Decision 2012

Quote: AcesAndEights

TRUER WORDS WERE NEVER SPOKEN

I was sure I would draw Bob's fire with that, But not, SADLY !

Quote: FarFromVegas

And this is what I call a Rambler!:

Have you figured out how to get that thing out of second gear?

Beep beep!

Quote: CBS

CBS News

After Ohio went for Mr. Obama, it was over, but senior advisers say no one could process it.

"We went into the evening confident we had a good path to victory," said one senior adviser. "I don't think there was one person who saw this coming."

Nate Silver saw this coming.

Quote: estebanrey

And yet the Tea Party are against any form of inheritance taxation. Doesn't sound too much 'equal opportunity' there.

Inheritance should not be taxed. Tax was paid on the income that produced the asset.

Quote: s2dbaker

Quote: CBS

CBS News

After Ohio went for Mr. Obama, it was over, but senior advisers say no one could process it.

"We went into the evening confident we had a good path to victory," said one senior adviser. "I don't think there was one person who saw this coming."

Nate Silver saw this coming.

I think this is one of the scarier things to come out of this election. The polls called Ohio right. The polls called VA right. The polls called CO right. Conservative pundits and operatives were so sure that everyone else was wrong that they couldn't conceive of failure. Now THAT'S arrogance.

Double post

Quote: rdw4potus

Quote: s2dbaker

Quote: CBS

CBS News

After Ohio went for Mr. Obama, it was over, but senior advisers say no one could process it.

"We went into the evening confident we had a good path to victory," said one senior adviser. "I don't think there was one person who saw this coming."

Nate Silver saw this coming.

I think this is one of the scarier things to come out of this election. The polls called Ohio right. The polls called VA right. The polls called CO right. Conservative pundits and operatives were so sure that everyone else was wrong that they couldn't conceive of failure. Now THAT'S arrogance.

It happens on both sides. 2004 dems essentially had the same reaction.

I've had my nice serving of crow. Democratic turnout was very good.

"Johnson's new counterpart from Wisconsin in the U.S. Senate will be Rep. Tammy Baldwn (D-Wis.), who defeated Republican Tommy Thompson.

Johnson said he spoke with Baldwin on Wednesday, and he hopes he they can work together -- just as soon as he explains "facts" about the federal budget to her.

"Hopefully I can sit down and lay out for her my best understanding of the federal budget because they're simply the facts," he said. "Hopefully she'll agree with what the facts are and work toward common sense solutions."

Baldwin has served in Congress since 1999; Johnson took office in 2011. Presumably, Baldwin is already familiar with how the federal budget works. She also double-majored in college in government and mathematics."

source

Quote: AZDuffman

Inheritance should not be taxed. Tax was paid on the income that produced the asset.

By the producer.

Quote: AZDuffman

Inheritance should not be taxed. Tax was paid on the income that produced the asset.

Then nothing should ever be taxed ever because at some point in the recent past, taxes were paid on that income. I work for the City of New York (indirectly), I shouldn't pay taxes because all of the money that I earn is paid with tax dollars. That money has already been taxed!!

Quote: AZDuffman

Inheritance should not be taxed. Tax was paid on the income that produced the asset.

I agree. It is the divine right of Kings. Why the hell are not these Democrats satisfied with the crumbs that fall from the King's table ?

The candidates in AZ-2 (Gabby Giffords' district) are currently 81 votes apart, about halfway through the counting of absentee and provisional ballots. Who was it that said that individual votes don't matter? :-)

Speaking of votes, they are still counting Presidential votes in Florida. What a huge embarassment even for these thick skins Govt. suits, Mayors, Governor Rick Scott etc.

Great comment on 'Have I Got News For You' tonight (UK satirical show)

Ian Hislop: "The US has a conservative party and a very conservative party"

P.S..and a weird stat for you, the US Presidential Election has been won 7 times out of the last 8 by the candidate with the best groomed eyebrows.

Quote: estebanrey

P.S..and a weird stat for you, the US Presidential Election has been won 7 times out of the last 8 by the candidate with the best groomed eyebrows.

Are we saying that Mondale's eyebrows were better than Reagan's, or that Dukakis's were better than Bush's?

Quote: rdw4potus

The candidates in AZ-2 (Gabby Giffords' district) are currently 81 votes apart, about halfway through the counting of absentee and provisional ballots. Who was it that said that individual votes don't matter? :-)

Now Barber (D) is up on McSally (R) by 600 votes. The Dems currently lead in all 6 as-of-yet uncalled House races. This one and CA-7 will both come down to at most hundreds of votes.

Quote: estebanrey

Ian Hislop: "The US has a conservative party and a very conservative party"

Actually America has a statist party and a very statist party. And they switch sides every so often.

MOST PEOPLE ACTUALLY BENEFIT FROM THE INHERITANCE TAX

The Inheritance Tax is one of the least understood concepts by Americans. If you understand that the concept of adjusted basis and realized gains then the reason for the inheritance tax is clear. Most property in an estate over $1 million are held as property/stocks. The basis of property being inherited is adjusted to current (or within 6 months) value.

Currently about 97% of estates do not pay an inheritance tax as the current exclusion limit is $5.12 million. SO ALMOST NO ONE PAYS THE INHERITANCE TAX BUT RATHER BENEFITS FROM THE INHERITANCE TAX TREATMENT. (it may revert back to $1 million in 2013 because we have a Congress that won't pass any legislation)

EXAMPLE:

Property purchased by Bill in 1960 for $100 is now worth $4,800,000 in 2012. The Bill dies in May 2012. The person inheriting the property can sell the property at $4.8 million without an inheritance tax (or they can keep it with an new adjusted basis of $4.8 million and sell it later). The $4,799,900 of gain will never be taxed at the estate level or by the person inheriting the property.

EXAMPLE 2:
Property Bill purchased in 1960 for $100 is now worth $7 million in 2012. The Bill dies this year. The person inheriting the property doesn't sell the property in 2012 and the property will have a new adjusted basis of $7 million. The property is taxed (tax rate x $1.8 million). If the person sells the property in the future for $7.2 million they will only pay tax on the gain of $200,000 AND NEVER PAY THE REALIZED GAIN OF $4.99 million. (If there was not an inheritance tax then the seller would have to pay taxes on the entire $7.2 million gain versus $2 million).

Say, while Keyser's not showing his face, did he at least pay up? Seems to me he owed someone $25...

I have not yet heard from Keyser, but I figured I would give it two weeks and then send a PM if arrangements had not been made by then. I'm obviously not really sweating $25 and I fully imagine he will pay it.

President Obama won the election. Since he will remain President of all in this country, I'd like him to go back to one of his earlier promises...for the most open, transparent, and ethical Presidency in modern history.

It is hard to be encouraged that it will happen with the news of the resignation of General Petraeus...

Still, the White House, with concurrence by the FBI and Justice Department, held off on asking for Petraeus’ resignation until after the election. His resignation occurred three days after the election, avoiding the possibility that Obama’s ill-fated appointment of Petraeus could become an issue in the election.

FBI agents on the case were aware that such a decision had been made to hold off on forcing him out until after the election and were outraged.

“The decision was made to delay the resignation apparently to avoid potential embarrassment to the president before the election,” an FBI source says. “To leave him in such a sensitive position where he was vulnerable to potential blackmail for months compromised our security and is inexcusable.”

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/petraeus-resigns-cia-affair/2012/11/09/id/463573#ixzz2BpfBzSuT

Letting a person with access to the most sensitive documents in the land continue in that position when it has been determined he is unfit for the job (does not meet the requirements for his level of clearance) is wrong.

Don't say "well, the other side did..."...screw that stupid crap...we need to ask ALL of those we entrust in public service to maintain the highest standards required of the jobs they do.

The General let us down and should have been given the boot the moment it came to light. I wish him well; I don't think he is a horrid person...he just made a huge error in judgement and breach of trust in a position where neither is acceptable.

Quote: RonC

Still, the White House, with concurrence by the FBI and Justice Department, held off on asking for Petraeus’ resignation until after the election. His resignation occurred three days after the election, avoiding the possibility that Obama’s ill-fated appointment of Petraeus could become an issue in the election.

I still don't see why he had to resign. It was just about sex and is his personal life. Lots of leaders do that, don't they?

Quote: AZDuffman

I still don't see why he had to resign. It was just about sex and is his personal life. Lots of leaders do that, don't they?

Yes, he had to resign. A Top Secret clearance with additional access to even more sensitive information also means that he could be the subject of blackmail if there was anything that was hidden in his life. An affair is just that kind of thing.

My position is that ALL of our leaders need to hold themselves to a higher standard and honor the office they hold. Do they have to be perfect? No. They need to be pretty damn close.

I would feel the same way if he had been appointed by a Republican President. Part of our problem--and a big problem for the GOP--is asking the other side to stick to a higher standard than we are willing to hold for ourselves.

' Part of our problem--and a big problem for the GOP--is asking the other side to stick to a higher standard than we are willing to hold for ourselves. " Neither side has high standards. Morality only enters into it when one of them gets caught.

Quote: RonC

I would feel the same way if he had been appointed by a Republican President. Part of our problem--and a big problem for the GOP--is asking the other side to stick to a higher standard than we are willing to hold for ourselves.

You are missing my satire. When did we hear these same arguments and about whom?

Quote: Buzzard

' Part of our problem--and a big problem for the GOP--is asking the other side to stick to a higher standard than we are willing to hold for ourselves. " Neither side has high standards. Morality only enters into it when one of them gets caught.

Exactly my point...though it is more harmful to the GOP than the Dems when things like this happen to them because it is hard to be the people calling for higher standards if you don't keep...higher standards!!

The problem is that it is harmful to all of us when people in power compromise their position. Something like this hurts all of us.

Quote: AZDuffman

I still don't see why he had to resign. It was just about sex and is his personal life. Lots of leaders do that, don't they?

Sorry for missing it. I have seen the GOP side defend folks who should not have been defended, so I looked past the satire. I should have seen it!!

Quote: RonC

Letting a person with access to the most sensitive documents in the land continue in that position when it has been determined he is unfit for the job (does not meet the requirements for his level of clearance) is wrong.

You're assuming that he was acting chief for the last couple weeks. He may in fact have only been a figurehead with the next in line acting for him, -- which should already be there in their organization, if only for things due to illness or death, and not only more sinister things.

Anyway, need more than Murdochs NewsMax to confirm details.

I don't think he was just a figurehead, but until we hear the details, it's still possible.

Quote: rxwine

You're assuming that he was acting chief for the last couple weeks. He may in fact have only been a figurehead with the next in line acting for him, -- which should already be there in their organization, if only for things due to illness or death, and not only more sinister things.

Anyway, need more than Murdochs NewsMax to confirm details.

I don't think he was just a figurehead, but until we hear the details, it's still possible.

I am fine with your question about the report...all media sources are rather suspect these days, don't you think?

If he was kept on as a figurehead, well, to me that makes it worse. I'd rather find out he was kept on to handle an issue of some sort....

Quote: RonC

I am fine with your question about the report...all media sources are rather suspect these days, don't you think?

If he was kept on as a figurehead, well, to me that makes it worse. I'd rather find out he was kept on to handle an issue of some sort....

Well possibly, but releasing info that head of the CIA might be unreliable or going to be removed, in an of itself could be interpreted as not in the best interest of national security.

I'm not saying he didn't function, or contribute -- it'd be quite possible he was "working closely" with someone from some point on.

But really, looking at Petreaus record, if you can't trust him, who can you trust?

Quote: RonC

If he was kept on as a figurehead, well, to me that makes it worse. I'd rather find out he was kept on to handle an issue of some sort....

I wonder if the original plan was to keep him on through the testimony on Libya. That's early next week, i think. I could see wanting that continuity, but I also think it makes it look worse if he testifies and then steps down.

Quote: rxwine

Well possibly, but releasing info that head of the CIA might be unreliable or going to be removed, in an of itself could be interpreted as not in the best interest of national security.

I'm not saying he didn't function, or contribute -- it'd be quite possible he was "working closely" with someone from some point on.

But really, looking at Petreaus record, if you can't trust him, who can you trust?

Interesting enough, he was a very trustworthy person but he also apparently misled the Intelligence Committee in September:

"Petraeus pointed to a protest over an anti-Islam YouTube video as a primary reason for the attacks on the U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, despite an abundance intelligence pointing to a preplanned terrorist assault on the U.S. consulate and CIA annex there."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/petraeus-s-sudden-resignation_662200.html

(and I know you will object to the source but more will come out via others to confirm this--or not...so I'll run with it for now)

What I wonder is whether perhaps there was some concern about his testimony moving forward...perhaps a trustworthy man felt he needed to correct the record.

Who knows. The indications now are that he lied about the video being the cause of the attack and he compromised his position with an affair. He had to go...

It is unfortunate, but reality, that you cannot believe a lot of info coming out of D.C.

Most of the U.S. has an incredibly horrible opinion about Congress too.

Quote: bigpete88

It is unfortunate, but reality, that you cannot believe a lot of info coming out of D.C.

Most of the U.S. has an incredibly horrible opinion about Congress too.

21% of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, higher than the 13% Gallup measured in September, and the highest rating in any month since May 2011.

What changed ? LOL

********note: General Patraeus retired in AUG 2011 MAKING THIS POST IRRELEVANT********

General Petraeus is an Officer in the Armed Forces of the United States which also puts him under the jurisdiction the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The extra martial affair may be considered a violation of Article 134. Adultery has been predefined as a violation of Article 134 if it meets these conditions. Elements.... *deleted*... General Patraeus' mistress was going to make it extreme high profile as it is believed that she was sending threatening emails to other officials. This was lead to the FBI probe that eventually determined General Patraeus was involved. If the news reports are correct, I cannot see how General Patraeus doesn't violate Article 134 and loss his commission and thus his current position. Commanding Officers have been relieved of duty for extra martial affairs especially when they get messy or if it is high profile. Typically there's a press release and it's put under as "loss of confidence", "administrative assignment", "temporary assignment", etc... and then they are transferred while they are getting processed out of the service. .......... ***rest deleted***

Quote: dfens

If the news reports are correct, I cannot see how General Patraeus doesn't violate Article 134 and loss his commission and thus his current position.

Being in the Army is not a prerequisite for directing the CIA, so I don't see how losing his commission would force him to lose his position. I'm pretty sure he also retired from the Army prior to assuming his current post.

Quote: dfens

I cannot see how General Patraeus doesn't violate Article 134 and loss his commission and thus his current position.

I think he retired prior to accepting the position but, even if he had not retired, he wouldn't face loss of his commission or anything that harsh for this type of behavior. Most likely, a letter of reprimand and being forced to retire would be the kind of action taken against him if he were on active duty. At worst, he would have been forced to retire at a rank one grade less than his highest attained rank.

His current position? Getting a TS clearance requires a stringent investigation every couple of years (interviews with people who know you, records checks, etc.) and the clearance can be revoked for things like affairs. The idea is you don't want a person who could potentially be blackmailed having access to TS (and higher) information. The fact that he is having a secret affair compromises his position.

There is no defense for the General in this case. He made a mistake, he paid with his job. Shouldn't we really just wish him well and let him move on? He still needs to testify because he was in charge when the incident took place.

The timing of his resignation? Suspect, of course. Unless they were investigating him for a crime of bigger proportions (and I am pretty sure they were not doing so), he should have been out months ago. Once the affair was confirmed, his position was compromised. I don't know why it even needed to happen anywhere near the election. I guess they could have wanted no scandals, but a blip on the screen in August or so would not have hurt Obama's chances to win.

Then again...Nixon didn't need information from Watergate to win, either. Sometimes people are so paranoid about their potential enemies...

You're right, he did retire last year. I left my original post up with an "ignore" caption above.

General Hayden, a previous CIA director, was still an Active Duty General when appointed CIA director (also he was also previously was a NSA deputy director).

Had (an Officer with a high profile) he been on active duty, an extra martial affair would not just be an immoral act. It would be clearly a violation of military justice if discovered. This would lead to administrative action that would lead to the end of a military career.

Had this taken place last year before his retirement, you're also right that he technically still could be the CIA director. But logically, it wouldn't make sense to have a "fired" General who is then removed from the military appointed as head of a federal agency. But you can technically appoint anyone. I'm pushing Pauly Shore* as the next Supreme Court Justice nominee as his answers in the confirmation process would be as vague as most other Supreme Court Nominee's answers.

******************


From the article: The timeline of the relationship, according to Patraeus, would mean that he was carrying on the affair for the majority of his tenure at the CIA, where he began as director Sept. 6, 2011. If he carried on the affair while serving in the Army, however, Patraeus could face charges, according to Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which reprimands conduct "of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces."

Quote: FarFromVegas

I believe that he's for real and really believed everything he wrote. He just got his information from the wrong sources. He's actually a very genuine person, just misinformed. And I don't dislike him; I just don't agree with him.

The pollsters who preferred to present their alternate reality as the truth really did a great disservice.

A few days late because I don't usually read the political stuff,

I think Bob's OK. I'm 180* opposite from him politically, but I share his way of seeing the world, even though mine is a different vantage point. He's one of the (many) folks here I'd like to spend some time with. If he was a neighbor I'd help him with his yardwork.

What I find interesting is the Republican doubling down on the ultra-conservativism: that Romney was too moderate, that he didn't motivate the far right enough to get them to the polls.

I don't know about that one. The far right is the loudest, most motivated segment of the entire electorate. If Fox, and Rush, and Beck, and Hannity, and Karl Rove with his half billion dollars, and everyone and everything else spewed over the last four years didn't get them to the polling place, Obamahate should have done it, should have pushed them over the edge and out the door. I'd guess that the Far Right made it to the polls. The problem might have been that they underestimated those who weren't quite as loud and vocal... that they're really, really pissed off that those people got a chance to vote too. And that they used it, despite all efforts made to make it hard to do so, despite all efforts to disenfrancise people that I'll just call "not the same as them".

Maybe... the message doesn't resonate with most Americans? I mean, the ones who aren't shut ins, retired, etc. The ones who work, and already have IDs to vote with. Or those whom, with not a little bit of anger and exasperation inside their hearts, went out and got IDs so they could do something important that they've done for 40 or 50 or 60 years without IDs.

Frankly, my assessment of Romney and Obama is that they are actually quite similar on economic and foreign policy. Obama has basically continued the programs put in place by Bush. Obama's health care reform is very similar to Romney's in Massachusetts; actually, Romney's went further.

The candidates were strikingly different on social and scientific issues. In my opinion, that is how the election was decided. Many of us who could have voted for a Republican candidate wouldn't vote for someone who denied evolution, who denied global warming, who was against Planned Parenthood, who stood against marriage equality, whose immigration proposals were unforgiving and unworkable ("self-deportation"), who believed that "corporations are people"... especially when we realized that there were two Supreme Court vacancies looming in the next four years. With the candidates so similar on many issues, not many in the middle were interested in turning the cultural clock back 2000 years.

As far as the direction that the economy has taken over the past four years, I distinctly remember being told that it wasn't going to be easy, that it was not a matter of decreeing prosperity but rather of building confidence in the ability to prosper. That takes time. I sell stuff for a living, and I sell stuff to regular people who have regular jobs. We had a pretty good year in 2012, better than 2011. It's slow, but steady. If folks are out of work they can't buy cars, but every morning the lights go on. For now, anyhow.

There are a lot of things I really dislike about Obama. I don't like his expansion of The Patriot Act. I don't like his attitude toward surveillance and secrecy. I think he's done some shady things. But I didn't for one second think that electing Romney would have fixed any of that.

Nixon. Reagan. Eisenhower. Ford. Not a single one of these men could have been nominated by the current Republican Party. These were great Americans. (Yes, even Nixon. My mind allows a man to be great and criminal in the same lifetime.) Why would a Republican even try to be moderate? There's no upside to it, other than getting to move from DC to back home. But these are the types of candidates who could have handily defeated Obama.

And finally, I direct you to this article from The Daily Republic and Slate: OPINION: Obama is a moderate Republican.

Quote:

Yes, Obama imposed an individual mandate to buy health insurance. You know who else did that? Romney. You know where the idea came from? The Heritage Foundation. Personal responsibility — insisting that people carry private insurance so we don’t have to bail them out in emergency rooms and hospitals — was a Republican idea. Same with Wall Street reform: There’s nothing conservative about letting financial institutions gamble with other people’s money in ways that would force us to bail them out again. Even Obama’s cap-and-trade proposal echoed the market-based emissions-control policies of the 1990 Bush administration and the 2008 McCain campaign.

I'm sure it will make many apoplectic trying to reconcile reality with what they've been told. But, there it is.


(Edited to fix link, removing the registration page)

" What I find interesting is the Republican doubling down on the ultra-conservativism: that Romney was too moderate, that he didn't motivate the far right enough to get them to the polls."

As I predicted before the election : " If the Republican lose, they will blame the salesman, not the product ! "

Thank you Mosca.

Quote: Mosca

What I find interesting is the Republican doubling down on the ultra-conservativism: that Romney was too moderate, that he didn't motivate the far right enough to get them to the polls.

The thing here is the Democrats did double down on liberalism, yet we never hear it asked if doing so was a good idea.

Quote:

The candidates were strikingly different on social and scientific issues. In my opinion, that is how the election was decided. Many of us who could have voted for a Republican candidate wouldn't vote for someone who denied evolution, who denied global warming, who was against Planned Parenthood, who stood against marriage equality, whose immigration proposals were unforgiving and unworkable ("self-deportation"), who believed that "corporations are people"... especially when we realized that there were two Supreme Court vacancies looming in the next four years. With the candidates so similar on many issues, not many in the middle were interested in turning the cultural clock back 2000 years.

So, you are saying you would vote for a Republican if only they were a Democrat?

And where "they are the same on so many issues" I really fail to see. This was clearly an election with a choice. America, IMHO, made a very wrong choice. We will be paying the price for many years.

BTW: Corporations ARE PEOPLE. If they are not, please explain what they are.

" BTW: Corporations ARE PEOPLE. If they are not, please explain what they are. " If they were people. we could put their asses in jail when they commit crimes !

That's sort of the problem, really. People are trying to change things with bills like this asinine proposed amendment, or protesting the reasonable decision in Citizens United, but they're missing the point - we've allowed corporations to form in such a way that their personhood can be called into question.

When will Wall Street crime end ? The first time one of them is sent to ATTICA. Bernie Madoff is at Camp Fluffy. WTF !

I disagree. Obama's policies are by and large those of a moderate Republican... either that, or Bush II was liberal, The Heritage Foundation is liberal, etc. Follow the link in my post. Now, if you disagree with the reasoning in the link, and believe that Bush I and The Heritage Foundation are liberal, then yes, from your point of view the Dems did double down on Liberalism. But Liberals don't think so.

I voted for Nixon in '72, I voted for Bush I, I voted for John Anderson in '76, I voted for Bush II the first time. I vote for the country, not the letter after the name. I was taught in 6th grade civics class that voting straight ticket was giving up your own counsel for an ideology. I believe that is still true today. In my local election I voted for Lou Barletta over Gene Stilp. I know them both and don't like either of them, but I respect Barletta and believe that he is sincere.

Corporations are corporations. People are people. If you need to know the difference I suggest you google for it.

Respectfully, of course. You believe what you believe.

" Respectfully, of course. You believe what you believe. " And Respectfully if the Republican Party keeps a similar agenda in the next
Presidential election , Well All hail to Chief Hillary.

But republican have been quite successful in Governor elections. Of course , they offer a more realistic approach. Guys like Newt, Huckabee, Herman Cain, they have all the answers. And none of the solutions. Just like a certain fat gasbag named Russ.