A change of mind

[regulator 0]

After the president’s debate performance in Denver, this lifelong Democrat has made a difficult decision: he’s given up on Barack Obama. Even if his own wife doesn’t approve.

When I told my wife Lisa that I was writing a column supporting Mitt Romney for president, her reaction was both impressive and revealing:

“Why don’t you write about the infield fly rule?”

It is impressive that anyone actually understands the infield fly rule, one of those arcane mysteries of life in baseball that became the subject of a riot in the St. Louis Cardinals’ 6-3 victory over the Atlanta Braves Friday in the first ever Wild Card One versus Wild Card Two playoff game. It is also true that my normal bailiwick is sports.

The revealing part is that she would suggest the infield fly rule as column fodder, a clear signal that support of Republican nominee Romney over President Obama is not something she looks forward to seeing in print and could well create a War of the Tates. We have already agreed to no longer discuss politics.

This is not a frivolous decision, nor is it an easy one. I grew up on the Upper West Side of New York, arguably the country’s nexus of liberalogy, where it wouldn’t have surprised me in the least as a child to discover that my parents, along with all the other attendees in some garret reminiscent of the French Resistance, had thrown eggs at Abbie Hoffman at a political get-together because he wasn’t liberal enough.

Voting for a president is based on a combination of factual and emotional perception. The tipping point was last week’s debate in Denver. Romney finally did what he should have done all along instead of his balky cha cha with the old white men of the conservative Republican wing: he acted as the moderate he is, for the first time running as himself, not against himself, embracing his record as governor of Massachusetts.

I have never seen a performance worse than Obama’s, distracted, his head dipped into the podium as if avoiding the smell of something rotten, acting above the very idea that a debate does provide a pivotal referendum on his first term as it has for all incumbent presidents, whipsawed by the legion of usual advisers telling him to play defense when his own intuition should have told him that he needed to go on the offensive as Romney slapped him around.

But there was more than the entitlement of entitlement. He struck me as burnt out, tired of selling his message although he has always been terrible at selling his message when it veers from idealism into the practical.

By instinct I still cling to my Democrat roots. But I admit that as I get older, on the cusp of 58, I am moving more to the center or even tweaking right, or at least not tied to any ideology. Those making more than $250,000 should pay more taxes, and that does include me. But I also am tired of Obama’s constant demonization, of those he spits out as “millionaires and billionaires,” as pariahs. Romney’s comments at a fundraiser were stupid, but 47 percent of Americans do not pay federal income taxes. Yes, a majority are poor and seniors. But millions do not pay such taxes with incomes of more than $50,000, and whether it’s as little as $10, every American should contribute both as a patriotic obligation and skin in the game. This is our country, not our country club.

I don’t see Obama spending much time running the country, unless you count his recent appearance on The View, where he was far more animated and charming than during the debate.
Lisa considers me a traitor to the very essence of America, providing a helping hand to those in genuine need. There is a part of me that feels like a traitor myself, having seen firsthand on a sustained basis the cesspool of crime and crack and teenage prostitution and sinking-house dilapidation in which 25 percent of my hometown, the city of Philadelphia, lives, in poverty. Of all the hopes I have for Romney, this is the most tenuous. But take a walk in neighboring Camden, said by some to be the poorest and most dangerous city in America, and ask yourself how urban policy has even been a part of the president’s agenda.

The tipping point toward a candidate is perhaps the greatest act of individuality in our unique democracy, although in this day and age of unprecedented political divide, telling somebody who you are voting for has no upside: There is no respect for your right as a citizen, but outright hatred from those who do not agree with you. I fear that I will lose friends, some of whom I hold inside my heart. Of course, I will also lose friends I really don’t like anyway.

In my other life, as the afternoon talk show host for CBS WPHT-AM in Philadelphia, I have studied the issues assiduously, or as assiduously as I can given their complexities. I know that both candidates, while agreeing on health-care reform, have radically different ideas. I know that when Romney says people with preexisting conditions will be reinsured, he leaves out the gigantic footnote that first they had to have coverage through their jobs. But I also question the ability of Obamacare to control costs, given the administrative nightmare that exists when government is involved. One of the Obamacare methods of cutting those costs, the computerization of hospital records, has resulted in massive fraud by cheating doctors.

At the debate, Romney did not simply act like he wanted to be president. He wants to be president. He showed vigor, and enthusiasm, and excitement, a man who wants to lead. It may all be ephemeral, because most of politics is ephemeral, a cynical means to the end of getting elected. But he also revealed compassion that, during the entirety of this absurdly long march, had never been in evidence before. He recognized the needs of the poor. He recognized the need for regulation.

His tax plan was admittedly mystery meat. But the tag he has lied is unfair. To the contrary, he has recognized that his original proposal is more screwed up than the infield fly rule, not to mention mathematically impossible. So he is modifying it, coming up with a possible alternative in recent weeks that deductions should be capped at $17,000. Even the liberal party boys, like The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein, reluctantly admitted in the typical liberal style that it might have merit one of these millennia. I think Romney realizes that lowering the rate to 20 percent will not fly if he is to lower the deficit and make the plan work. And he is hardly the only candidate to assert something during a campaign that will change once in his office. As I recall, Obama vowed to cut the deficit in half.

Democratic supporters offered the usual antidotes to Obama’s debate performance: he was tired from running the country, the mile-high air got to him (which is why Al Gore is better off with the midlife crisis of a beard). But I don’t see Obama spending much time running the country, unless you count his recent appearance on The View, where he was far more animated and charming than during the debate.

He has said nary a word about the debacle in Benghazi in Libya where ambassador Chris Stevens was killed amidst all sort of questions over adequate security. While getting a tongue bath from Whoopi, he rejected meeting with Middle East leaders during the UN General Assembly, so essential in dealing with a region where personal relationships make a profound difference. As Syria burns more fiercely than ever, now enveloping Turkey with its own use of military force, he purposely stays as far away from it as he can, presumably until after the election if at all.

Our engagement in politics is admittedly pathetic, one of the unforgivable shames of our society. But in the debate, more than 70 million were watching. It was a time for Obama to shine, not to mail in the same message, smooth and eloquent as always, but no longer connecting with an electorate that has been there done that (even the liberals will admit it behind the locked door of the bathroom after searching for bugs). I am not sure Obama really wants to be president in any practical way. He hates the rolling up of sleeves and schmoozing that is politics. I respect his principles, the way he does not veer from them, but politics is not principle whether we like it or not. It is friendliness and compromise.

I believe that Romney’s move to the center is not yet another flip-flop sleight of hand, perhaps naively. I believe he will send to the political Guantanamo those dirty old white men of the party ready to bomb Iran (speaking of wars, are we out of Afghanistan yet, despite our so-called allies killing our soldiers? See Obama policy).

Four years ago, all Obama had to do was speak and everyone swooned. That was four years ago. It is now four years later. He is no longer the chosen one. He is just too cool for school in a country desperate for the infectiousness of rejuvenation.

Romney has it.

Our president no longer does.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/08/buzz-bissinger-why-i-m-voting-for-mitt-romney.html

[quade 4]

If one debate could sway your vote, then why not wait until you've seen all the debates?

Just sayin'.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rehmwa 2]

I resonated with this post right up until I, inevitably, could not avoid the phrase "While getting a tongue bath from Whoopi".

At that point, my nausea distracted much of my attention and I couldn't really finish the article. With or without context, those words should just not be presented in that combination.....for any reason.

But up to that point, actually well communicated.

That said, I agree with Quade. People that vote early are idiots. Especially when then are more debates where we get to hear what the candidates say directly, instead of the strawman crap we get from strangers.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[GeorgiaDon 379]

Quote

...but politics is not principle whether we like it or not. It is friendliness and compromise.

Really, Buzz? Have the Republicans been pursuing a path of "friendliness and compromise" for the last four years? Is Mitch McConnell stating "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president" an example of "friendliness and compromise"?

Well if your idea of a great leader is someone who shakes his magic eight ball etch-a-sketch every morning to see what his platform-du-jour will be, have at it. I don't think Romney is a terrible person, but he really seems to say just about whatever he seems to think his audience of the moment wants to hear. Personally I have no idea what policies he would or would not support, but it does seem that the tea party types have got a garotte around his testicles. Anyway, anyone who believes they can increase military spending, increase medicare spending, give everyone a 20% tax break, and pay for it all by disenfranchising Big Bird is living in cloud cuckoo land, IMHO. I doubt very much that Romney believes that either, I think he's just pandering to his base, who are none too mathematically adept. Which leaves me wondering what he really plans to do, if he has any plan at all beyond: Step one, get elected.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[RonD1120 62]

Excellent and well stated. Thank you for sharing.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

Quote

...but politics is not principle whether we like it or not. It is friendliness and compromise.

Really, Buzz? Have the Republicans been pursuing a path of "friendliness and compromise" for the last four years? Is Mitch McConnell stating "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president" an example of "friendliness and compromise"?

Well if your idea of a great leader is someone who shakes his magic eight ball etch-a-sketch every morning to see what his platform-du-jour will be, have at it. I don't think Romney is a terrible person, but he really seems to say just about whatever he seems to think his audience of the moment wants to hear. Personally I have no idea what policies he would or would not support, but it does seem that the tea party types have got a garotte around his testicles. Anyway, anyone who believes they can increase military spending, increase medicare spending, give everyone a 20% tax break, and pay for it all by disenfranchising Big Bird is living in cloud cuckoo land, IMHO. I doubt very much that Romney believes that either, I think he's just pandering to his base, who are none too mathematically adept. Which leaves me wondering what he really plans to do, if he has any plan at all beyond: Step one, get elected.

Don

Your exaggerations are so gross I'll bet your spell checker belched gas.

Romney is a leader, by experience and reputation and he demonstrated his executive status in the first debate. He set the bar high and now the only question is whether he can top it on the next encounter with BHO.

BHO has repeatedly bowed to higher status, the prince in Saudi Arabia, Hugo Chavez, Mayor Pam Iorio in Tampa and last Wednesday to Mitt Romney. BHO is an intellectual not a leader. His inability to lead the Congress to compromise on the budget is one glaring example.

It is time for leadership, that is management experience.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[Shotgun 1]

Are you Buzz Bissinger, or was this meant to be a quote?

[GeorgiaDon 379]

Since your entire world view is built around magical thinking, I'm not surprised you're comfortable with a loaves-and-fishes model of budgetary "planning". In the real world, though, you just cannot give everybody everything they want and not blow up the budget. You say Romney has "leadership" and "managerial experience", yet he seems to me to be acting every bit the politician, caving to this constituency and that.

And it's pretty easy to put on a good debate performance (as in, acting) if you are totally unconstrained by either your previous positions or by reality.
Republican math:
Increased military spending + increased medicaid + 20% tax cut = balanced budget

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

And it's pretty easy to put on a good debate performance (as in, acting) if you are totally unconstrained by either your previous positions or by reality.

and pretty easy to put on a crappy debate when you are shown by your previous positions and the reality you demonstrated



pick a shithead from either team, but the partisan generalizations are getting really old from both teams

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[blueblur 0]

Quote

Are you Buzz Bissinger, or was this meant to be a quote?

Likely a quote, this guy's profile shows his full name and job description, far away from a Pulitzer prize winning journalist and author. Not flaming, just pointing out it is 99% likely a quote.

In every man's life he will be allotted one good woman and one good dog. That's all you get, so appreciate them while the time you have with them lasts.

- RiggerLee

[lawrocket 3]

How about those who have made up their minds before the debates even started?

Additionally, I can see what I see from one debate. We haven’t seen the President off the cuff like this since prior debates. This is the first time in four years people got to see him. And what did they see?

The President looks great and sounds great until there’s someone to call him on his bullshit. It happened. The President said something to the effect of “that was not the real Romney.” He failed to say, “That was not the real me.”

Impressions linger. The President won his election on the basis of public perception. The guy won a Nobel Peace Prize due to perception. We’ve had 5 years of public perception of him. And in one fell swoop, those perceptions were sorely tested.

Fresh has gotten stale. New has gotten old. Hope turned to regret. And yesterday’s promises have turned into today’s excuses. All Romney has to do is be the same in the next debate. Obama has to be different, and that is a no-win situation.

Victorious warriors win before the battle starts. The President didn’t do this.

Re: GeorgiaDon:

Quote

Anyway, anyone who believes they can increase military spending, increase medicare spending, give everyone a 20% tax break, and pay for it all by disenfranchising Big Bird is living in cloud cuckoo land

I agree. However, my problem is that anyone who believes that we can continue with Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and Debt Servicing (just those) as they are and pay for it with revenues over the next DECADE is in cloud cuckoo land. Take those issues and forget about Defense or anything else. They are the big dogs now and will be the big dogs in the future. And thinking that one will be able to balance the budget even by not providing a penny to defense spending is living in cloud cuckoo land.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Rstanley0312 1]

Quote

If one debate could sway your vote, then why not wait until you've seen all the debates?

Just sayin'.

I guess it swayed a lot of people....

http://www.people-press.org/2012/10/08/romneys-strong-debate-performance-erases-obamas-lead/

The reason... Obama has done NOTHING but attack Romney and the people saw for the first time that the attack adds are just that.... Romney has been attacked on a personal level that has disgusted me and many others. Now Obama has a choice and it seems like he is going to make the wrong one and double down on that strategy. It will hurt him even more but then again... what else can he say? "Just give me four more years and I promise it will get better. I know I said that the first time but I'm serious this time."

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[funjumper101 15]

The revenue issue is really easy. All that has to happen is for the special tax deals provided to the extremely wealthy to end, NOW!

Unearned income, aka, interest and sleazy accounting tricks used to make salary look like interest, should be taxed at the same rates as earned income. The concept that unearned income should be taxed at lower rate than money made by actual labor is disgusting. Money made by investing money to make money is NOT superior to money made by working for it. Quite the opposite.
The preferential treatment for rich folks and their money has got to stop. They pay less taxes than at any time in US history, yet STILL bitch about how high their taxes are. The sheeple fall right in line with policies that cost regular folks money and services, so as to subsidize the tax cuts for the rich folks.

In many ways, the rescumlicans seem to want to go back to the fifities for social policies. The USA should go back to the tax rates of the fifties. That would solve the "revenue crisis" PDQ.

[DanG 1]

Quote

Romney has been attacked on a personal level that has disgusted me and many others.

What personal attacks are you talking about? Are you equally disgusted by the personal attacks on Obama?

- Dan G

[masterblaster72 0]

From what I remember, Shrub completely botched the first debate in 2004 vs. Kerry and came back swinging (and sniffling, mysteriously) in the following debates. There are two more debates and plenty of opportunity for Obama to perform better and for Romney to say something stupid enough to sway your vote back to the incumbent.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The revenue issue is really easy. All that has to happen is for the special tax deals provided to the extremely wealthy to end, NOW!

Unearned income, aka, interest and sleazy accounting tricks used to make salary look like interest, should be taxed at the same rates as earned income.

Quote

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

Take a look at the revenue history and tell me where you see the problem? Tell me about the giant dip in revenues that occurred during the Bush Presidency? Gross dollars in? WOW! I like to start looking at 1994 and move on down. See the growth in revenues? It happened. Then the economy went sour and revenues fell.

But take a look at “outlays.” Gee, just maintaining spending at, say, 1999 levels (remember how great things were in 1999? Yeah – back when that’s all we spent) would have had balanced budgets. That outlays have increased 60% between 1994 and 2012 wouldn’t have anything to do with deficits, now would it? Oh. Maybe it would have, you know, a little something to do with it.

Quote

The concept that unearned income should be taxed at lower rate than money made by actual labor is disgusting.

Why? I will ask you to explain why it is disgusting. I take it that you reckon that anything that moves or sits still should be taxed. I find that to be disgusting.

Quote

Money made by investing money to make money is NOT superior to money made by working for it. Quite the opposite.

If so inferior, then why do you want to tax it so much?

Quote

The preferential treatment for rich folks and their money has got to stop.

Take a look at the deductions that “high income” people cannot get. Things like deductions for student debt. Rental repairs. Etc. All these are things that high earners cannot obtain. Would you agree that people who EARN high wages should be treated the same as those who do not earn high wages? Too many confuse “income” with “wealth.”

Quote

They pay less taxes than at any time in US history

Seems to me that the tax load was significantly lower on them from, oh, say 1776 through the early 1900’s. I can actually objectively prove your statement false.

Quote

yet STILL bitch about how high their taxes are.[yep]

We are executing fewer people in the US than any time in almost 20 years. And yet people are still bitching about executions.

Quote

The sheeple fall right in line with policies that cost regular folks money and services, so as to subsidize the tax cuts for the rich folks.

Use of the term “sheeple” and reiteration of talking points and terminology is not an indication of advanced thought. I’m trying to think of times when you post data to support your rants. It doesn’t happen, does it?

Quote

In many ways, the rescumlicans seem to want to go back to the fifities for social policies.

True.

Quote

The USA should go back to the tax rates of the fifties. That would solve the "revenue crisis" PDQ.

You call it a “revenue crisis.” I call it “budget crisis.” There are two sides to the equation.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[kallend 2,146]

[reply

Unearned income, aka, interest and sleazy accounting tricks used to make salary look like interest, should be taxed at the same rates as earned income.

Quote

+1

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

After the president’s debate performance in Denver, this lifelong Democrat has made a difficult decision: he’s given up on Barack Obama. Even if his own wife doesn’t approve.

Maybe your wife is more attuned to filtering glibly told lies than you are.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

[reply

Unearned income, aka, interest and sleazy accounting tricks used to make salary look like interest, should be taxed at the same rates as earned income.

Quote

+1

If you recall the 1930’s (okay, you aren’t old enough to “recall” it, but airtwardo is) the nation was faced with a great crisis. People thought that they would not have access to money, so withdrew their money from banks and kept cash under the old mattress. This resulted in a problem with liquidity in that money was not circulating through the banks.

In 1994, venture capitalists had about $8 billion in new investment. By 1999 it was, I think, over $25 billion. Limited partners invest a median of about $22 billion per year over the last decade. Why “limited partners?” Because limited partners have a couple of things working for them: (1) liability shield – they can only lose their investment; and (2) tax treatment – they get taxed at capital gains.

So let’s say you want to start a business and you get some investors. Investors see a profit margin of 30% and a tax rate of 15%. It makes business sense to them and they invest. Now, take that margin of 30% and make a tax rate of 30%. The cost/benefit analysis now moves more toward “cost.” And now, of course, the investor will also decide to be a general partner to have more control over the business if it looks sketchier. Or maybe look to incorporate.

Tax treatment drives behavior. We all know it. Governments know it. Taxes are utilized in this way – sin taxes! Want to decrease smoking? Increase taxes on it. Want to decrease alcohol consumption? Increase taxes on it! Want to decrease fuel usage? Increase taxes on it! Want to decrease obesity? Increase taxes on shitty food.

The surest possible way to decrease any activity is to increase the price of it. This is a cause and effect relationship. So what will be the effect on venture capital if capital gains are increased? I’d bet money that venture capital investment would decrease. Actually, I wouldn’t bet on it because I’d be taxed on my winning. A 30% tax on $8 billion meant $2.4 billion in revenues. A 15% tax on 22 billion meant $3.3 billion in revenues.

Now, the initial revenue stream from increasing capital gains will be much! That’s because it tags all the investments that already happened. So you might get $6 billion in revenues that first year. But it will steadily decrease.

From a macro standpoint the time to increase capital gains tax is not when times are tough but when times are great. When the barbecue is smoldering embers, we don’t spray water to keep it going. We add briquettes to build it up. It’s when the fire is too hot that we take steps to tamp it down.

So if the purpose is to stimulate the economy, don’t do it now. If the purpose is to rake in as much revenue now without thought of the future and put a brake on economic recovery, then by all means do it now.

Note: the arguments for increasing capital gains are all based on the idea not that tax revenues should be maximized but that the amount of money taken from people should be increased for the purpose of nothing else than, well, revenue to go to war, subsidize oil, etc.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

And actually, I don’t mind it being taxed at the same rate as ordinary income. Why not make ordinary income tax 15% for all income? Now capital gains is on an even footing and everybody is happy.

Would you be happier that way, John? Or do you favor disparate treatment of income?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[devildog 0]

Quote

The revenue issue is really easy. All that has to happen is for the special tax deals provided to the extremely wealthy to end, NOW!

luls...

You can tax them into extinction and it wouldn't matter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JY8LKII_MNA

Or the written version:

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2011/03/feed-your-family-on-10-billion-a-day.html

Anyone thinking that the answer is simply to raise taxes has no idea what's going on.

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

You can tax them into extinction and it wouldn't matter

If the goal is taxing into extinction, then that's fine. I really think that funjumper would applaud if this happened.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[GeorgiaDon 379]

Quote

Tax treatment drives behavior. We all know it. Governments know it. Taxes are utilized in this way – sin taxes! Want to decrease smoking? Increase taxes on it. Want to decrease alcohol consumption? Increase taxes on it! Want to decrease fuel usage? Increase taxes on it! Want to decrease obesity? Increase taxes on shitty food.

The surest possible way to decrease any activity is to increase the price of it. This is a cause and effect relationship.

I don't really disagree with you, but I'd point out that reality is more nuanced. When we are talking about smoking and alcohol consumption, those are both optional behaviors. One can reduce or even eliminate those behaviors and be fine, even more healthy than one would otherwise be, so it is probable that increased taxes would reduce participation in those behaviors. On the other hand one has to eat to live, so increasing taxes on "unhealthy" foods is likely to cause people to shift to more healthy foods or portions. It's quite unlikely that anyone would cease eating altogether, no matter how high you raised the tax.

When it comes to taxing investment, I think you have to consider what alternatives people have for their money. As long as people can still make money by investing it, they are unlikely to withdraw from the market and stick their money under a mattress. In the past when taxes were outrageously high (in the 90% range I seem to recall), people still invested because even 10% return was still a lot of money, especially compared to nothing or losing value due to inflation. Now, since I'm not part of the 1% I don't know what options are available for investing offshore, but certainly I can imagine that there would be a level of taxation that would encourage people to move money out of the US.

Quote

Note: the arguments for increasing capital gains are all based on the idea not that tax revenues should be maximized but that the amount of money taken from people should be increased for the purpose of nothing else than, well, revenue to go to war, subsidize oil, etc.

One argument that isn't based on that idea is the notion that taxing income from investments differently from wages is socially corrosive, in that it implies that money made from ones labor is not as "worthy" as money made by investing, and by extension it implies that wealthy people are somehow "better" than people who work for salary or wages. Even if a compelling argument could be made that it is necessary to tax investment income lower than other forms of income to encourage wealthy people to "put their money to work", it isn't obvious to me why money that is taken out of those investments to pay for a chalet in Vail or a villa in Monaco should be taxed less than the money I saved and used to build my house.

I realize that a lot of that "investment money" is retirement savings that ultimately leads back to "everyday" people. Huge increases in taxes on investments might end up reducing money people have to retire on, money that gets spent and put back into the economy. However, when I retire my understanding is my shares in my 401K/mutual fund (actually TIA-CREFF) get converted to an annuity, and after that I get taxed on the annuity income at the regular rate. Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't really see why people who depend on 401K type savings should pay a higher tax than people who just can sell off some shares.

But I'm sure someone will be happy to explain to me that I just hate/am jealous of rich people.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[skypuppy 1]

How about those who have made up their minds before the debates even started?

Additionally, I can see what I see from one debate. We haven’t seen the President off the cuff like this since prior debates. This is the first time in four years people got to see him. And what did they see?
_______________________________________________
I'll expand that even more -- I believe that the president's reaction after the recent attacks on the ambassador in Libya (to go on a round of tv interviews and campaigning) is another view of the president's reacting to situations without a script (and misreading them) and shows a real lack of any sort of tactical thinking.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[skypuppy 1]

Quote

Quote

If one debate could sway your vote, then why not wait until you've seen all the debates?

Just sayin'.

I guess it swayed a lot of people....

http://www.people-press.org/2012/10/08/romneys-strong-debate-performance-erases-obamas-lead/

The reason... Obama has done NOTHING but attack Romney and the people saw for the first time that the attack adds are just that.... Romney has been attacked on a personal level that has disgusted me and many others. Now Obama has a choice and it seems like he is going to make the wrong one and double down on that strategy. It will hurt him even more but then again... what else can he say? "Just give me four more years and I promise it will get better. I know I said that the first time but I'm serious this time."

Not only has Romney been attacked but even Romney's WIFE has been attacked -- and that is just disgusting.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone