[Nesster]

*Snap*
The Other Missing Man - NYTimes.com

The great mystery of the first presidential debate was what happened to the Barack Obama a slim majority of the country was poised to rehire for another four years. That man — forward-looking, crisp-thinking, quick on his feet — was never on the stage in Denver two weeks ago.

But there was another missing man in the Mile High City that night, and on Tuesday, he reappeared — the petulant, unlikable and bullying corporate persona that is Mitt Romney’s default mode.

With his feigned slights, his constant squabbling over the rules, and his arrogance that he alone has a trust-me-it’ll-work business plan to right the country, Romney was the very picture of a C.E.O. used to getting his way. Meeting over. All opposed, take a hike.

The Mitt Romney of the second debate, to use Mike Huckabee’s memorable phrase, “looks like the guy who fires you.” He exposed, once again, his biggest fault: that he has no idea what it’s like to be middle-class and struggling in 2012 America.

To take just a couple of examples, here was Romney explaining the benefits of his tax program, the breaks that you’ll get on your stock dividends and mutual funds. As he outlined it with all the mercenary gusto of the visiting suit with a PowerPoint, Romney said, “Every middle-income taxpayer will no longer pay any tax on interest, dividends or capital gains.” And, a bit later, “If you’re getting a statement from a mutual fund or any other kind of investment you have, you don’t have to worry about filing taxes on that.”

No kidding. In Romney’s world, and throughout his own tax return, the money earned from money — as opposed to money earned from working — is the chief source of wealth. And it’s already taxed at a lower rate than middle-income earnings. Getting rid of those taxes altogether does nothing for the warehouse manager, schoolteacher or insurance sales person taking home a salary and being taxed at a full rate for making a living. But it’s great for someone living off mutual fund dividends.

Another example: When asked a perfectly normal question, one roiling the soft minds of the undecided voters, about what would happen if the numbers in his secret budget-and-tax plan didn’t add up, Romney went full boss-in-a-snit mode.

“Of course they add up!” He was offended at the mere suggestion that they would not. “I was someone who ran a business for 25 years.” That, alone, was supposed to exempt him from explaining how he will cut taxes for the rich, add to defense spending and eventually balance the budget.

From there on, he grew increasingly bossy and impatient, whining about his allotted time and dodging questions with complaints about the order of the debate. In substance and style, Romney seemed like a speeded-up talking figure in a museum diorama. He scolded the president. He circled around and back, finally prompting the moderator, Candy Crowley, to say, “If I could have you sit down, Governor Romney.” Inside voices and a time out — that’s no way to talk to the guy who can fire you, unless of course, he can’t.

The time capsule quality of Romney the C.E.O., circa 1956, was evident in several answers. On pay equality, it was not just “binders full of women” that made Romney seem like someone who popped to life with a hula hoop in hand. “I recognize that, if you’re going to have women in the work force, that sometimes you need to be flexible.” But only so the little honeys can get home in time to cook dinner for the gang.

Seven different times, Romney used the words, “I know what it takes.” Because he ran a business, and a state and the Olympics. Except his business was a very predatory form of venture capital — no way to run a country. And his state ranked 47th in job creation, down there with the usual Southern suspects — no way guide a nation. And his Olympics relied, in considerable measure, on “the enormous spending and services of the federal government” to succeed, as Romney said in 2002.

And then there was the extraordinary, stunned look on Romney’s face when he was fact-checked in real time by the moderator after he wrongly insisted that Obama never said the Benghazi killings were an act of terror. Insulated, seldom-challenged C.E.O.s who live in a bubble — in this case, the fact-challenged world of Fox News and right-wing radio — also die in that bubble.

The October surprise, then, was the Romney was who never showed up at the first debate, the politician who over the course of a long campaign became the most unlikable major party candidate in modern times.

It’s clear now that the Romney of Denver was no more real than Paul Ryan pretending to wash those already clean dishes for a photo op in a soup kitchen. The Romney at Hofstra was the man who gives off enough of a toff’s sense of entitlement that you wouldn’t want to hang out with him, even if he demanded it. He’s the plutocrat with a plan, and if you don’t like it, go on down to Human Resources and pick up your lousy severance.

However, if we can believe polls, this Romney is ahead and may well win on Election day...

[jeffkrol]

*Snap*
The Other Missing Man - NYTimes.com



However, if we can believe polls, this Romney is ahead and may well win on Election day...

Still, if the national polls tell a more equivocal tale than the Gallup poll alone would imply, it’s really in the state polls where Mr. Obama’s strength lies — as has largely been the case all year.

Mr. Obama’s chances of winning the Electoral College improved to 70.4 percent on Thursday from 65.7 percent on Wednesday, according to the forecast.

intrade;

Barack Obama to be re-elected President in 2012

60.9%
CHANCE

Intrade - Barack Obama to be re-elected President in 2012

[GeneV]

On the contrary, I think there has never been a better time to do this without a huge political or economic blow back because interest rates are so low, unless you have a high interest rate or a jumbo loan your mortgage interest is only barely above the standard deduction. The interest rate will just give people more incentive to refinance and the loan amount will give people no excuse not to have more home equity in the long run when rates do go up as opposed to the advice of those "financial gurus" who say to never pay down your mortgage. It takes risk out of people's personal finances and makes them better suited to weather a future financial downturn.

Everyone who can refinance has, and you putting all the underwater mortgages which were circling the bowl right down the center. Home prices will also take a dive, as the mortgage interest deduction is a subsidy to those prices and an incentive to purchase homes now and in the future when rates may be higher.

But that is really not all I am talking about. Changing incentives has effects on businesses that ripple through the economy for a decade. It is not for a fragile economy.

[mikemike]

Everyone who can refinance has, and you putting all the underwater mortgages which were circling the bowl right down the center. Home prices will also take a dive, as the mortgage interest deduction is a subsidy to those prices and an incentive to purchase homes now and in the future when rates may be higher.

But that is really not all I am talking about. Changing incentives has effects on businesses that ripple through the economy for a decade. It is not for a fragile economy.

Programs that are out there like HAMP could be utilized to make sure very few people take a hard hit, or they could grandfather interest on loans that were made prior to the year the law changed. That lets people consider the tax implications when deciding to buy or rent going forward without hurting the people who have already made that decision and will eventually work its way out of the system within a few years. If they wait until rates turn up again, they will never be able to slay this deduction.

[GeneV]

Programs that are out there like HAMP could be utilized to make sure very few people take a hard hit, or they could grandfather interest on loans that were made prior to the year the law changed. That lets people consider the tax implications when deciding to buy or rent going forward without hurting the people who have already made that decision and will eventually work its way out of the system within a few years. If they wait until rates turn up again, they will never be able to slay this deduction.

As a long term proposition, I am open to phasing out the deduction. However, having lived through one of these I would say it is economic suicide now. In the late '80s, we went from the boom of the mid-'80s to a crash and the recession of Bush Sr. after the 1986 reform. Apartment construction ground to a screeching halt and foreclosures and bank failures were everywhere. That was in an economy on the upswing. This is not a plan for an economy which just escaped death by the life support of bailouts and stimulus.