Romney/Ryan Lose 2012 Election Thread

[brandymac27]

Romney is doing an impressive job firing up his base while simultaneously appealing to independents. Debates he moves hard center, campaign trail he goes straight back to the right.

That's not moving back to the right. That's moving back to bizzaro land.

[Jumbo]

Romney is doing an impressive job firing up his base while simultaneously appealing to independents. Debates he moves hard center, campaign trail he goes straight back to the right.

It's some of the more remarkably blatant snake I've seen in awhile---Rove would be impressed, maybe even distressed. Corsi in the plane. Wow.

[Thiebear]

Wow. An even bigger whopper.

Please, let us in on how a piece of legislation which was passed two years ago, is "still being edited".

I'd love to see the spin on that one.

Though I did say you are correct on there being a basic framework and "Details"

August 13, 2012

NY Times: IRS Interpretation of ObamaCare May Put Health Insurance Out of Reach for Many Families

New York Times: Ambiguity in Health Law Could Make Family Coverage Too Costly for Many:
The new health care law is known as the Affordable Care Act. But Democrats in Congress and advocates for low-income people say coverage may be unaffordable for millions of Americans because of a cramped reading of the law by the administration and by the IRS in particular.
Under rules proposed by the service, some working-class families would be unable to afford family coverage offered by their employers, and yet they would not qualify for subsidies provided by the law.
The fight revolves around how to define “affordable” under provisions of the law that are ambiguous. The definition could have huge practical consequences, affecting who gets help from the government in buying health insurance. Under the law, most Americans will be required to have health insurance starting in 2014. Low- and middle-income people can get tax credits and other subsidies to help pay their premiums, unless they have access to affordable coverage from an employer. The law specifies that employer-sponsored insurance is not affordable if a worker’s share of the premium is more than 9.5 percent of the worker’s household income.
The IRS says this calculation should be based solely on the cost of individual coverage for the employee, what the worker would pay for “self-only coverage.” Critics say the administration should also take account of the costs of covering a spouse and children because family coverage typically costs much more.
In 2011, according to an annual survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation, premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance averaged $5,430 a year for single coverage and $15,070 for family coverage. The employee’s share of the premium averaged $920 for individual coverage and more than four times as much, $4,130, for family coverage. Under the IRS proposal, such costs would be deemed affordable for a family making $35,000 a year, even though the family would have to spend 12% of its income for full coverage under the employer’s plan.

[brandymac27]

I don't understand the difference...

Good point!

[Thiebear]

There is a difference between that and saying we have to kill all the taliban and must not negotiate with them. No?

THE President said the Taliban will not get a foothold back... (that doesn't sound like negotiation either), and Drones kill lots of terrorist every day it seems.

[Elessar78]

Romney was asked about tax deductions, I took notes. He picked a number "$25,000" whatever.

Then he said "No tax on savings." Jeez, Mitt, that's mighty generous of you in a country with a negative savings rate and a paltry interest rate on any saving account. Then no taxes on mutual funds. It's a nice smokescreen to, once again, just benefit the wealthy.

[GoSkins0721]

Romney was asked about tax deductions, I took notes. He picked a number "$25,000" whatever.

Then he said "No tax on savings." Jeez, Mitt, that's mighty generous of you in a country with a negative savings rate and a paltry interest rate on any saving account. Then no taxes on mutual funds. It's a nice smokescreen to, once again, just benefit the wealthy.

Yeah, I caught that during the debate. I think it will save me about $150/year if he includes dividends.

[Skinz4Life12]

Yeah, I caught that during the debate. I think it will save me about $150/year if he includes dividends.

yipee!!

i saw people eating that **** up on facebook like it was going to save them some serious coin

[wshngtn1]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...llege_map.html

Man, the electoral map sure is turning red fast. PANIC! PANIC!

[Skinz4Life12]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...llege_map.html

Man, the electoral map sure is turning red fast. PANIC! PANIC!

that's because they haven't penciled in Penn or Ohio blue yet

[Skinz4Life12]

it is here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...bama-1860.html

[twa]

Ohio ain't looking blue

[skinsfan_1215]

that's because they haven't penciled in Penn or Ohio blue yet

Or Michigan, Wisconsin, Vermont, etc...

But seriously, they key ones there that are now considered "toss ups" that are still likely Obama are Penn and Michigan. So add 36 EVs for Obama there and take 36 away from the toss up category.

Polling looks good for Romney in FL.

The election is really coming down to 3 states that are neck and neck... Colorado, Virginia, and Ohio.

[GSF]

if they are over a 17k cap shouldn't they be?

---------- Post added October-16th-2012 at 12:37 PM ----------



I've run a business for decades....they control more than a little of me(for now)
if they control business,then they clearly control a large part of the economy

it is rapidly approaching the point they are the economy

What kind of business do you own? I have been a business owner for 4 years now, and I have not had that experience at all. The government has not really hurt or helped my business. It certainly doesn't have any control over it.

TWA, I'm reposting this b/c it looks like you might have missed it. Coud you please explain how the government controls your business?

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/10...w-to-vote.html

Romney Caught Encouraging Business Owners to Tell Employees How to Vote


Recently several business owners have made headlines by sending out missives suggesting that workers should vote Romney if they're interested in the health of the business (and thus their jobs). Now In These Times reports that in a June conference call with the National Federation of Independent Business, Mitt Romney said that he's totally behind the questionable practice. "I hope you make it very clear to your employees what you believe is in the best interest of your enterprise and therefore their job and their future in the upcoming elections," said Romney.

"Nothing illegal about you talking to your employees about what you believe is best for the business, because I think that will figure into their election decision, their voting decision, and of course doing that with your family and your kids as well." Sure, there's no law against employers sharing their political opinions; people just tend to find this sort of thing creepy and unethical, particularly when their boss suggests there's a good chance they'll be joining the ranks of the unemployed if they don't vote Romney.

Though Romney says at the end of the call (the pertinent remarks are 26 minutes in) that he wants employers to pass on their political views "whether you agree with me or you agree with President Obama," so far there have only been reports of pro-Romney mailings.