court-appointed panel due to disagreement between the DFL Governor and the GOP legislature. At the very least we don't have any of the squiggly districts that you see in North Carolina, Texas, etc. They're all about as rectangular as you can get while having equal populations.

iaintgotnopants wrote:
fangblackbone wrote:

A lot of people are claiming that but I see one caveat. Michelle Bachman narrowly won reelection. And this is in an election that saw a tsunami of binders full of women elected.

Minnesota is probably one of the least gerrymandered states. Our last redistricting was done by a court-appointed panel due to disagreement between the DFL Governor and the GOP legislature. At the very least we don't have any of the squiggly districts that you see in North Carolina, Texas, etc. They're all about as rectangular as you can get while having equal populations.

Bachmann's district is the most gerrymandererd, though; the other districts are pretty solid blocks, hers curves pretty creatively around the east, north, and west of the Cities.

fangblackbone wrote:

A lot of people are claiming that but I see one caveat. Michelle Bachman narrowly won reelection. And this is in an election that saw a tsunami of binders full of women elected.

I think people are pointing to this or that and I just know it is not the complete story. I think you just can't lump a single cause for an election that saw: marijuana legalized in some states, a president reelected with 8% unemployment, record number of women elected, gay marriage triumphant in a handful of states, people in long lines to vote when their homes had just been destroyed by a vicious hurricane, etc.

It boggles my mind that someone like Bachman can be elected period. It scares me.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

24 minutes of insane, drunken rambling from a woman astoundingly angry at the election results. This could not be more NSFW language-wise.

IF YOU HAD ONLY SHARED HER FACEBOOK LINKS AND LIKED HER YOUTUBE VIDEOS, THIS COUNTRY COULD HAVE BEEN SAVED.

So. Funny.

Damn, I could only make it through about 3 minutes of that.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Bachmann's district is the most gerrymandererd, though; the other districts are pretty solid blocks, hers curves pretty creatively around the east, north, and west of the Cities.

It's not really creative districting when it's just the shapes of the counties.

ranalin wrote:

It boggles my mind that someone like Bachman can be elected period. It scares me.

Her district is pretty much the definition of exurban white flight.

Agent 86 wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:

24 minutes of insane, drunken rambling from a woman astoundingly angry at the election results. This could not be more NSFW language-wise.

IF YOU HAD ONLY SHARED HER FACEBOOK LINKS AND LIKED HER YOUTUBE VIDEOS, THIS COUNTRY COULD HAVE BEEN SAVED.

So. Funny.

Damn, I could only make it through about 3 minutes of that.

Man, the sound of ice clinking in the glass really seals the deal on this video.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

24 minutes of insane, drunken rambling from a woman astoundingly angry at the election results. This could not be more NSFW language-wise.

IF YOU HAD ONLY SHARED HER FACEBOOK LINKS AND LIKED HER YOUTUBE VIDEOS, THIS COUNTRY COULD HAVE BEEN SAVED.

So. Funny.

Wow. That was awesome.
The huge levels of cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy were unfathomable but truly entertaining. Makes me want to friend her on Facebook just to not share her posts and drive her into another turrets-like episode.

I made through four minutes of it... But when she said Britain was trying to get rid of their healthcare service, I turned it off.

weswilson wrote:

I made through four minutes of it... But when she said Britain was trying to get rid of their healthcare service, I turned it off.

The government is trying to get rid of the healthcare service. Not because it's bad, but because they're portioning it up and handing it to private providers. Providers that limiting services and lying about nunbers, including how many doctors they have on call.

This is beautiful.

If you listen to 3:20-ish, she starts blaming the loss on all you people who voted for Gary Johnson and Ron Paul.

She literally says she wants to kill you. "you helped obama win you f**king assholes."

I can appreciate an irrational rage monster.

Question -- and I'm too lazy to google it and I'd rather hear it from sane people; what in the hell is this "obama phone" meme?

edit: I have become much less judgmental over the last few years, but goddamn do I hate the word "supper."

Seth wrote:

Question -- and I'm too lazy to google it and I'd rather hear it from sane people; what in the hell is this "obama phone" meme?

Government program to subsidize phone service to the poor. It was (relatively) recently adapted for cell phones and not just land lines.

Of course, the program and its change were both in play before Obama took office, but that's not really getting in the way of that particular complaint gaining momentum.

I don't understand how winning 50% of the vote vs 48% of the vote for the loser is seen as a huge Democratic victory. I agree with whoever said it, I don't think the GOP will see this as damnation of their party and they have to make some radical change, they lost by 2%, they'll keep on doing what they do and try harder next time.

I also don't think it is fair to categorize Republicans as "old angry white men", there are not 58 million of those and that is how many voted for Romney. We shouldn't dismiss and marginalized what 48% of people voted for, it isn't like some small minority of voters that are solely old white men that you can laugh off as yep that is my crazy uncle. Almost 60 million people believed in it enough to vote, I don't think Republicans are going anywhere as a main political party.

5 minutes in...will I really get a single payer system?

And to recap. Socialism for Oil companies=Good. Socialism for people with the power to cast votes=evil?

I like how she equates web trolling with working her ass off.

Butterscotch Schnapps?