Re: my running Office Space gag: Ok, so he's got Milton covered, too. Shame he can't cover Peter by the election - I don't think at this point he'll just wake up and decide, "You know I never really liked politics. I don't think I'm going to do it anymore." I suppose he could just get promotelected and rob the place blind.
Romney knew he was running for president 4 years ago after losing to McCain. It always surprised me that his advisers didn't tell him to pay the maximum tax rate for a few years so he could release those records. It would be a great way to to show he isn't "gaming" the system and buy credibility with his talking point about the rich paying too much. It seems like a damn fine investment politically.
This is what I mean by avaricious. Dude's got more money than god, but he just couldn't bring himself to forego the yachtload of deductions and loopholes for a measly four years so he'd have a better shot at getting elected.
But as it's always been with him, it's all about the benjamins.
The worst part of all this? He threw a lot of his own money down a fucking black hole for his election, not to mention a lot of other people's money good-after-bad style. Probably a great deal more than he could have just given the government for some easy credibility and good will. It's not just all about the Benjamins, it's some fundamental THING about taxes - he'd rather throw a billion in the furnace than give a million to the government.
I thought Romney had very little of his own money in his campaign?
Well at the very least he could be back in private equity if he wasn't running, making hundreds of millions more
Finally some cuts Romney would make that would totally shore up the budget!
"[T]here are programs I would eliminate. Obamacare being one of them but also various subsidy programs -- the Amtrak subsidy, the PBS subsidy, the subsidy for the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities. Some of these things, like those endowment efforts and PBS I very much appreciate and like what they do in many cases, but I just think they have to stand on their own rather than receiving money borrowed from other countries, as our government does on their behalf."
Yes the trillions we spend on amtrak, pbs, NEA and NEH are totally gone, see you suckers later, budget FIXED!
Why cutting all of those things would almost come close to covering a statistically significant percentage of the money lost from cancelling the ACA at this point
Finally some cuts Romney would make that would totally shore up the budget!
"[T]here are programs I would eliminate. Obamacare being one of them but also various subsidy programs -- the Amtrak subsidy, the PBS subsidy, the subsidy for the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities. Some of these things, like those endowment efforts and PBS I very much appreciate and like what they do in many cases, but I just think they have to stand on their own rather than receiving money borrowed from other countries, as our government does on their behalf."
Yes the trillions we spend on amtrak, pbs, NEA and NEH are totally gone, see you suckers later, budget FIXED!
Oh, no, where will I watch outdated nature documentaries while I ride what is, judging by smell, a giant bathroom on rails to Chicago for $35?
Seriously, though, I want to believe Amtrak could be a moneymaker if they pushed commuter rail a bit. With airlines bending people over benches, Amtrak is still cheaper than driving and smells marginally less like urine than a bus.
Perhaps he intends to suggest these organizations ought to try PE and see if someone like Bain Capital could load them up with debt and sell them off at a profit while tanking the arts and travel subsidies in America
Yeah, it's not that he doesn't see anything wrong with leveraging a high-powered team of lawyers and accountants to squeeze every last penny of a deduction out of his taxes. That's all perfectly legal.
What gets me is that he's so far detached from the rest of humanity that he can't comprehend how anyone else could find a moral fault with what he does to minimize his tax burden to levels unimaginable by the rest of society, while simultaneously advocating for further reductions in his initial liability.
He pretty clearly does comprehend how everyone else would find his tax payments immoral. That's why he's not releasing them. Or at least why he didn't release them at first. If he didn't get that people would find it distasteful at best, he would've just tossed them out there first thing.
At this point, I don't think it has as much to do with the magnitude of what's in there so much as the simple inertia of his trying to hide a secret. He's the little kid standing before mommy with chocolate smeared all over his face and a cookie in his hand, insisting he didn't touch the cookie jar. Mom knows he's lying, the kid knows that she knows he's lying, but now he's been sticking to this story for the past fifteen minutes and what else can he do? "No mama, there's nothing in my hand. No mama, I can't take my hand out from behind my back because you'll get mad. No mama, there's no cookie there, but you'll get mad anyway, but really mama I didn't do anything wrong."
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Finally some cuts Romney would make that would totally shore up the budget!
"[T]here are programs I would eliminate. Obamacare being one of them but also various subsidy programs -- the Amtrak subsidy, the PBS subsidy, the subsidy for the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities. Some of these things, like those endowment efforts and PBS I very much appreciate and like what they do in many cases, but I just think they have to stand on their own rather than receiving money borrowed from other countries, as our government does on their behalf."
Yes the trillions we spend on amtrak, pbs, NEA and NEH are totally gone, see you suckers later, budget FIXED!
He is probably assuming that people are stupid enough to believe those add up to anything other than jack shit.
In an interview in Fortune Tuesday, Mitt Romney ducked a question about whether he’d close the “carried interest loophole,” which allows hedge fund managers and other executives at investment firms – such as Bain Capital executive Mitt Romney – to pay lower capital gains tax rates on their wages, rather than the regular income tax rates.
“What I’ve said in the past is that if something is a capital gain it should be treated as a capital gain,” Romney responded. “If something is ordinary income it should be treated as ordinary income.”
But that’s exactly the issue — are the earnings of hedge fund and private equity executives ordinary income, or are they capital gains? In the past, the Romney campaign has signaled that Romney wants to repeal the deduction, indicating he thinks the executives’ earnings are ordinary income, not capital gains. But the question isn’t clear-cut.
There have to be some serious, serious skeletons in that closet.
Mitt Romney: Doing the Absolute Bare Minimum Required. For America.
To be fair, it's a sound American cultural quality; the bare minimum is practically a requirement in and of itself and going beyond is suspect behavior
Perhaps he intends to suggest these organizations ought to try PE and see if someone like Bain Capital could load them up with debt and sell them off at a profit while tanking the arts and travel subsidies in America
Something that's occurred to me regarding the Medi(s)care stuff: Even if the over-54's are "exempt" from the changes, they're still going to get screwed because Medicare is stingy, and currently compensates for that by providing access to a huge base of patients. When the youngest people on Medicare are 70, 75, 80, etc, that base is going to shrink and doctors will stop accepting the rates. Am I missing anything here?
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
There have to be some serious, serious skeletons in that closet.
The statements, "We have nothing to hide," and "Showing our returns will only give [the opposition] more ammunition," are mutually inclusive statements.
Someone should explain to her what "nothing to hide" means.
I means "the state of not withholding damaging, illegal, and/or incriminating materials."
What she could mean is that they did nothing wrong, but the returns are so complex that people will misread and sensationalize them. To be honest, this is probably true, assuming "nothing wrong" means nothing illegal. Of course, that is not the case when we are talking about a political issue regarding the small amount of taxes paid by a very rich man who wants to be our president at a time when many people are struggling and feel overburdened by their own taxes, which they are much less equipped to pay than Romney is. Romney can afford to pay the full "sticker price" of his tax bill and chooses not to, while other people cannot afford their sticker price rates and have no choice in the matter.
I think the crux of the problem is that his entire platform (at present) seems to be based on the idea that he and people like him pay far too much in taxes.
If that's true, then it would be easy to demonstrate if he showed us his taxes. If his taxes contradict that message, then it undercuts his entire campaign AND the Ryan Budget AND the current Republican Platform. The idea that he can't even massage his taxes to make them palatable to the masses conveys a terrifying message as to how low they must be.
Here is the incredible thing to me. While cutting taxes for the rich is not a popular message in most circles, tax simplification is, even if that simplification ultimately results in lower taxes for the rich. Romney could easily be the posterboy for simplificiation, because his returns are so complicated. Even if he did not release them he could still pound home the simplification point by saying things like "I can't release my returns yet because the amounts are not final since I may have loss carrybacks. We should not have a tax system where years after my return was filed I still don't know the final amount I owed in taxes for that year!"
Something that's occurred to me regarding the Medi(s)care stuff: Even if the over-54's are "exempt" from the changes, they're still going to get screwed because Medicare is stingy, and currently compensates for that by providing access to a huge base of patients. When the youngest people on Medicare are 70, 75, 80, etc, that base is going to shrink and doctors will stop accepting the rates. Am I missing anything here?
I don't believe for a second that they would actually leave the over 55s alone.
Yeah, it's not that he doesn't see anything wrong with leveraging a high-powered team of lawyers and accountants to squeeze every last penny of a deduction out of his taxes. That's all perfectly legal.
What gets me is that he's so far detached from the rest of humanity that he can't comprehend how anyone else could find a moral fault with what he does to minimize his tax burden to levels unimaginable by the rest of society, while simultaneously advocating for further reductions in his initial liability.
He pretty clearly does comprehend how everyone else would find his tax payments immoral. That's why he's not releasing them. Or at least why he didn't release them at first. If he didn't get that people would find it distasteful at best, he would've just tossed them out there first thing.
At this point, I don't think it has as much to do with the magnitude of what's in there so much as the simple inertia of his trying to hide a secret. He's the little kid standing before mommy with chocolate smeared all over his face and a cookie in his hand, insisting he didn't touch the cookie jar. Mom knows he's lying, the kid knows that she knows he's lying, but now he's been sticking to this story for the past fifteen minutes and what else can he do? "No mama, there's nothing in my hand. No mama, I can't take my hand out from behind my back because you'll get mad. No mama, there's no cookie there, but you'll get mad anyway, but really mama I didn't do anything wrong."
Ah, the Shaggy Defense. Always good to see in a Presidential candidate.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
Meh, at this point I don't think the judge could have stopped it anyway. They court and the governor both blocked it in Michigan, and the ballots were still printed with the citizenship check on them, and it was still enforced. The Secretery of State didn't get in trouble because they put out a press conference around noon telling poll workers to stop enforcing it, but of course poll workers were working the polls and not watching the news, so they of course missed it.
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure this is the applicable test. Obviously, it meets the first criteria (insuring the integrity of elections definitely qualifies), but seems like it should fail the remaining ones, in that voter fraud occurs on such an insignificant scale that doing nothing accomplishes the goal better, because it seems very likely that the law will interfere with more valid votes than it would invalid.
Skimming the article, it seems the judge only refused to issue an injunction, which is somewhat more reasonable than upholding it.
Finally some cuts Romney would make that would totally shore up the budget!
"[T]here are programs I would eliminate. Obamacare being one of them but also various subsidy programs -- the Amtrak subsidy, the PBS subsidy, the subsidy for the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities. Some of these things, like those endowment efforts and PBS I very much appreciate and like what they do in many cases, but I just think they have to stand on their own rather than receiving money borrowed from other countries, as our government does on their behalf."
Yes the trillions we spend on amtrak, pbs, NEA and NEH are totally gone, see you suckers later, budget FIXED!
So the ACA would increase the deficit by being cut, IIRC.
The rest are all pennies. He's still massively short on what he needs to make his budget work. The reason the TPC estimate took out the mortgage interest deduction was that it was the only thing large enough to actually dent the missing money pile. Dude would need to cut the DoD deep to make that plan work via spending cuts.
Something that's occurred to me regarding the Medi(s)care stuff: Even if the over-54's are "exempt" from the changes, they're still going to get screwed because Medicare is stingy, and currently compensates for that by providing access to a huge base of patients. When the youngest people on Medicare are 70, 75, 80, etc, that base is going to shrink and doctors will stop accepting the rates. Am I missing anything here?
I don't believe for a second that they would actually leave the over 55s alone.
Which is why the elderly are so against the Zombie-Eyed Granny Starver.
Something that's occurred to me regarding the Medi(s)care stuff: Even if the over-54's are "exempt" from the changes, they're still going to get screwed because Medicare is stingy, and currently compensates for that by providing access to a huge base of patients. When the youngest people on Medicare are 70, 75, 80, etc, that base is going to shrink and doctors will stop accepting the rates. Am I missing anything here?
I don't believe for a second that they would actually leave the over 55s alone.
Eh. I don't think it's unreasonable. The point is they've been bitching for the last two years (see also: Politifact) about how the currently-old will be safe, which inadvertently suggests that we should shovel the old people into incinerators, since they are willing to screw us over already. So I question whether or not they will actually be safe.
I don't think they would be safe. The GOP loves to talk about one thing and then do something else. Witness jobs jobs jobs ABORTION! Of the current derp house.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
There have to be some serious, serious skeletons in that closet.
The statements, "We have nothing to hide," and "Showing our returns will only give [the opposition] more ammunition," are mutually inclusive statements.
Someone should explain to her what "nothing to hide" means.
I means "the state of not withholding damaging, illegal, and/or incriminating materials."
What she could mean is that they did nothing wrong, but the returns are so complex that people will misread and sensationalize them. To be honest, this is probably true, assuming "nothing wrong" means nothing illegal. Of course, that is not the case when we are talking about a political issue regarding the small amount of taxes paid by a very rich man who wants to be our president at a time when many people are struggling and feel overburdened by their own taxes, which they are much less equipped to pay than Romney is. Romney can afford to pay the full "sticker price" of his tax bill and chooses not to, while other people cannot afford their sticker price rates and have no choice in the matter.
I think the crux of the problem is that his entire platform (at present) seems to be based on the idea that he and people like him pay far too much in taxes.
If that's true, then it would be easy to demonstrate if he showed us his taxes. If his taxes contradict that message, then it undercuts his entire campaign AND the Ryan Budget AND the current Republican Platform. The idea that he can't even massage his taxes to make them palatable to the masses conveys a terrifying message as to how low they must be.
Here is the incredible thing to me. While cutting taxes for the rich is not a popular message in most circles, tax simplification is, even if that simplification ultimately results in lower taxes for the rich. Romney could easily be the posterboy for simplificiation, because his returns are so complicated. Even if he did not release them he could still pound home the simplification point by saying things like "I can't release my returns yet because the amounts are not final since I may have loss carrybacks. We should not have a tax system where years after my return was filed I still don't know the final amount I owed in taxes for that year!"
He could be carrying on like a tax crusader trying to make shit better for the little people while secretly still winding up on the winning side of the equation. He could be doing the same with pretty much any regulation. The fact that he's not is absolutely baffling. I'm still under the assumption that this man is slick talking and able to rock a serious long term plan. I just don't see that at all in this campaign, or any learning at all from his prior campaigns for office.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
There have to be some serious, serious skeletons in that closet.
The statements, "We have nothing to hide," and "Showing our returns will only give [the opposition] more ammunition," are mutually inclusive statements.
Someone should explain to her what "nothing to hide" means.
I means "the state of not withholding damaging, illegal, and/or incriminating materials."
What she could mean is that they did nothing wrong, but the returns are so complex that people will misread and sensationalize them. To be honest, this is probably true, assuming "nothing wrong" means nothing illegal. Of course, that is not the case when we are talking about a political issue regarding the small amount of taxes paid by a very rich man who wants to be our president at a time when many people are struggling and feel overburdened by their own taxes, which they are much less equipped to pay than Romney is. Romney can afford to pay the full "sticker price" of his tax bill and chooses not to, while other people cannot afford their sticker price rates and have no choice in the matter.
I think the crux of the problem is that his entire platform (at present) seems to be based on the idea that he and people like him pay far too much in taxes.
If that's true, then it would be easy to demonstrate if he showed us his taxes. If his taxes contradict that message, then it undercuts his entire campaign AND the Ryan Budget AND the current Republican Platform. The idea that he can't even massage his taxes to make them palatable to the masses conveys a terrifying message as to how low they must be.
Here is the incredible thing to me. While cutting taxes for the rich is not a popular message in most circles, tax simplification is, even if that simplification ultimately results in lower taxes for the rich. Romney could easily be the posterboy for simplificiation, because his returns are so complicated. Even if he did not release them he could still pound home the simplification point by saying things like "I can't release my returns yet because the amounts are not final since I may have loss carrybacks. We should not have a tax system where years after my return was filed I still don't know the final amount I owed in taxes for that year!"
He could be carrying on like a tax crusader trying to make shit better for the little people while secretly still winding up on the winning side of the equation. He could be doing the same with pretty much any regulation. The fact that he's not is absolutely baffling. I'm still under the assumption that this man is slick talking and able to rock a serious long term plan. I just don't see that at all in this campaign, or any learning at all from his prior campaigns for office.
He is slick talking, but the only one getting slipped up by it is him.
Finally some cuts Romney would make that would totally shore up the budget!
"[T]here are programs I would eliminate. Obamacare being one of them but also various subsidy programs -- the Amtrak subsidy, the PBS subsidy, the subsidy for the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities. Some of these things, like those endowment efforts and PBS I very much appreciate and like what they do in many cases, but I just think they have to stand on their own rather than receiving money borrowed from other countries, as our government does on their behalf."
Yes the trillions we spend on amtrak, pbs, NEA and NEH are totally gone, see you suckers later, budget FIXED!
So the ACA would increase the deficit by being cut, IIRC.
The rest are all pennies. He's still massively short on what he needs to make his budget work. The reason the TPC estimate took out the mortgage interest deduction was that it was the only thing large enough to actually dent the missing money pile. Dude would need to cut the DoD deep to make that plan work via spending cuts.
Those government programs that do a lot of public good have to stand on their own two feet like businesses. Otherwise, how would they subsidize oil companies?
Something that's occurred to me regarding the Medi(s)care stuff: Even if the over-54's are "exempt" from the changes, they're still going to get screwed because Medicare is stingy, and currently compensates for that by providing access to a huge base of patients. When the youngest people on Medicare are 70, 75, 80, etc, that base is going to shrink and doctors will stop accepting the rates. Am I missing anything here?
I don't believe for a second that they would actually leave the over 55s alone.
Eh. I don't think it's unreasonable. The point is they've been bitching for the last two years (see also: Politifact) about how the currently-old will be safe, which inadvertently suggests that we should shovel the old people into incinerators, since they are willing to screw us over already. So I question whether or not they will actually be safe.
And if Republicans are known for one thing, it's telling the truth and doing exactly what they've said they would.
From that Fortune article, a line after calling the TPC report on his budget bullshit: "Now interestingly the same center did an analysis of President Obama's tax plan and concluded that he's raising taxes on the middle-class. I would note that if he's reelected he will in fact raise taxes on the middle class."
You can't trust a thing those TPC idiots say, their methodology is shit! Now, the TPC on the other hand says Obama will raise taxes, and they're pretty fucking legit as tax groups go!
Something that's occurred to me regarding the Medi(s)care stuff: Even if the over-54's are "exempt" from the changes, they're still going to get screwed because Medicare is stingy, and currently compensates for that by providing access to a huge base of patients. When the youngest people on Medicare are 70, 75, 80, etc, that base is going to shrink and doctors will stop accepting the rates. Am I missing anything here?
I don't believe for a second that they would actually leave the over 55s alone.
Eh. I don't think it's unreasonable. The point is they've been bitching for the last two years (see also: Politifact) about how the currently-old will be safe, which inadvertently suggests that we should shovel the old people into incinerators, since they are willing to screw us over already. So I question whether or not they will actually be safe.
And if Republicans are known for one thing, it's telling the truth and doing exactly what they've said they would.
Well, I have to admit that's a good point, but it's stretching even for me to say that they can gut Medicare and not face the granny revolt. Unless they manage to kill them all off in 3 1/2 years, I guess, but they're already depending on the senior vote, getting rid of them would help the Democrats.
Something that's occurred to me regarding the Medi(s)care stuff: Even if the over-54's are "exempt" from the changes, they're still going to get screwed because Medicare is stingy, and currently compensates for that by providing access to a huge base of patients. When the youngest people on Medicare are 70, 75, 80, etc, that base is going to shrink and doctors will stop accepting the rates. Am I missing anything here?
People that age are the largest consumers of medical care by far. I doubt a lot of places are just going to take a pass on that.
The most disturbing aspect of Ryan’s speech, however, is a seemingly innocuous claim that the “the enforcement of contracts” is protected by the “constitutional cornerstone of our free society.”
Ryan would like us go back to the shithole that was the early 1900s.
Apparently some guy just opened fire at the Family Research Council, so expect some ads soon about left-wing terrorists.
I'm sure Romney will claim this was an Obama campaign spokesman before the day is through.
Four years ago, I'd have treated a comment like this as chuckle-worthy absurdity. But now that we have Poe's Law: The Campaign in progress, it's time to visit InTrade...
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
To be fair, some of those people might be in solid red or blue states, so even if they voted the votes wouldn't impact the election. I really wonder what a straight up popular vote would do for turnout.
Something that's occurred to me regarding the Medi(s)care stuff: Even if the over-54's are "exempt" from the changes, they're still going to get screwed because Medicare is stingy, and currently compensates for that by providing access to a huge base of patients. When the youngest people on Medicare are 70, 75, 80, etc, that base is going to shrink and doctors will stop accepting the rates. Am I missing anything here?
People that age are the largest consumers of medical care by far. I doubt a lot of places are just going to take a pass on that.
But they won't be the largest bloc when they have a maximum birth year. Right now there are about 40 million 65+'s in America. Half of them are between 65 and 74. So 20 years down the road, you can get half the "people that age" without touching Medicare, and sucks to be you, 76-year-old.
I suspected this was the case but the margin is larger than I expected... with a 2:1 lead in 40%+ of the country would put the Democrats at an overall 58% electorate.... they'd sweep the country.
Posts
Well at the very least he could be back in private equity if he wasn't running, making hundreds of millions more
Why cutting all of those things would almost come close to covering a statistically significant percentage of the money lost from cancelling the ACA at this point
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
http://www.networklobby.org/nuns-bus-trip
pleasepaypreacher.net
WHY IS OBAMA PAYING OUR SOLDIERS WITH CHINESE MONEY?! WHY IS OBAMA TURNING OUR VALIANT SOLDIERS INTO FOREIGN MERCENARIES?!
Oh, no, where will I watch outdated nature documentaries while I ride what is, judging by smell, a giant bathroom on rails to Chicago for $35?
Seriously, though, I want to believe Amtrak could be a moneymaker if they pushed commuter rail a bit. With airlines bending people over benches, Amtrak is still cheaper than driving and smells marginally less like urine than a bus.
Perhaps he intends to suggest these organizations ought to try PE and see if someone like Bain Capital could load them up with debt and sell them off at a profit while tanking the arts and travel subsidies in America
Uncanny Magazine!
The Mad Writers Union
He pretty clearly does comprehend how everyone else would find his tax payments immoral. That's why he's not releasing them. Or at least why he didn't release them at first. If he didn't get that people would find it distasteful at best, he would've just tossed them out there first thing.
At this point, I don't think it has as much to do with the magnitude of what's in there so much as the simple inertia of his trying to hide a secret. He's the little kid standing before mommy with chocolate smeared all over his face and a cookie in his hand, insisting he didn't touch the cookie jar. Mom knows he's lying, the kid knows that she knows he's lying, but now he's been sticking to this story for the past fifteen minutes and what else can he do? "No mama, there's nothing in my hand. No mama, I can't take my hand out from behind my back because you'll get mad. No mama, there's no cookie there, but you'll get mad anyway, but really mama I didn't do anything wrong."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/15/what-is-the-carried-interest-loophole-and-why-doesnt-romney-want-to-close-it/
Mitt Romney: Doing the Absolute Bare Minimum Required. For America.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
To be fair, it's a sound American cultural quality; the bare minimum is practically a requirement in and of itself and going beyond is suspect behavior
Uncanny Magazine!
The Mad Writers Union
Its from a Fortune article.
http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/15/mitt-romney-interview/
pleasepaypreacher.net
Here is the incredible thing to me. While cutting taxes for the rich is not a popular message in most circles, tax simplification is, even if that simplification ultimately results in lower taxes for the rich. Romney could easily be the posterboy for simplificiation, because his returns are so complicated. Even if he did not release them he could still pound home the simplification point by saying things like "I can't release my returns yet because the amounts are not final since I may have loss carrybacks. We should not have a tax system where years after my return was filed I still don't know the final amount I owed in taxes for that year!"
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Ah, the Shaggy Defense. Always good to see in a Presidential candidate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure this is the applicable test. Obviously, it meets the first criteria (insuring the integrity of elections definitely qualifies), but seems like it should fail the remaining ones, in that voter fraud occurs on such an insignificant scale that doing nothing accomplishes the goal better, because it seems very likely that the law will interfere with more valid votes than it would invalid.
Skimming the article, it seems the judge only refused to issue an injunction, which is somewhat more reasonable than upholding it.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
So the ACA would increase the deficit by being cut, IIRC.
The rest are all pennies. He's still massively short on what he needs to make his budget work. The reason the TPC estimate took out the mortgage interest deduction was that it was the only thing large enough to actually dent the missing money pile. Dude would need to cut the DoD deep to make that plan work via spending cuts.
Which is why the elderly are so against the Zombie-Eyed Granny Starver.
Eh. I don't think it's unreasonable. The point is they've been bitching for the last two years (see also: Politifact) about how the currently-old will be safe, which inadvertently suggests that we should shovel the old people into incinerators, since they are willing to screw us over already. So I question whether or not they will actually be safe.
pleasepaypreacher.net
He could be carrying on like a tax crusader trying to make shit better for the little people while secretly still winding up on the winning side of the equation. He could be doing the same with pretty much any regulation. The fact that he's not is absolutely baffling. I'm still under the assumption that this man is slick talking and able to rock a serious long term plan. I just don't see that at all in this campaign, or any learning at all from his prior campaigns for office.
He is slick talking, but the only one getting slipped up by it is him.
Those government programs that do a lot of public good have to stand on their own two feet like businesses. Otherwise, how would they subsidize oil companies?
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
And if Republicans are known for one thing, it's telling the truth and doing exactly what they've said they would.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
You can't trust a thing those TPC idiots say, their methodology is shit! Now, the TPC on the other hand says Obama will raise taxes, and they're pretty fucking legit as tax groups go!
Well, I have to admit that's a good point, but it's stretching even for me to say that they can gut Medicare and not face the granny revolt. Unless they manage to kill them all off in 3 1/2 years, I guess, but they're already depending on the senior vote, getting rid of them would help the Democrats.
I'm sure Romney will claim this was an Obama campaign spokesman before the day is through.
pleasepaypreacher.net
What a shock the people the GOP is trying to make ineligible to vote, wouldn't vote for them.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Four years ago, I'd have treated a comment like this as chuckle-worthy absurdity. But now that we have Poe's Law: The Campaign in progress, it's time to visit InTrade...
To be fair, some of those people might be in solid red or blue states, so even if they voted the votes wouldn't impact the election. I really wonder what a straight up popular vote would do for turnout.
This has nothing to do with the people who the GOP is making ineligible to vote, this is people who aren't planning on voting.
But they won't be the largest bloc when they have a maximum birth year. Right now there are about 40 million 65+'s in America. Half of them are between 65 and 74. So 20 years down the road, you can get half the "people that age" without touching Medicare, and sucks to be you, 76-year-old.
If you think these groups don't overlap, I got a bridge I can sell you.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Well, technically, I don't believe releasing even a single year of taxes is legally required.
Goddamn nonvoters.