When President Obama is re-elected!!

Harry C. · Post by **Harry C.** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 9:52 pm

I forsee the Republican party, as it is today, becoming less of a national player and more of a regional player. This translates as a likely House of Rep. controller for 10+ years-until the Dems can find a way to get the timing rigt to get elected a re-gerimander a lot of districts. This also predicts ping-pong for governorships also.

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 10:35 pm

I agree Harry. Politics is still local, and people will vote for their representative in Congress. State- and nation-wide elections will be tougher for the Republicans. But another rule of politics is that things change unpredictably, so you never know...

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Sun Nov 11, 2012 12:41 am

Was thinking about this more today. Only two years back there was hand-wringing over the House takeover and where the Dems would go from there. Politics are local - and fickle. Still, being as objective as I can be, I think this is the Dems game to win or lose. The GOP is down two touchdowns, no timeouts, under two minutes and Brady and the Dems have the ball at midfield. All they can do is hope like hell for a mistake, jump across and hope the refs call it their way, start some trash talking and get a flag..... pick your analogy.......

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Sun Nov 11, 2012 1:24 am

All true Scott, but if history is any guide there is a high likelihood that the Dems will do something stupid. Usually when they lose focus on trying to defeat the GOP, they start fighting amongst themselves.

AlexR · Post by **AlexR** » Sun Nov 11, 2012 1:29 pm

It took a few days, but we now know that Floridians voted for Obama.

That makes:

332 electoral votes for the president
206 electoral votes for his adversary.

Why did the media tell us this would be a close race. Obama won by an ENORMOUS margin!

What I'd be interested in knowing is the effect of unlimited funding, specifically television ads, on voting patterns - to the extent that this can be measured.

Alex R.

stefan · Post by **stefan** » Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:37 pm

Alex, there was an interesting interview on NPR this past week in which this was discussed. Someone isolated 14 important conditions for determining the result of elections up to 1980, then used them to predict the results in subsequent elections, and found the the predictor worked every time. This does not mean that spending is not important, but it suggests that if spending is about the same by the two candidates, then there is no net effect.

I went to NPR to find the interview but could not. I thought it was on Fresh Air but maybe not. Did anyone else catch it?

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sun Nov 11, 2012 3:16 pm

Yes, I heard that interview on NPR, Stefan. One of the big farces of this campaign was the media trying to cast this as a "dead heat." It simply was never even close, not even after the first debate. Romney just never had a chance in those swing states, especially in the midwest -- Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, etc. The media had a vested interest in creating suspense, but I'm sure you won't hear any mea culpas.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Sun Nov 11, 2012 4:37 pm

As my grandfather used to say, Jim, Jim, Jim, Jim, Jim (yup, that's 5 Jims!). I seem to recall a time when you weren't as confident. I believe it was yours truly who maintained through-out that Obama would win the election and most swing states, while someone else wrote things like this: "Oh boy I don't know, Bacchus, I just don't see Barack winning those swing states this time around, like Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia," adding on numerous occasions that even PA and NJ seemed unlikely to break the president's way.

So you lost the bet; when can I expect my case of Lafite?

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sun Nov 11, 2012 4:40 pm

Oh you are absolutely correct, Bacchus. When I first looked at the situation I was convinced that Obama could not win. But then I started to take a closer look at the electoral college reality and it was VERY clear that Romney could not win. Obama NEVER fell behind in Ohio, Iowa, and Wisconsin.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sun Nov 11, 2012 5:13 pm

I have my new prediction for the 2016 Democratic ticket:

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick (who is about to replace Eric Holder as Attorney General) and Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar.

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Sun Nov 11, 2012 5:28 pm

I seem to recall that the JHEPI dipped to 50%, maybe even 45% for a brief period, and not that long before the election.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Sun Nov 11, 2012 5:51 pm

I always thought your initial uncertainty was just pre-election jitters, Jim. Glad to see you're out front on 2016: what, no Hilary! (I too have doubts Hilary will run). Being the eternal optimist, though, I think the Dems could even make up some ground in 2014, if they play their cards right over the next 2 yrs. I've been reading lots of right wing stuff that asserts the Repubs lost because Romney wasn't a true conservative. There's gold in them thar hills!

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sun Nov 11, 2012 6:12 pm

As Harry mentioned above, the gerrymandering of House districts is a function of the party that controls a state house at the time of an end of decade census. The Republicans apparently really did a number on us following the last census, which will make it very difficult for the Dems to do anything substantial in 2014, especially when you factor in the history of off year elections in second terms. I think there are 30 Republican governors right now.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sun Nov 11, 2012 6:16 pm

This was a very good year for the Democrats. Somebody on TV said the other night that no incumbent Democratic governor, senator, or congressman lost on Tuesday night anywhere in the country. I haven't double checked that but I can't think of any who lost.

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Sun Nov 11, 2012 6:50 pm

Bacchus wrote:I always thought your initial uncertainty was just pre-election jitters, Jim. Glad to see you're out front on 2016: what, no Hilary! (I too have doubts Hilary will run). Being the eternal optimist, though, I think the Dems could even make up some ground in 2014, if they play their cards right over the next 2 yrs. I've been reading lots of right wing stuff that asserts the Repubs lost because Romney wasn't a true conservative. There's gold in them thar hills!

The risks to the Dems are threefold, I think. First and foremost is not getting the economy turned around. The 800 lb gorilla isn't the fiscal cliff; it will be Obamacare. It is grossly underfunded and even more underestimated in terms of cost. There will be contentious and bitter battles near term over cuts and taxes, and after all the angst it will be a drop in the bucket compared to what comes down the pike with ACA. My prediction.

Second, as David points out, is infighting. This is just stupid but reliable on both sides, neither of whom seems to be able to tolerate success.

Last, to your point, Bacchus, is overreaching. Both sides can be counted on for this, too. The bulk of the country still self identifies as center right, is pro life, very anti gun control, etc. Doesn't mean changes can't be made, but misreading the tea leaves and rushing in with sweeping changes is almost always an error politically. So far neither side has been terribly adept at this.

AlexR · Post by **AlexR** » Sun Nov 11, 2012 7:10 pm

Astute observation from this week's Economist:

"Face the facts
Republican pessimism is more than a PR headach. Put simply, it is hard for a party to win national elections in a country that it seems to dislike.
Mr Romney's slogan was 'Believe in America'. But too many on his side believe in a version of America from which displeasing facts or argumenta are ruthlessly excluded."

Alex R.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Mon Nov 12, 2012 7:19 pm

A good article on the Republican media cocoon:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83704.html

Houndsong · Post by **Houndsong** » Tue Nov 13, 2012 2:56 am

Reagan was/is a conservative icon. But unlike today's conservatives, he could raise taxes with the best liberal Dems, something the would-be hagiographers would like to forget, if they already haven't. Reagan was a pragmatist. He and Tip O'Neill were quite merry bedfellows. Somehow I just don't see Eric Cantor in bed - with anybody.

But that's all I'll say, since there remains nothing more to be said.

Tom In DC · Post by **Tom In DC** » Tue Nov 13, 2012 3:41 am

OK, maybe I'm missing/forgetting something, but I was writing tax modeling software during the Reagan administration so I hope I might be able to recall what was going on then.

I am not aware of any tax increases that came about during the Reagan administration that were not simply reductions to tax decreases that came about earlier in his terms. I don't think anything in TEFRA (the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act) actually increased taxes relative to the 1980 start of his presidency.

stefan · Post by **stefan** » Tue Nov 13, 2012 2:27 pm

Well, Tom, the number of tax increases under Reagen is in double figures. Of course, overall taxes, and income taxes in particular, were decreased under Reagan. Art's point is that Reagan was a pragmatist. As far as I know, he never took a stonewall, "read my lips; no new taxes" position even if his disposition was to be more fiscally conservative than Bush 1. Contrast his actions and statements with those of the candidates in the Republican primary. When asked if they would agree to increasing taxes by $10 if the Dems would agree to $90 reduction in spending in order to reduce the deficit, all said "no way".

Houndsong · Post by **Houndsong** » Tue Nov 13, 2012 2:51 pm

I guess I'm one of the guys that can't get around the directional aspect of a revenue bill. So if I understand correctly, a tax cut is a tax cut, but a tax increase is just a reduction in a tax cut? Now all the hagiography makes sense!

I think TEFRA was the largest peacetime reduction in a tax cut in history to that date and for quite a while afterwards. In fact the size of that tax cut reduction was bigger than that bad man Clinton's 1993 tax increase.

On a more current topic, 20,000-30,000 emails in 3 years is a lot! At the long end that's like 30 emails a day. When did this guy have time to run an army?

Houndsong · Post by **Houndsong** » Tue Nov 13, 2012 3:08 pm

I just had a brainstorm, but I owe it to Tom. Tom, you may have laid the cornerstone of the bridge across the "fiscal chasm". It's semantics (but we'll not use that word publicly). Boehner and Co. can sell this bridge to their constituents by explaining that Obama's proposed tax increase is just a reduction in the GWB tax cuts. They can hold out Reagan as the model. It's morning again in America. Surely that's a winning strategy for compromise.

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Tue Nov 13, 2012 3:09 pm

Maybe he ran it by email? Sent or received? I get 60-80/day. Most get diverted directly to the spam folder but I probably read 20-30/day.

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Tue Nov 13, 2012 3:18 pm

Very cute Art, i like it! Wouldn't be the first time that particular description/euphemism was used.

But to some extent youre talking past Tom, whose point is that taxes were lower when Reagan was done than when he started, even if they went up some from the initial cuts.

Houndsong · Post by **Houndsong** » Tue Nov 13, 2012 5:13 pm

David, that's 30 emails a day to just one woman. I'm sure he had some other email too.

I'm not talking past Tom. Reagan raised taxes or agreed to it when he thought it necessary or expedient.

If the net is all that matters, then we are all in agreement on the Reagan model. Obama's only talking about letting the GWB taxes sunset with respect to taxpayers making over $250,000, right? So on net, we still have lower taxes. Hurray.

Tom In DC · Post by **Tom In DC** » Tue Nov 13, 2012 8:47 pm

Hey, when we get reminded that the top tax rate was 50% in the 80's, 70% in the 70's, and 91% as recently as 1963, we'll all be jumping for joy, right?

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Tue Nov 13, 2012 8:58 pm

I'm all for taxing the rich at 70%.
We don't need super rich.
They've been nothing but trouble.
Let them go to Dubai or some such place.
What's the top rate in France?
I want us to be like France. And Germany.

Houndsong · Post by **Houndsong** » Tue Nov 13, 2012 9:56 pm

Pettifogging aside, that's what we're down to now. A couple of ticks off of a tax increase reduction increase(agreed to in a sunset provision by all parties way back when as a budget fig leaf) and it's just like a 50, 70 or 91% rate. That's the equivalence that pledge-takers have made.

I want to go on record also as saying I thought Atila the Hun was quite liberal for his day - contrary to what was perceived at the time.

I'm overcome by nostalgia this afternoon for especially the past 20 years CONUS. Having trouble focusing on work - or nonwork even.

Houndsong · Post by **Houndsong** » Tue Nov 13, 2012 9:57 pm

By the way, I thought this was a liberal echo chamber, but I keep hearing these discordant notes.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Tue Nov 13, 2012 9:58 pm

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Tue Nov 13, 2012 9:59 pm

I'm following the Texas secession movement this afternoon.
Where do I send my contribution, stefan?

stefan · Post by **stefan** » Tue Nov 13, 2012 10:09 pm

Go to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... _tax_rates

to get rates, Jim. You would have loved Sweden 25-30 years ago. Someone figured out that under certain conditions the marginal tax rate exceeded 100%. The legislature discussed changing the law but decided not to. Their reasoning? "Why give these rich folks a break".

Our rates on earned income are not so low. We do have a problem with deductions and loopholes, though. Romney wanted changes there but did not outline any specifics, probably because his advisors judged that he would only hurt his chances by doing so. But I wonder about that.

stefan · Post by **stefan** » Tue Nov 13, 2012 10:12 pm

It is hard to be a died in wool Texan when you read about these crazies, Jim. Even Goodhair is not that far out in left field; I mean right field.

Houndsong · Post by **Houndsong** » Tue Nov 13, 2012 10:35 pm

I would say secession is an un-American or anti-American thing,by definition, but that would neglect our Central and South American neighbors. Plus, I never play that patriot card. It's bad form.

AlexR · Post by **AlexR** » Wed Nov 14, 2012 6:39 am

Jim,

You asked:
"What's the top rate in France?
I want us to be like France".

President François Hollande gave his first press conference after 6 months in office yesterday
We have a socialist executive branch, parliament, senate, not to mention almost all the regions, departments, and major cities.
So, I live in a - gasp! - socialist country.

Hollande has kept one of his campaign promises: to tax the wealthy at 75%.
Some of them have moved to England but, especially, to Belgium.
It's a lot quicker to go from Brussels to Paris than it is from Bordeaux to Paris...

The 75% rate is more symbolic than anything else because in the overall picture, the tax revenue from this is peanuts.
But it's a way for the government to make a point.
That having been said, there are some comfortable little niches and tricks to avoid paying tax, of course!

Apparently, from what I read, the US tax code is a monster of complexity with countless loopholes.
I wouldn't know because I don't have enough money to need them!
FWIW, if you are a US citizen living abroad, you still have to file your American tax return every year. And, if you pay less taxes in the foreign country than you would have paid on the same income in the US, you owe the different to Uncle Sam!

Best regards,
Alex R.

RDD · Post by **RDD** » Wed Nov 14, 2012 12:36 pm

AlexR wrote: FWIW, if you are a US citizen living abroad, you still have to file your American tax return every year. And, if you pay less taxes in the foreign country than you would have paid on the same income in the US, you owe the different to Uncle Sam!

Best regards,
Alex R.

Alex:
That is not quite true. There is also a hefty exemption if you are out of the country for 330 days in a year.

AlexR · Post by **AlexR** » Wed Nov 14, 2012 1:16 pm

Well, deduct the exemption, and the statement remains accurate...

As for myself, A) I don't earn enough to be concerned and B) I haven't filed since 1977! That was before computers came in, so I think I'll never have to do so. There was an article in NY Times saying that Americans who owed money were being denied passports or entry to the US without poneying up first, but since I've never owed money...

As for French taxes, let me give you an idea of what I have to pay. Since I run my own business, for every 100 euros I earn, 42 go towards employer social security contributions and 22 towards employee contributions. Then, of course, I owe income tax on what's left over!
You should see the gas tax too...
Still, the social protection here is excellent, and you simply get used to being taxed.
There's no such thing as a free lunch.

Best regards,
Alex R.

RDD · Post by **RDD** » Wed Nov 14, 2012 1:48 pm

Alex:
Susan lived in Sweden for many years. And the taxes were steep also.
But then the social safety net is wide and strong.
Unfortunately people came to Sweden and preyed on the system.
I'm sure some that has happened in France too.
American taxes are less, for sure.

stefan · Post by **stefan** » Wed Nov 14, 2012 2:37 pm

>>
Since I run my own business, for every 100 euros I earn, 42 go towards employer social security contributions and 22 towards employee contributions. Then, of course, I owe income tax on what's left over!
>>

Don't you pay income tax on your social security contributions, like we do here in the USA?

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Wed Nov 14, 2012 4:09 pm

So what are the worst things about living in France, Alex?
Is there a lot of poverty?
Is there a middle class?
Is there a big gap between the 1% and the middle class?
Do you still have like 6 weeks of vacation?
How do you get so much vacation if taxes are so high?
Is there Walmartization in France? I.e., is the landscape dotted with downtowns that have been gutted by big corporate retail giants?
Are pensions safe?
Describe the process involved if, say, you break your wrist slipping on the sidewalk. How do uour medical bills get paid, etc.