Romney Looks Like the Next Pres

Rasmussen Tracking Romney +1
ABC News/Wash Post Obama +3 unskewed Romney Plus 6
Gallup Tracking 10/8 Romney +2
IBD/TIPP Tracking Tie
Politico/GWU/ Obama +1 unskewed Romney plus 2 (*)
Monmouth/Surveyun Romney +1
FOX News Romney +1

* The unskewing for the GWU poll is based on recent skewing because they did not include the weighting for this poll in the article I read.

 

.
October 15, 2012

SouthAmerica: Mitt Romney – What a JOKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let's have a good laugh about Mitt Romney's war plans....

The only good thing about Mitt Romney getting elected president of the old USA is that he will help to speed up the demise of the United States just like the Soviet Union a few years ago – instead of dying an agonizing slow death like today.

Gerald Celente - Trends In The News - "Missionary Mitt!"

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/u4XGWStiMJQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


*****


By the way,...

Russia developing 'iron fist' to deter West – October 7, 2012
http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/russia-developing-iron-fist-to-deter-west/

WASHINGTON – Russia is on its way once again to becoming a world military power, based on promises by Russian President Vladimir Putin and what he is projecting in the way of defense spending over the next six years, says a report from Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.

Putin wants to “reindustrialize Russia” by rebuilding the defense industry while creating some 25 million new “high-tech jobs” during his six-year term in an effort to transform its military into an “iron fist” against the West.

Deputy Prime Minister for Armaments Dmitry Rogozin, who was Russia’s chief representative to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization headquarters in Brussels until last year and an ardent supporter of Putin, envisions this effort, as promised by Putin in his election campaign last year, to make Russia a world major industrial power once again.

Rogozin said that the West only recognizes what he calls “raw military power,” adding that “smart power” and “soft power” are “only nice words.”

Unlike during the Cold War when the then-Soviet Union was under severe export controls of high technology, Rogozin said that Russia will acquire Western know-how and technologies to improve its military capabilities.

Rogozin added that Russia doesn’t have “global military expeditionary plans but instead plans more of a regional defense capability.”

However, this is somewhat contradicted by Russia recently showing a reinvigorated military prowess by increasing its long-range strategic bomber flights close to the United States and increasing its submarine patrols near U.S. shores.

Last June, a number of Russian strategic nuclear bombers conducted a training operation in the Arctic without notifying the U.S. The following month, a Bear H Strategic bomber actually entered into U.S. airspace off of California, prompting U.S. jet interceptors to scramble to meet the bomber and force it to turn back.

Then in August, there were reports that a Russian Akula-class attack submarine armed with missiles had patrolled undetected for a month in the Gulf of Mexico.

According to various sources, the submarine had gotten near the U.S. Navy’s Atlantic submarine fleet based at Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay on the coast of southern Georgia.

In terms of its relations with Russia, the Obama administration has operated on a “reset” in its relationship from the days of the Cold War. However, Moscow’s perception appears to be at odds with that goal.

“It turns out the view from Moscow is different,” said Pavel Felgenhauer of the Washington think-tank Jamestown Foundation.

“The U.S. and the U.S.-led alliance of Western nations are seen as the primary long-term adversary that Russia must arm against at all costs and oppose, while partial security cooperation and tactical agreements on issues like Iran and Afghanistan are temporary, opportunistic in nature and may be abandoned as soon as plans to turn Russia into a world industrial and military powerhouse are realized.”

This more strident approach toward the West is due to Putin’s re-election to the presidency, which reflects a more autocratic approach from his predecessor, Dmitri Medvedev, who now is Putin’s prime minister.

“Russia must restore itself as an economic, military and political superpower, which involves not only rebuilding its military, industrial and technological base, but also re-establishing absolute dominance in its ‘natural sphere of influence – the former Soviet republics,’ that gained independence in 1991,” Felgenhauer said.

In so doing, Russia will be banging up against countries such as Georgia, Ukraine and the Baltic states which decidedly have turned more pro-Western, much to Moscow’s consternation.

“Since the U.S. and the U.S.-led alliance of Western nations actively oppose Russian efforts to re-establish its dominance,” Felgenhauer said, “they are Russia’s chief enemy.”

While the stated goal of Russia’s military reforms is to be regional in nature, Putin’s outlook toward the West and anything associated with it in his region of influence suggests its military buildup and modernization may be geared for greater strategic goals aimed at the West.

.

 

Its odd you would post an article about russia wanting to get stronger and put down Romney who wants to change the weakness created by Obama.

SA do you really want the USA to be weaker? Do you really want the USA to run trillion dollar deficits?

 

Jem, Russia and China want the United States to continue its military adventures around the world and place its costs on the credit card of future generation of Americans - as the US economic and financial system is becoming obsolete and it is collapsing.

The United States economy is becoming an economic system based on Walmart and hamburger flipping jobs...

Please don't forget the United States has a mature, old and obsolete economy and its best days has been long gone.

Today the best the US economic system can come up with are Ponzi schemes from Wall Street or create companies such as Facebook, Zynga, or Groupon (empty shells).

It's time to bring the troops home and reorganize what is left of the US economic and financial system - bite the bullet and start house cleaning and let the Zombie banks such as CitiGroup go out of business, and let the economic system get hide off all these dinosaurs and obsolete pieces of the US economic and financial system.

They should do nothing about the "fiscal cliff" and they should let the shit hit the fan....

.

 

The Futility of Base-Broadening to Pay for Massive Tax Rate Cuts

A quick one before hightailing it to the airport:

New JCT Study Shows Futility of Base-Broadening to Pay for Massive Tax Rate Cuts, by David Dayens: As long as the only thing we’re going to talk about for the next few weeks in the election is taxes, I might as well provide the update. The Joint Committee on Taxation, the “CBO for taxes” as it were, the nonpartisan scorekeeper on tax policy, just released a report that should end all discussion about the Romney campaign’s plans for a deficit-neutral 20% across-the-board rate cut.

Repealing all itemized deductions in the U.S. tax code would pay for only a 4 percent cut in income tax rates,... an estimate ... that casts doubt on Republicans’ ability to finance lower income-tax rates with base broadening....

...[T]his is not a perfect indicator of the Romney plan. But the basic principle applies, and it’s so far from the reality of what Romney wants to achieve – a 20% rate cut without adding to the deficit, and without an increase on the middle class – that I think it serves as more evidence of the futility of the exercise. ...

Mark Zandi, the Moody’s.com economist always trotted out to bless this or that plan, admitted today that the Romney plan is mathematically impossible....

http://economistsview.typepad.com/e...adening-to-pay-for-massive-tax-rate-cuts.html

 

Stop the hocus pocus: www.fairtax.org

 

After the bush tax cuts, revenues increased 44%... thats a fact.
And the top 1% paid more money.

Its time the leftists looked at growth.




http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway...ally-increased/


I can think of no issue that is a better example of how far off the founders’ roadmap we have strayed than the issue of tax policy.

Let’s examine the popular message that the Bush tax cuts somehow have favored the wealthy and are a significant contributor to our current escalating Federal budget deficit. That claim has been made so often by politicians and endlessly repeated by the media that it must be true; but is it? Let’s look at the facts. Table 1 below shows Federal Tax Revenues, Federal Expenditures and the Budget Surplus or Deficit from 1993 (the first year of the Clinton Presidency) to 2011.

The first conclusion from this table is that Federal Tax Revenues fell after the “Dot Com” bubble of 2000 and the tragedy of 9/11 in 2001. Tax revenues peaked during the last year of the Clinton Presidency at $2.026 trillion. Had tax revenues just been flat during the first three years of the Bush Presidency, despite significant growth in spending (from $1.789 trillion in Clinton’s last year to $2.160 trillion in 2003), the cumulative net outcome for those first three Bush years would have resulted in a budget surplus of $212.7 billion. But tax revenues did fall and thus the increased spending during the first three years of the Bush Presidency resulted in a cumulative deficit of $407.2 billion. Compare this outcome to the first three years of the Obama Presidency where the cumulative deficit was over ten times as high at $4.35 trillion (almost twice the cumulative deficits of the previous 16 years of the combined Clinton and Bush Presidencies). This is despite the fact that tax revenues in the first three years of the Obama Presidency were $815 billion greater than tax revenues during the first three years of the Bush Presidency.

The second, and more critical conclusion from Table 1 is that the next four years of the Bush Presidency after the 2003 reduction in tax rates saw a 44% increase in Federal tax revenues from $1.782 trillion to $2.568 trillion. That’s correct – a 44% increase in revenues after the so-called “tax break for the wealthy.”

The key question here is what did the wealthy contribute to this impressive increase in tax revenues? Let’s examine four income groups based on their adjusted gross income: the top 0.1% of earners representing about 129,000 tax returns in 2003 and 141,000 tax returns in 2007; the top 1% of earners representing 1,286,000 returns in 2003 and 1,411,000 returns in 2007; the top 25-50% of earners representing 32,152,000 returns in 2003 and 35,268,000 returns in 2007; and finally the bottom 50% of earners representing 64,305,000 returns in 2003 and 70,535,000 returns in 2007. Table 2 shows the total income tax and percent of total Federal tax revenues paid by each income group in 2003 and in 2007. As Table 2 shows very clearly, the top 0.1% and top 1% of earners (which includes all millionaires and billionaires) had major increases in their income tax payments between 2003 and 2007, both in absolute dollars as well as in their % contribution to total taxes while the 25-50% income group and the bottom 50% income group saw their share of total taxes fall and their absolute tax payments increased trivially. When we look at the daily cost of increased taxes for the average tax payer in each income bracket we see that the top 0.1% paid $1,887 per day more in 2007 than in 2003. (Remember this is despite the fact that their tax rates were reduced.) The top 1% of earners paid an increase of $58 per day, the top 25-50% of earners paid an extra $1 per day, and the bottom 50% paid an increase of 14 cents per day.

So, if the top 0.1% of earners saw their tax bill increase 1,887 times more than the top 25-50% of earners (the income bracket that includes the average household income) and almost 14,000 times more than the bottom 50% of earners and if the top 1% of earners saw their tax bill increase 58 times more than the top 25-50% of earners and 414 times more than the bottom 50% of earners, where is the evidence that the wealthy were preferentially favored by the Bush tax policy changes? Despite the fact that politicians and the media repeatedly make this claim, the truth is they are simply wrong. What happened after the Bush tax cuts was accelerated growth of our economy (GDP) and a significant reduction in unemployment (See: Tax Rates, Tax Revenues and the GDP). Higher income earners earned more during the four years after the Bush tax cuts but also disproportionately increased their already disproportionate share of taxes paid.

Table 1

Year Tax Revenues(in Millions) Expenditures(in Millions) Surplus/Deficit(in Millions)
1993 $1,154.0 $1,409.4 -$255.1
1994 $1,258.6 $1,461.8 -$203.2
1995 $1,351.8 $1,515.8 -$164.0
1996 $1,453.1 $1,560.5 -$107.4
1997 $1,579.2 $1,610.1 -$21.9
1998 $1,721.7 $1,652.5 +$69.3
1999 $1,827.5 $1,701.8 +$126.6
2000 $2,026.2 $1,789.0 +$236.2
2001 $1,991.1 $1,862.9 +$128.2
2002 $1,853.1 $2,010.9 -$157.8
2003 $1,782.3 $2,159.9 -$377.6
2004 $1,880.1 $2,252.9 -$412.7
2005 $2,153.6 $2,472.0 -$318.3
2006 $2,406.9 $2,655.1 -$248.2
2007 $2,568.0 $2,728.7 -$160.7
2008 $2,524.0 $2,982.5 -$458.6
2009 $2,105.0 $3,517.7 -$1,412.7
2010 $2,162.7 $3,456.2 -$1,293.5
2011 (estimated) $2,173.7 $3,818.8 -$1,645.1

 

October 16, 2012

SouthAmerica: Jem, this is not what I was suggesting with my overnight posting today.

Citigroup Board Said to Oust Vikram Pandit Over Poor Execution – October 16, 2012
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...o-oust-vikram-pandit-over-poor-execution.html



In a Nutshell: I suggested that they should bite the bullet and start house cleaning and let the Zombie banks such as CitiGroup go out of business, and let the economic system get rid of all these dinosaurs and obsolete pieces of the US economic and financial system.

.

 

We sort of agree although it may be too late now... I was suggesting that in 2008. Had we done it then we would be booming now. Unfortunately Obama was supported by Wall Street money and he returned the favor. Which is not surprising since he had a team full of zombie bankers.

The wall street and FED bankers are always a big part of democrat cabinets.

 

Even DailyKos/SEIU give Romney 50-46 edge:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...Nation-poll-Romney-s-best-numbers-of-the-week