2012 US Election -- Round 2

[Tyrannical]

Binders full of women - face plant of the debate...
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/usele ... goes-viral

one of many



rose glasses crushed

Would have been ten times funnier with Bill Clinton

[Ian]

The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, which Mitt Romney repeatedly cited as a neutral authority during the primaries, has now analyzed Romney's tax plan and the numbers don't add up. Romney is proposing to cut individual rates by 20%, cut the corporate rate from 35% to 25%, end the estate tax, end the alternative minimum tax, and eliminate the capital gains tax on people earning less than $250,000. He has promised to do this without increasing the tax burden on the wealthy or middle class and without increasing the deficit.

Here are the numbers. The tax reductions will cost the government $5 trillion in lost revenue over 10 years. However, eliminating all itemized deductions (something Romney would find will be politically impossible) will generate only $2 trillion in new revenue, leaving a gap of $3 trillion. If individual deductions are not eliminated but only capped at $25,000, as Romney has proposed,, the amount of revenue raised is only $1.3 trillion. In other words, Romney cannot reduce the rates and eliminate deductions and still be revenue neutral. Even getting rid of all deductions does not generate enough revenue to make up for the rate cuts, so the deficit will balloon as a result.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/d ... proposals-

[Coito ergo sum]

Wait, you actually thought the whole thing was about binders themselves?

No, I thought the whole thing was about Romney's comment about receiving binders full of female job candidates.

What's the problem?

Your comments up until this point seem to indicate you thought it was a matter of Romney using physical binders instead of modern technology that was at the center of the "binders" thing.

Well, the image of Hillary Clinton commenting "wait, Romny still uses binders..." seems to indicate that it is an issue.

If there is some other problem with it -- state it clearly. Romney received binders from a program called MassGAP which was designed to affirmatively seek female candidates.

Problem? If so, what?

[Kristie]

The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, which Mitt Romney repeatedly cited as a neutral authority during the primaries, has now analyzed Romney's tax plan and the numbers don't add up. Romney is proposing to cut individual rates by 20%, cut the corporate rate from 35% to 25%, end the estate tax, end the alternative minimum tax, and eliminate the capital gains tax on people earning less than $250,000. He has promised to do this without increasing the tax burden on the wealthy or middle class and without increasing the deficit.

Here are the numbers. The tax reductions will cost the government $5 trillion in lost revenue over 10 years. However, eliminating all itemized deductions (something Romney would find will be politically impossible) will generate only $2 trillion in new revenue, leaving a gap of $3 trillion. If individual deductions are not eliminated but only capped at $25,000, as Romney has proposed,, the amount of revenue raised is only $1.3 trillion. In other words, Romney cannot reduce the rates and eliminate deductions and still be revenue neutral. Even getting rid of all deductions does not generate enough revenue to make up for the rate cuts, so the deficit will balloon as a result.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/d ... proposals-

You obviously know nothing of Romney Magic.

[Coito ergo sum]

The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, which Mitt Romney repeatedly cited as a neutral authority during the primaries, has now analyzed Romney's tax plan and the numbers don't add up. Romney is proposing to cut individual rates by 20%, cut the corporate rate from 35% to 25%, end the estate tax, end the alternative minimum tax, and eliminate the capital gains tax on people earning less than $250,000. He has promised to do this without increasing the tax burden on the wealthy or middle class and without increasing the deficit.

Here are the numbers. The tax reductions will cost the government $5 trillion in lost revenue over 10 years. However, eliminating all itemized deductions (something Romney would find will be politically impossible) will generate only $2 trillion in new revenue, leaving a gap of $3 trillion. If individual deductions are not eliminated but only capped at $25,000, as Romney has proposed,, the amount of revenue raised is only $1.3 trillion. In other words, Romney cannot reduce the rates and eliminate deductions and still be revenue neutral. Even getting rid of all deductions does not generate enough revenue to make up for the rate cuts, so the deficit will balloon as a result.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/d ... proposals-

The Simpson-Bowles report found that you could reduce the top rate to 23% without increasing deficit. Example: Romney made about $21 million (in 2010) and is in the top 35 percent bracket, but he paid only 14 percent in taxes. If we lowered his tax rate to just 28 percent but eliminated all of his tax breaks, his tax bill would double. http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index ... poses.html

The problem, really, with the $5trillion number Ian -- is that it's just made up. They don't have a reliable calculation that shows that the tax cut "costs" $5trillion. That is what Romney is saying when he says "I don't call for a $5 trillion tax cut." He is taking issue with that number. All the TPC did to get that number is take a crude one-year estimate that they came up with, and erroneously multiplied it by ten, for 10 years. The original estimate is that in 2015, the Romney-Ryan rate reduction will reduce tax revenue by $480 billion compared to current policy. That’s the raw number, before taking into account behavioral responses or growth. Yet we absolutely have to take into account behavioral responses and growth, part of which is reflected in what’s called “the elasticity of taxable income,” to come up with credible revenue estimates, even aside from economic growth.

In other words, it's being way oversimplified and latching on to the $5 trillion number is basically just a shot in the dark - a declaration. It's not a real number. It has no basis, other than assuming nothing in the economy changes except the Romney tax plan. So, it's bollocks.

[Wumbologist]

Well, the image of Hillary Clinton commenting "wait, Romny still uses binders..." seems to indicate that it is an issue.

If there is some other problem with it -- state it clearly. Romney received binders from a program called MassGAP which was designed to affirmatively seek female candidates.

Problem? If so, what?[/quote]

First of all, yes. Romney RECEIVED the "binders" from MassGAP, who had compiled a list of qualified candidates and PRESENTED THEM to the Romney campaign, unsolicited. The story about Romney and his team seeking out women and finding these binders is a total fabrication. Never happened. MassGAP brought them to Romney, Romney didn't ask MassGAP for them.

The other part of it that seems to be at issue is the way he talked about the whole thing in general. To hear Romney talk, they had to search far and wide, because qualified female candidates are so hard to find, but in the end their valiant efforts turned up entire "binders full of women", as opposed to something like, oh, maybe a "comprehensive list of qualified candidates". He further compounded this by talking about how it would have never worked, unless he had given them flexible hours, because rather than being equal in the workforce, women are always expected to devote a significant amount of time to raising children and being a housewife.

[Coito ergo sum]

First of all, yes. Romney RECEIVED the "binders" from MassGAP, who had compiled a list of qualified candidates and PRESENTED THEM to the Romney campaign, unsolicited. The story about Romney and his team seeking out women and finding these binders is a total fabrication. Never happened. MassGAP brought them to Romney, Romney didn't ask MassGAP for them.

No, this was a program to hire more women, and Romney said flat out he asked for them. Isn't that a good thing? He said, "I was proud of the fact that after I staffed my Cabinet and my senior staff, that the University of New York in Albany did a survey of all 50 states, and concluded that mine had more women in senior leadership positions than any other state in America." So, he saw there was an underrepresentation, and went out and took action to change it.

The other part of it that seems to be at issue is the way he talked about the whole thing in general. To hear Romney talk, they had to search far and wide, because qualified female candidates are so hard to find, but in the end their valiant efforts turned up entire "binders full of women", as opposed to something like, oh, maybe a "comprehensive list of qualified candidates". He further compounded this by talking about how it would have never worked, unless he had given them flexible hours, because rather than being equal in the workforce, women are always expected to devote a significant amount of time to raising children and being a housewife.

Never heard of affirmative action to hire qualified female candidates when women are underrepresented? Are you not in favor of doing that?

As for the "it would have never worked" -- please quote the transcript with his objectionable statement. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/201 ... IANU8XNaSo

What the transcript shows is Romney saying, "Now one of the reasons I was able to get so many good women to be part of that team was because of our recruiting effort. But number two, because I recognized that if you’re going to have women in the workforce that sometimes you need to be more flexible. My chief of staff, for instance, had two kids that were still in school.

She said, I can’t be here until 7 or 8 o’clock at night. I need to be able to get home at 5 o’clock so I can be there for making dinner for my kids and being with them when they get home from school. So we said fine. Let’s have a flexible schedule so you can have hours that work for you.

We’re going to have to have employers in the new economy, in the economy I’m going to bring to play, that are going to be so anxious to get good workers they’re going to be anxious to hire women. In the -- in the last women have lost 580,000 jobs. That’s the net of what’s happened in the last four years. We’re still down 580,000 jobs. I mentioned 31/2 million women, more now in poverty than four years ago.

What we can do to help young women and women of all ages is to have a strong economy, so strong that employers that are looking to find good employees and bringing them into their workforce and adapting to a flexible work schedule that gives women opportunities that they would otherwise not be able to afford.

This is what I have done. It’s what I look forward to doing and I know what it takes to make an economy work, and I know what a working economy looks like. And an economy with 7.8 percent unemployment is not a real strong economy. An economy that has 23 million people looking for work is not a strong economy.

An economy with 50 percent of kids graduating from college that can’t finds a job, or a college level job, that’s not what we have to have."

Now, we are told all the time by Democrats that women are -- not are required to, but ARE -- still doing most of the child care activities, right? So, if you want women in the workforce, then doesn't it help to provide more flexible hours for people who have those responsibilities? And, wouldn't that help women?

How the hell do you get something "wrong" with what Romney said?

It's like -- you hear Democrats say that "women's issues" include child care access, day care funding, family leave to take care of children, and all that -- and I don't hear similar criticisms. Nobody says "Oh.... you're saying women are required to work in the home and take care of the children???? Why are these "women's issues"?????"

[Kristie]

First of all, yes. Romney RECEIVED the "binders" from MassGAP, who had compiled a list of qualified candidates and PRESENTED THEM to the Romney campaign, unsolicited. The story about Romney and his team seeking out women and finding these binders is a total fabrication. Never happened. MassGAP brought them to Romney, Romney didn't ask MassGAP for them.

No, this was a program to hire more women, and Romney said flat out he asked for them. Isn't that a good thing? He said, "I was proud of the fact that after I staffed my Cabinet and my senior staff, that the University of New York in Albany did a survey of all 50 states, and concluded that mine had more women in senior leadership positions than any other state in America." So, he saw there was an underrepresentation, and went out and took action to change it.

http://www.boston.com/politicalintellig ... story.html
He didn't ask for them, they were given to him because he was the one elected. They would've been given to the other guy if he'd been elected.
"They had started assembling groups of applicants, taking several months to reach out to women’s organizations around the state and preparing to present potential hires to whichever candidate won the election.
“We contacted both candidates before the final election,” said Liz Levin, who was chairman of MassGAP until 2010. “This was an effort that we put our hearts in. We wanted to make sure that people knew how many good, qualified, terrific ladies there were.”
Romney agreed to work with the group, Levin said,"


"Midway through his four-year term, 42 percent of his 33 new appointments were women, according to a study done by the UMass Center for Women in Politics and Public Policy using some of the data collected by MassGAP.
But over the next two years, women made up only 25 percent of the 64 new appointments Romney made. By the end of his term, the number of women in high-ranking positions was slightly lower than it was before Romney took office."

[Drewish]

[Coito ergo sum]

MassGAP applauded Romney in 2006 for increasing female appointments to state government. “I think he put more terrific women into high-level jobs because of our project,” -Liz Levin, Chairwoman, MassGAP.

You know, the complaint from Wumbologist and others was that these binders were created in the first place. How dare he have binders of "women" as if it's so hard to go out and find qualified women.... right? But, then the other bitch about it is that he didn't really go out looking for women, this was prepared by the outside organization that presented it to him and would have presented it to any governor.

So, which is it? Are the binders in principle good or bad? If they are good, do they become bad because Romney was governor? What is the deal?

If they are bad, then is Liz Levin, Chairwoman of MassGAP doing something bad by preparing them and presenting them to the governor?

[Kristie]

MassGAP applauded Romney in 2006 for increasing female appointments to state government. “I think he put more terrific women into high-level jobs because of our project,” -Liz Levin, Chairwoman, MassGAP.

You know, the complaint from Wumbologist and others was that these binders were created in the first place. How dare he have binders of "women" as if it's so hard to go out and find qualified women.... right? But, then the other bitch about it is that he didn't really go out looking for women, this was prepared by the outside organization that presented it to him and would have presented it to any governor.

So, which is it? Are the binders in principle good or bad? If they are good, do they become bad because Romney was governor? What is the deal?

If they are bad, then is Liz Levin, Chairwoman of MassGAP doing something bad by preparing them and presenting them to the governor?

I think it's bad that he needed them, that anyone would need them to find qualified employees. I think it's bad that after his first year, the number of female hires went down.

[Wumbologist]

MassGAP applauded Romney in 2006 for increasing female appointments to state government. “I think he put more terrific women into high-level jobs because of our project,” -Liz Levin, Chairwoman, MassGAP.

You know, the complaint from Wumbologist and others was that these binders were created in the first place. How dare he have binders of "women" as if it's so hard to go out and find qualified women.... right? But, then the other bitch about it is that he didn't really go out looking for women, this was prepared by the outside organization that presented it to him and would have presented it to any governor.

So, which is it? Are the binders in principle good or bad? If they are good, do they become bad because Romney was governor? What is the deal?

If they are bad, then is Liz Levin, Chairwoman of MassGAP doing something bad by preparing them and presenting them to the governor?

He's taking credit for something that was thrown in his lap. He claimed, during the debate, that his team was so concerned about having women in cabinet positions that they went out looking for them. They were GIVEN TO HIM, because he was the candidate who was elected.

[Coito ergo sum]

MassGAP applauded Romney in 2006 for increasing female appointments to state government. “I think he put more terrific women into high-level jobs because of our project,” -Liz Levin, Chairwoman, MassGAP.

You know, the complaint from Wumbologist and others was that these binders were created in the first place. How dare he have binders of "women" as if it's so hard to go out and find qualified women.... right? But, then the other bitch about it is that he didn't really go out looking for women, this was prepared by the outside organization that presented it to him and would have presented it to any governor.

So, which is it? Are the binders in principle good or bad? If they are good, do they become bad because Romney was governor? What is the deal?

If they are bad, then is Liz Levin, Chairwoman of MassGAP doing something bad by preparing them and presenting them to the governor?

I think it's bad that he needed them, that anyone would need them to find qualified employees. I think it's bad that after his first year, the number of female hires went down.

I think it's bad that he needed them too, but if general hiring procedures aren't working to equalize men and women representation, then aren't efforts at making sure that qualified candidates aren't overlooked a good thing.

His record on women is definitely relevant. But, I would ask that we also compare that to the Obama Administration.

“This place would be in court for a hostile workplace because it actually fit all the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.” - Anita Dunne. And, women were getting paid 18% less than men in the Obama Administration.

According to data provided to me by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, from 2006 to 2008 the commission brought 18 cases against employers for alleged sex-based wage discrimination. By contrast, the Obama administration brought only six cases from 2009 to 2011. http://www.businessweek.com/articles/20 ... -pay-so-so

[Tero]

To win the electoral vote, Romney needs
-the 47%, or just even a part of them
-binder women
-gas prices over 4 dollars in key states...CA does not count

[Coito ergo sum]

And, factchecking a bit -- Obama's "pension" is, actually, much bigger than Romney's pension (Romney doesn't have a pension), and Romney was correct that the President has investments in China, etc. http://www.cnbc.com/id/49450057