It's official: With President Barack Obama's acceptance speech in Charlotte Thursday night, both the Republicans and Democrats have formally chosen their nominees for the 2012 presidential election. Let the real race begin.
A lot can change between now and Nov. 6: Gaffes, scandals or even major international news events could shift the dynamics of the campaign.
The latest Gallup Polls show registered voters preferring Obama to Mitt Romney by just one percentage point, 47 percent to 46 percent. A USA Today/Gallup poll taken just before the party conventions found American voters think Obama is more likeable, but trust Romney more to handle the economy.
Pundits have been busy for months handicapping the major-party candidates on various factors: incumbent advantage, fundraising clout, even religion.
Patch wants to know: Regardless of who you support for President, who do you think will actually claim victory in November?
Vote in our poll below, and let us know your reasoning in the comments.
Bill got landslide right...only it's for Romney/ Ryan....the one's who will save America from the entitlement over-spending.
Hence his name...Lyin' Ryan. Sorry, Lyn, American wants a President with smarts...not EGO...I'll pass on Romney.
Why can't the Demoracts put out a budget? For the last 4 years Sharp the Republicans are the only ones that put out a buget. The Demorcat senate is the ones that kills any budget. Ryan's or Obama's. budget.http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/163347-senate-votes-unanimously-against-obama-budget http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203554104577002262150454258.html http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/08/30/yes-paul-ryan-spoke-the-truth-about-obamas-fiscal-record/ Here are just a few sites to help you. Have a great day.
I'm all for people posting their comments, backed with facts. I''m against you posting your 20+ same comment across the country on all the Patch networks, just like the rest of your Southampton group has been doing. You trash the integrity of what this forum should be. And for your info, I do not like Ryan. And, Romney has released what was necessary and required. Why do you need to see any other years, except to trash the success of a man? If your issue is with the tax law, take that up with Washington - not a taxpayer who is regularly audited by the IRS and following the regs. I am not wealthy, and I hate defending the rich - but I will defend a person who can be successful and do so legally. If one does not like that -take it up with those who make the laws. And, I do think the rich should pay slightly more in the tier on their 1040 - starting with those making over $100,000. To most Americans, even $200,000 is rich. When it comes to the state of the nation - Obama has created a real mess that will take years to undo. And, taken this country in a direction that it has never stood for. But, he will get reelected -too many people are now benefiting by what he has done and people vote for what will be best for them. Why would all those who are getting more money from the government vote against him? But the government should not be existing to redistribute the wealth. Personally, I wish Hillary had been elected.
Otherwise, I welcome a debate and all opinions based on fact - not the like of yours and your group, which is just garbage being spewed.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3036
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/07/the-center-on-budget-and-policy-priorities-thinks-were-still-in-the-bush-era/241805/ Exerpt: "The actual level of the debt incurred by tax cuts passed during the Bush era is represented by the size of the wedge in 2010, plus perhaps a modest amount of interest (interest rates right now are low, and over time, inflation and GDP growth should call that debt to fall, not rise, as a percentage of GDP.)" "...what that ever-widening wedge represents is the tax cuts passed in 2010, plus the assumption that the Obama administration makes the tax cuts permanent. I know that many liberal groups still see the pernicious influence of George Bush everywhere . . . but does the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities really think that we are still in the "Bush Era"? Is he the puppetmaster who pulled the string and made Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress dance? And if so, how come we passed a gargantuan new health care entitlement, instead of reforming Social Security?"
I guess we're not going to change each other's minds, are we? Notice your quote doesn't dispute my point, they only say that the Bush tax cuts are continuing under the Obama Administration. If Obama wins, I can pretty much assure you that part of the tax cuts will certainly expire. I'll stick with my sources from the CBO, and you can continue to site your sources from right wing opinon editorials. Ronald- The tax cuts were extended last year, as you know, for one additional year in a compromise with Republicans. I'm sure you also have to admit that we cannot get out of this mess we're in with only drastic cuts in spending. There has to be a combination of revenue increases and entitlement reforms, similar to the Simpson/Bowles commission proposal. By the way, I will never forget how the Republicans all said that the world was going to come to an end when Clinton raised taxes in the '90's...what followed was years of prosperity.
Again, wondering why you site the links you do. This one is over 2 years old - when the Bush tax cuts were to expire, BUT Obama extended them and added to them. And, don't you realize that because of the extension of these cuts, and the changes that Obama made, now almost 50% of the taxpayers pay no federal income taxes, and many collect that child credit over what taxes they don't owe? Therefore, those tax cuts you do not like, if not there, would increase the low to middle income person $2000-$4000? I assume that is you, and so here you are complaining about those tax cuts - but without them, you would be paying much more. And, if you look at your 2 year old article, it mentions TARP - Bush's program, which by the March 2012 CBO estimates, are only costing the taxpayers now $32billion - and, every year that estimate goes . Also, your 2 year old article mentions the war contributing to where we are. Are you forgetting Obama's role in Afghanistan? Your links are not relevant. Besides, they are usually from a group with political leanings or biases. HOWEVER, I do think the rich should pay slightly more and ALL taxpayers should have to pay something - IMO! We all live in this country, and why not have the rich pay even 1% more than they are in that top tier - starting with those making over $100,000.
I think one of the main reasons Obama doesn't get rid of the tax cuts is that he knows it would cost him votes! All of us would be paying $2000-$4000 more in taxes and people would be upset at that. He would rather say the words than really follow through, because he knows the repercussions.
You sited CBPP (The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities) -a think tank, self described as "... working at the federal and state levels on fiscal policy and public programs that affect low- and moderate-income families and individuals."
Anyway Dan, I like the debate. Your chart did not prove that higher taxes increase tax revenue or that lower taxes decrease revenue. It cheery picked CBO data ( no it was not a CBO report) and didn't show any entitlement spending. It was set up to make people think that all other spending is covered without an increase in debt which is not the case at all. You would also have to assume that every other dollar spent by the federal government was worthwhile and better used by the government than by the people.
In spite of your claims of independence, you are perhaps one of the most biased on the Patch. Yes, the chart I gave was from two years ago..so what? It still mentions the projected deficits going forward due to the Bush (and extended by Obama) tax cuts. Yes, I know Obama extended all tax cuts, but by ONE year. If he is re-elected, I guarantee you he will not extend them on the upper 2% of income earners. I personally would argue that they should not be extended to people who make over $100K a year, but that's another argument. By the way, it seems as though you have not heard Obama's argument of extending the tax cuts for everyone except those who make over $250K a year, so I don't get your argument that it would cost him votes because he would rasie taxes on everyone $2K-$4K a year. If anything, that is what is going to happen with Mitt Romney's plan. As you know, he is going to get rid of tax loopholes to help pay for the additional tax cuts he is proposing, and the middle class is going to have to pay, although he refuses to specify which loopholes he will close. Sorry my links offend you...that must mean that they hit a nerve.
First, I must apologize to you - it was Bill, not you who had previously been listing sources that were biased. His were largely blogs, and I incorrectly remembered it was you -so therefore, I made the comment about the sources you give. HOWEVER, I do believe that if one does list a source, it should be one as free of bias as possible - not one which takes facts and dissects them and spews back what they say was the original info. Also, yes, I am biased - to the truth and not fiction. And, although I lean more toward the Rep. philosophy of doing for yourself, there are many platforms that the Dems hold which I prefer. When Obama first appeared on the scene for all to see, 8 years ago at the convention and then several months before the 2008 primaries, I thought what a great thing it might be if he were to become president some day. But then that January, after learning more about his thoughts on things, I decided to vote for Hillary in the primary. I just did not believe that this man who has always been soooo left would govern in the middle as he campaigned he would - and I was right in that. I wish the Reps had given us a better choice - Huntsman. I do not like Ryan. And as for Romney, this time it is more a vote of who I think is the lesser of 2 evils, or maybe that I am voting against 1 candidate.
Lastly, your links don't really "offend" me, but I was correcting you when you said they were from the CBO, as they were not. Again, I prefer links that contain facts, not bias - from agencies free of agendas.
Thank you for clarifying as to who you meant to villify for posting numerous sites which you feel are left leaning. Going back to my post, which cited the chart from the cbpp, the information that they used to form the graph were from the non-partisan CBO, which they state. I should have clarified that in my follow up post. Also, I have no idea if the cbpp is partisan or not...I assumed it was not, but I admit that I don't know for sure. LIke I mentioned previously, I actually would have not minded at all if Jon Huntsman would have won the primaries, as I would have seriously considered voting for him. However, as we know, he was not a flame-thrower like the rest of the crowd, and didn't have a chance with the extreme primary voter. I have to chuckle when you say Obama is governing too far to the left, as I feel he is pretty close to the center. Obamacare with no public option (a Republican plan to begin with) just as one example is not an extreme left position. Lastly, you mention that you had to call me out on my link to the cbpp, as it being a biased site. Why is it that I hear crickets from you when the other right-wingers on here post site after site of ridiculous ultra-biased links? Well, at least we both agree that we don't like Ryan, and that we did like Huntsman...that's a start.
Has anyone noticed that he is no longer wearing the flag of the US on his lapel, but had his own version of a flag with his campaign logo where the stars should be and a few reddish stripes where the stripes should be. How un-American is that?
Mitt and Ann Romney donated about $4 million -- about 30 percent of their income -- to charity in 2011, though they only claimed a deduction of about $2.25 million from those donations, according to the campaign. That means the Romneys voluntarily paid a higher tax rate than they were legally required, which the campaign said they did in order to stay consistent with Romney's pledge to never play less than a 13 percent tax rate. "He has been clear that no American need pay more than he or she owes under the law," said spokeswoman Michele Davis. "At the same time, he was in the unique position of having made a commitment to the public that his tax rate would be above 13 percent. He directed his preparers to ensure that he is consistent with that statement."
They will bring prosperity back for ALL. Obama is the impediment to the economy growing.