**2012 Election Day thread**

[Marty34]

I think you missed the point. They will invest their money - that won't change. Just will invest differently. I said nothing about creating jobs, nor did I even hint at it. We are talking about MARKET investing here.

 

Point is, the super wealthy are going to sit on their money until the government gives them incentive (tax cuts or at least no tax increases) to invest in this shaky market, economy, whatever you want to call it.

[NorthSideSox72]

Point is, the super wealthy are going to sit on their money until the government gives them incentive (tax cuts or at least no tax increases) to invest in this shaky market, economy, whatever you want to call it.

Not at all. Sitting on their money doesn't get them anything.

 

Short run, sure... if the cliff looms large in late December still, they will pull out a bunch of gains. Then early next year, as things solidify, they will go back into the markets, though possibly into different instruments or avenues. That's how it works. And that is how it will work, even if taxes go up a bit. The only way they start making BIG moves out of the US markets, is if the taxes go up a LOT.

 

Have some historical perspective here. The market run-ups of the 90's? Happened with Dividend and capital gains rates were, what, 25 and 30%?

 

This all said... I don't see the need for the rates on gains and dividends to go up much. I wouldn't be opposed to them going up a small amount, like from 15 to 20%, or maybe income-tested in some fashion. That can be part of a solution, and not have much effect on the markets long-term. But I'd rather they be kept where they are for now, and go up again in a year or two.

 

All I am saying is, this idea that all the rich people are going to take all their money out of the markets and stuff it in their matresses until they get their historically low tax rates back... is a load of B.S.

 

[StrangeSox]

Romney gets in on the "Obama gave stuff and things to the moochers who aren't Traditional Americans" meme

 

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/11/...ection-loss.php

 

According to reports in the Los Angeles Times and New York Times, the former Republican nominee said during a call with donors on Wednesday that Obama had been “very generous” in doling out “big gifts” to “the African American community, the Hispanic community and young people” as well as to women throughout his first term. Benefits such as access to “free health care,” guaranteed contraceptive coverage, more affordable student loans, and “amnesty for children of illegals,” all combined to give the president a decisive edge in popularity.

 

“The President’s campaign focused on giving targeted groups a big gift — so he made a big effort on small things,” Romney said. “Those small things, by the way, add up to trillions of dollars.”

 

[mr_genius]

Romney gets in on the "Obama gave stuff and things to the moochers who aren't Traditional Americans" meme

 

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/11/...ection-loss.php

 

so what. it's the free stuff era of politics. who will give out the most?! gimme gimme.

 

and Romney only offered free stuff to his rich buddies. not enough of them to win.

Edited November 15, 2012 by mr_genius

[Reddy]

so what. it's the free stuff era of politics. who will give out the most?! gimme gimme.

 

and Romney only offered free stuff to his rich buddies. not enough of them to win.

hey it's the reason i voted for him.

[StrangeSox]

so what. it's the free stuff era of politics. who will give out the most?! gimme gimme.

 

and Romney only offered free stuff to his rich buddies. not enough of them to win.

I just still can't figure out why republicans are losing the minority vote. Truly baffling.

[mr_genius]

I just still can't figure out why republicans are losing the minority vote. Truly baffling.

 

not enough free stuff probably. they aren't even offer free stuff to their own voters. explains the low turnout man. explains it totally to me.

[mr_genius]

hey it's the reason i voted for him.

 

see strangsox. you just don't get it do you.

Edited November 15, 2012 by mr_genius

[StrangeSox]

Bobby Jindal gets it.

 

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/11/...ers.php?ref=fpa

 

That is absolutely wrong,” Jindal told reporters in Las Vegas at the Republican Governors Association meeting. “Two points on that. One, we have got to stop dividing American voters. We need to go after 100 percent of the votes, not 53 percent — we need to go after every single vote. And second, we need to continue to show that our policies help every voter out there achieve the American dream, which is to be in the middle class, which is to be able to give their children the opportunity to get a great education, which is for their children to have even better-paying jobs than their parents.”

[StrangeSox]

There's been some talk on the left about how Republicans only held onto the House because of 2010 gerrymandering.

 

Political scientists at The Monkey Cage and Sam Wang take a look

 

Monkey Cage:

And it’s worth noting just how generous these assumptions are. This bare-bones model misses more individual outcomes than any handicapper or other forecasting model. It ignores one of the most important ways that a gerrymandering party tries to stick it to the other side (i.e., by moving incumbents to more difficult territory), as well as one of the most important ways that a gerrymander doesn’t work (i.e., incumbents beat expectations based on district partisanship alone). It’s not really a bad model. But it’s not really a good one, either.

 

If redistricting doesn’t explain the discrepancy, what does? We have argued that incumbency is a likely culprit, but as Dan Hopkins recently pointed out, Democrats also do worse because they are more concentrated in urban areas. They “waste” votes on huge margins there, when the party could put many of those votes to better use in marginal seats. (See this paper by Jowei Chen and Jonathan Rodden for more evidence on this point.)

 

Sam Wang makes the case for both a strong incumbency effect but also a significant and historically abnormal gerrymandering benefit:

 

My analysis indicates that redistricting has given Republicans an advantage of about 1.2% in national popular vote margin compared with pre-2010. In a close national Congressional race, which we have this year, this translates to an advantage of 13 seats. The effect is more than I was expecting.

 

[Reddy]

see strangsox. you just don't get it do you.

to be fair... if one candidate is giving me free healthcare and free student loans, well... i'd be a moron NOT to vote for him.

[mr_genius]

to be fair... if one candidate is giving me free healthcare and free student loans, well... i'd be a moron NOT to vote for him.

 

care to comment on this, strangesox?

 

i think it's time for you admit i was right.

[mr_genius]

to be fair... if one candidate is giving me free healthcare and free student loans, well... i'd be a moron NOT to vote for him.

 

don't you have to pay those student loans back? or by free do you mean loan forgiveness from Obama.

[StrangeSox]

Student loans are never dischargeable.

 

I think the "free student loans" thing has something to do with deferred interest and ending the free money they were shoveling at the banks to run the program for no good reason.

[mr_genius]

Student loans are never dischargeable.

 

never say never my friend

[Reddy]

never say never my friend

exactly. right now my monthly payments are $0, and if I haven't repaid them in 25 years they disappear completely.

 

called Income Based Repayment, as I make more money, the payments will go up, but it will be in line with what I can afford to pay.

[Reddy]

well... 22 or 23 years now.

[StrangeSox]

Oh, right, I forgot about that modification.

[Marty34]

I just still can't figure out why republicans are losing the minority vote. Truly baffling.

 

Buchanan sums it up:

 

Still, the GOP crisis is not so much illegal as legal immigration. Forty million legal immigrants have arrived in recent decades. Some 85 percent come from Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Middle East. Most arrived lacking the academic, language and labor skills to compete for high-paying jobs.

 

What does government do for them?

 

Subsidizes their housing and provides free education for their kids from Head Start through K-12, plus food stamps and school lunches, Pell Grants and student loans for college, Medicaid if they are sick, earned income tax credits if they work and 99 weeks of unemployment checks if they lose their job.

 

These are people who depend upon government.

 

Why would they vote for a party that is going to cut taxes they do not pay, but take away government benefits they do receive?

 

Again it needs be said. When the country looks like California demographically, it will look like California politically. Republicans are not whistling past the graveyard. They are right at the entrance.

 

http://buchanan.org/blog/is-the-gop-headed...e-boneyard-5347

[NorthSideSox72]

Buchanan sums it up:

Except that he's completely wrong. People who come here legally, typically have jobs to come to, or are family with those that do. So this idea that they are coming here and getting paid to live is ridiculous.

 

Buchanan? Seriously? That guy is a clown.

 

The ones who come here ILleggally, are much more likely to NOT have a job, and therefore be more of a drain on resources.

 

[Reddy]

Except that he's completely wrong. People who come here legally, typically have jobs to come to, or are family with those that do. So this idea that they are coming here and getting paid to live is ridiculous.

 

Buchanan? Seriously? That guy is a clown.

 

The ones who come here ILleggally, are much more likely to NOT have a job, and therefore be more of a drain on resources.

 

oh? because i'm pretty sure you need a SS# to get health care and welfare...

[StrangeSox]

I'd say that Pat Buchanan does adequately sum up why Republicans aren't getting the minority vote, just not in the way he intended.

[NorthSideSox72]

oh? because i'm pretty sure you need a SS# to get health care and welfare...

Health care? ER is the popular choice, also some clinics take in anyone. That costs money. Welfare? Not in the strictest sense, though some do get it fraudulently.

 

I am not, by the way, arguing the illegal immigrants are ONLY a drain. They also provide some positive impacts. I was pointing out that the people who come here via valid visas, are usually doing it with WORK visas, and are contributing to society. Those who are here illegally, are contributing less, and taking more. Thus Buchanan's argment is (shockingly) false.

 

[StrangeSox]

Undocumented immigrants working under fake SSN's are paying payroll taxes but can't ever see the benefits of those programs. They also pay sales taxes, gas taxes, tolls, etc.

[mr_genius]

oh? because i'm pretty sure you need a SS# to get health care and welfare...

 

you don't. just show up with a piece of mail so they know where to send your free stuff.

Edited November 15, 2012 by mr_genius