Posts Made By: James Brown

Rod Kaufman said:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/08/barack-obama/obama-says-tax-code-rewards-firms-shifting-jobs-ov/
I wondered about that one since whatever Romney said about it seemed to be accepted like gospel around here...

Hi Rod:

This example shows what is wrong with modern phenomenon of "fact checkers". In these so-called fact check pieces "Truth" is based upon an underlying premises that can be set, defined and manipulated according to a political agenda. this article is a perfect example.



According to the Polifact article you cite,

[COLOR="Blue"]"In the narrowest sense possible, Romney’s rebuttal is accurate. There is no clause in the tax code that rewards a company when it relocates production beyond U.S. borders. But if a plant moves at all, whether it’s from Ohio to Tennessee or Ohio to Malaysia, it is eligible for deductions.

"There is certainly a tax break for U.S. companies that move operations or people abroad," said Gary McGill, director of the Fisher School of Accounting at the University of Florida. "It is simply a business expense like any other legitimate expense."[/COLOR]

Clearly, the only tax break for "moving over seas" is the normal tax deduction all companies take for all legitimate business expenses.

I would submit that the Obama intends his audience to think that there is something "special" in the tax code specifically rewarding companies that ship jobs overseas. If that is not Obama's point, what in particular is he going to do to close this loophole he keeps talking about? Is he going to re-write the code to eliminate the deduction of business expenses altogether? Hardly. Is he going to try to carve out an exception for business expenses related to overseas operations? Fat chance. We rely upon a world economy and Obama knows it.

Since I believe that Obama intends for us to incorrectly think that corporations who ship jobs overseas get "special" tax treatment under the law, and since that is obviously not the case, I'd say that his debate point is False.

The lefties at Polifact think that the mere fact that all business expenses, including overseas relocation expenses, are deductible means that the President's point is True. Apparently they think that Obama was trying to score debate points by describing the mundane 100 year old fact that business expenses are deductible before corporate tax? :S

If Polifact's version is accepted, then what loophole is Obama going to close?

Clearly this is one of those situations where the party defining the premises causes the statement to be either true or false. I feel strongly that I am right and Polifact is wrong on this one, but that could be my bias showing... 8)

Jim

Rod Kaufman said:

Thought Obama won, Republicans top heavy in scientific polling sample...
69 vs 31 in the unscientific poll of nearly 9500 people

A few minutes later, the same poll said that Romney won by similar or larger margins on the super critical questions of "Who is better suited to handle the economy?... the deficit?... and taxes?" Ouch for the Pres. I think that means the sample thought that Obama won on style in this debate but Romney won on substance.

Wolf Blitzer seemed somewhat shocked.

No matter what Wolf says, flash polls are not all that scientific.

Jim

Rod:

What do you personally think this fixation on the phantom issues of abortion and birth control says about the Democrat's chances in 2012? I identify these as phantom issues because no Republican or Democrat is going to change, or try to change, the legal status quo on these issues. This is just red-meat to rile up the Sandra Flukes on the left and the Religious Right on the Right. The moderate voters only care about the economy.

I'll go first with respect to my rhetorical question: I think that the president's and Democrat's refusal to run on their record and their attempt to make this election about birth control and abortion reeks of desperation. As a Republican, I find this type of focus more heartening than any poll. I do wish that R candidates would resist rising to the bait... but that's the way it goes. I will also be rather upset if this particular GOP candidate from Indiana, my home state, knocks Richard Luger out at the primary and then fails to win the seat.

Jim

Jim Johnson said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20008687

Except for Pakistan, which favors Romney. A landslide for Obama.

Does this mean Obama's foreign policy is working?
Are they afraid Romney will start wars?
Are these countries socialist?
Are they crazy?

France overwhelmingly favors Obama which is a good reason to vote for Romney. 8)

Any explanations?

Jim J

Jim:

In this case I think there is only one explanation - but the explanation raises an interesting question.

[SIZE="Large"]"Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests."

- Lord Palmerston - [/SIZE]

In view of this fundamental truth it is clear that the nations of the world think that an Obama led United States is in their best interest. I am inclined to think that as of October 2012, that means their best economic interest, although international security interests must be considered too.

Which raises the interesting question. No doubt Canada, Mexico, France, Russia, Germany, China etc. think that an Obama led US is in their best economic interest. Does that provide a clue as to which candidate might be in our own best economic interest? I think it does.

Jim

Russ Carroll said:

have ben greatly exaggerated even though my lifetime support disappeared today. Don't let my purple status fool you.

I just assumed that yesterday's Quinnipiac polls caused you to jump off a ledge...

J

Rod Kaufman said:

Breaking news: Obama up 50% to Romney's 48% in new CNN/ORC Colorado poll!
In the meatime, the poll of poll shows a dead heat with the Maucho-Commacho of poll, the big R, The Rassmussen poll, showing the mittster up by 2 with the Tuskegee airman hot on his six!
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

Rod:

the majority of voters in Colorado vote by mail.

As of 10/31 Romney was winning the actual vote in Colorado, asuming:

(1) The percentage of registered Rs voting for Romney and the percentage of registered Ds voting for Obama is about the same and

(2) the Is are split 50/50.


http://images.coloradoindependent.com/Gen+Turnout+10+31+2012.pdf


Assuming (as almost all polls have shown) that Romney is winning the Independents... Then Colorado is in the bag for Romney.

This was not the case in 2008 where the crashing econonomy and Bush fatigue caused 15% of Colorado R's to vote for Obama, caused Obama to win Colorado Is by a lot and caused D turnout to shoot through the roof.

If this is a replay of 2008, I will be wrong, Obama will win handily. If it is not, and in my opinion, this is not a replay of 2008 in Colorado at least, (as proved by the early voting which looked much different four years ago) there is little chance of Obama winning the Centennial state.

I'll see if I can get some updated numbers from the Colorado Secretary of State after lunch.

The recent polls showing Obama up in Colorado, when viewed in light of actual early voting tallies, is the most encouraging thing of all for me. Hopefully polls in OH, IA, WI and VA are equally wrong.

Jim

Tony Aguire said:

Not to be a douche...But Obama won. 7:28 Arizona Time....

Indeed he did. Congratulations to all of the Astromart Democrats.

Jim

Alan French said:

There are consequences to listening to folks who are not dealing with reality and not telling you the truth.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/how-conservative-media-lost-to-the-msm-and-failed-the-rank-and-file/264855/

Clear skies, Alan

Hi Alan:

There are really no significant consequences. Richard lost a few lobster dinners I suppose.

We all want our candidates to win, and we root for them like the opposing sides of a football match. It is not surprising that we seek out similar opinions. This selection bias is harmless though - I would have voted as I did whether I thought Romney had a chance or not. There is no way that I would have bet money on the outcome.

I read the Atlantic article earlier today, it was sent to me during lengthy email correspondence with a Democrat colleague at my firm, with whom I had sparred throughout the election season. The article seems to be kind of smug to me, but that is understandable. Also, trust me on this OK... my opinion that Colorado was a lock for Romney was based upon my activities here, on the ground. The energy of the Rs was so much more than 2008, I am still amazed that CO didn't flip. Nothing that Rush or Fox said influenced me since I don't listen to those guys regularly. I get my political news from Real Clear Politics which links to left and right sources - usually in matched "opposing viewpoint" pairs.

Also, the Atlantic piece gets in the typical gratuitous "the right are morons and ignore science dig." that came up in my correspondence today also, and I'm going to quote myself here - even though it is off-topic. If anyone reads the Atlantic article they'll know what I'm talking about below, even though this is out of context.

[COLOR="Blue"]"Hi Mary:

No problem – I’m not offended. I read 538 as religiously as you did and really had no idea who was right with respect to the accuracy of the media polls this time around. I sure thought they were wrong about CO based upon my own personal comparison of 2008 to 2012.

FWIW the left said the exact same thing about the polls being biased/wrong 8 and 12 years ago, but you might not have been watching it then.

Also, doubting the accuracy of the polls is not the same as denying global warming or evolution. Polls can and often do have systemic errors. Polls have been prominently wrong in several recent elections. 1980 and 2004 for sure. If you don’t believe me, ask president Kerry. Nate is a very talented poll aggregator. One of these cycles the polls will be wrong again and there is not much he can do about that. He can only aggregate the data he has at hand. Since there are a lot more polls nowadays, Nate, RCP and other poll aggregators have a better shot at getting it right than in the old days though.

{Mary said} "I’m not trying to pile on, but from my perspective, denial of commonly accepted scientific principles and methodologies which is practiced by the Right is really perplexing."

{Jim replied} I know that this is a change of topic, but it is not only the right who does the above. The left is 100% equally guilty of denying commonly accepted scientific principles and methodologies – when it suits them.

• How many lefty moms do you know who worry about or won’t vaccinate their kids because they fear a link to autism?
• How many lefties do you know who categorically reject our best defense against global warming (nuclear power) because it is deemed by those with no engineering knowledge to be too risky?
• How about those who think that alternative herbal therapies will cure all their ills, including cancer. This is a multi-billion dollar business that preys on the scientifically illiterate of the left and right.
• Got any new age/mysticism believer pals? Wiccans?
• Speaking of Nate silver, did you often read the 538 comments? I did. Countless of those commenting before and after the election have credited Nate with shaman-like powers because he has nailed it twice. These folks truly believe that Nate has insight “beyond” the data and they persist in this belief even though Nate himself has explained that it just isn’t so. Why? Because it comforts them.

And so forth.

For every right winger with blinders on about global warming I can show you a left winger who denies basic medical facts or engineering principles. This is just part of the human condition.

Jim"[/COLOR]

Tony Aguire said:

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/13/15141771-poll-if-government-careens-off-fiscal-cliff-gop-to-shoulder-blame?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=1


Dear Republicans, get your party in order, or it will be gone. Obstructionist policies, hateful rhetoric, inflammatory lies, and fear mongering are not working in your favor anymore...time to get a grip and be "reborn".

Tony:

Where were you in 2010? Since you appear to have forgotten, the Democrats got their collective asses handed to themselves in congress and in virtually every state. Ignorant democratic hand-wringers wondered how it all went so long. Some went so far as to question the future viability of the democratic coalition, much as you have done above with respect to the GOP.

News for you - this GOP defeat will be followed by GOP victory in 2014 and/or 2016 - that is just how politics works. The major parties adapt. The voters demand change after a while. Whether it is fair or not, whatever major problems face the USA in the next few cycles are going to be blamed upon the democrats in charge. That is just the way it goes.

Jim

Greg Shaffer said:

...The Obama administration intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations. By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can use the US State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress. Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments....

Rest easy Greg. International treaties do not trump or circumvent the 2nd Amendment. Also, international treaties are not self-executing. Congress must approve the treaty and then also pass laws to implement any treaties and set up an enforcement framework. The Supremes have the final say at each step.

I am 100% sure on these points, it's part of my day job.

The only way Obama bans all guns is to convince the states to pass an amendment revoking the 2nd. That's not going to happen in our lifetimes.

Jim