Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 66 of 66

Thread: Plans scrapped to build 3 new factories in US due to tax on medical devices

  1. #51
    ### of all Things Nuclear Ningishiddza's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Eastern Europe most of the time
    Posts
    4,039
    Disable These Ads!
    Quote Originally Posted by DontBeAfraid View Post
    2.3 percent increase in a sales tax is not the difference between building 3 new factories and NOT building 3 new factories for a single company... Think THEN post... Their profits ARENT so razor thin...
    So, show us the math, or at least give us a source.

    Quote Originally Posted by DontBeAfraid View Post
    I would love for you to show me the math of 2.3 percent sales tax turning into 50 percent... Bozo.
    That's a classic Straw Man Fallacy. You have completely twisted and distorted the position in order to deceitfully misrepresent the position.

    No one said a 2.3% sales tax turns into a 50% tax, and only you would be dumb enough to say something as stupid as that.

    Quote Originally Posted by GamerGal View Post
    Except you said that 2.3=50. Wait a minute...

    So 2.3 now equals 15 and 50? I love how they claim 2.3=15 which then equals 50. Wow that is some math there Jena.
    Looks like you and idiot graduated with MA's in Straw Man Fallacies.

    No one except you and idiot would stoop to such lows to completely misrepresent what Jena said or what the article claim. No one said 2.3% sales tax turns into a 50% sales tax. The claim made is very simply this, and I'll try to put it using as many one and two syllable words as humanly possible so your little brains can understand.

    A 2.3% sales tax on the manufacture turns out to be a 15% tax on the end-user. The manufacturer is originally saddled with the 2.3% tax increase when they make the sale to a whole-sale distributor. The wholesale distributor must pay more, and as a result, increase the prices of the medical devices when when they sell them to retailers or other distributors. Since retailers and distributors are paying higher prices, they must increase the sale price of the medical devices to cover their losses to the end-users, so the price ends up increase in this instance about 15%.

    That 15% price increase for the end-user results in lower gross revenues, which results in lower net revenues, which results in lower gross profits, which results in lower net profits, which bars the company from building new facilities -- because you know -- it costs money to build new facilities -- I mention that just in case neither of you were aware of that.

    That is the claim being made -- so address the true claim -- no some fantasy claim you made up to make yourself look stupid.





    Quote Originally Posted by DontBeAfraid View Post
    Now show me how 2.3% turns into 50%...
    I never said 2.3% turns into 50%. You and Gomer Pyletard made that claim in Straw Man fallacy in failed attempt to embarrass Jena, which has now back-fired right into your butt-ugly faces.

    Your inability to employ even the simplest of logic is astounding. You simply cannot grasp something that happens everyday Globally, and that is a 2.3% sales tax on the manufacturer turns into a 2.3% price increase, which then turns into a 2.3%+4.6% price increase when wholesalers and distributors attempt to cover their costs and maintain their profit margin when selling the medical devices to retailers or users, like CVS, Rite-Aid, Walgreen's, various pharmacies and hospitals, and that turns into a 2.3%+9.2% price increase --- or higher --- when sold to the end user.

    Quote Originally Posted by DontBeAfraid View Post
    Show me how 2.3% = 30,000,000 USD...
    No one ever said it did. You are the one who made that claim, because you acted stupidly and then got backed into a corner and shown to look like a fool.

    Only fucking a retard would make such a ridiculous fantasy claim -- especially in an attempt to distort and misrepresent someone's position to make yourself look superior -- which has back-fired right in your face.

    Quote Originally Posted by DontBeAfraid View Post
    While you are making the idea of elasticity SEEM like something complicated the math behind it is as simple as finding out which lengths the sides of a rectangle need to be to yield the biggest area...(its always a square... and elasticity is just as easily determined)... but that doesnt make your off topic rant any more relevant to my math inquiry...
    It is neither "off-topic" nor irrelevant and it is not simple math.

    Contrary to your claim, elasticity is not easily determined. If you had a BA in Economics (like I do), you'd know that. In order to determine the elasticity of your product or services, you must conduct a survey of users to see how they'll react to changes in prices (or you have to pay to hire a consulting firm to do that for you -- which is what 90% of companies do), then statistically analyze the data and then do your cost scenarios.

    Quote Originally Posted by DontBeAfraid View Post
    If you REALLY think you are on to something though... Explain to me how medical care and by necessity medical equipment are highly elastic when it comes to demand... Your argument applies really really well to the price of movie tickets or a hotdog vendor... but not as well to healthcare... or water...
    And who says medical devices are highly inelastic? Are there no substitutes? Of course there are substitutes -- used medical devices --- refurbished medical devices -- etc etc etc.

    The following are exempted from the tax:

    Exempts from the tax Class I medical devices, eyeglasses, contact lenses, hearing aids, and any device of a type that is generally purchased by the public at retail for individual use.

    https://www.primaryimmune.org/advoca...cise%20Tax.pdf

    So, yes, that would mean things like, um, you know, used pace-makers, used wheel chairs etc etc etc

    And contrary to what you believe, there are substitutes for health care, like homeopathic remedies, non-prescription medications, supplements, and other such things.

    And while water has no substitute, it doesn’t prevent households and businesses from enacting stringent conservation of water, to reduce their consumption and limit what they must pay.

    Obamacare's Medical-Device Tax Kills Patients, Not Just Jobs

    My colleague Robert Book has written a compelling analysis of Obamacare’s medical-device tax, which concludes that it will destroy about 14,000 and perhaps up to 47,100 jobs. The 2.3 percent excise tax on medical devices is a savage blow to innovation. Note that this tax is on sales, not profits. It cuts into the top line, not the bottom line. If not repealed, this tax will start hitting medical-device makers on January 1, 2013.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/201...not-just-jobs/

    Nice try though….I’ll give you a point for being Stupid in a No-Stupid Zone.

    Quote Originally Posted by GamerGal View Post
    Come on righties. YOU MADE THE CLAIM THAT 2.3= 50. We're still waiting for this amazing new math
    You are the one who made that claim in a pathetic attempt to distort and deceive.

    That's part of the Liberals attempt to hide the stench of their Penis Envy and Breast-implant Envy by cloaking it in the mantra of Compassion™.

    And if you want to see how an increase in price can result in a 50% margin loss, then look at the charts I posted -- it's all right there.

    Quote Originally Posted by sweetvelocity View Post
    I agree that a 2.3 tax is not a reasonable reason to squash business growth....
    You agree on what rational, logical or factual basis? Your "feelings?" Your feeling are immaterial and irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by sweetvelocity View Post
    The source alone should be a big red flag of BULLSHIT for you. Fox News is NOT a reliable source.
    Fail. In my response to Calliope's pathetic post fawning over The Warrior Boy-King™ and the Peace-Loving Genocidal Skull-Smashing Kumbaya Indians™, I posted an article that was published before Fox News aired it.

    http://www.ibj.com/cook-medical-shel.../article/35735

    That is the Indianapolis Business Journal, not Fox News.

    You might want to get some rope and tie your knees down so they don’t keep jerking into your face.

    Quote Originally Posted by sweetvelocity View Post
    Jena, why should I vote for a man that has personally capitalized off shipping American jobs overseas?
    You don't have a 401(k)? Because if you did, then you capitalized off "shipping American jobs overseas." You can make a video of yourself committing hari-kari for our amusement.

    Quote Originally Posted by sweetvelocity View Post
    You did not answer the question.
    The question is stupid, so why would anyone answer it?

    Quote Originally Posted by sweetvelocity View Post
    While we do have a shortage of alternative energy companies producing unique and necessary components, we do not have a shortage of willing employees. In short, Obama has a reasonable excuse and Romney is just a greedy business man.
    You mean like Solyndra?

    Quote Originally Posted by sweetvelocity View Post
    Because domestic manufacturing in alternative energy grew for the first three years Obama was in office. Unfortunately the Oily hammer of the GOP has squelched the possibility for more growth in that sector for the time being.
    You mean like Solyndra?

    I love people like you. People like you are ignorant, uneducated and ill-informed, and you'll destroy the US faster than a nuclear war ever could.

    "Alternative energy" comes at a cost. A cost that you are totally ignorant of and unwilling to pay in the end.

    You ignore every study ever done that shows that for each "green job" created, you lose 2 to 2.5 jobs. You ignore the fact that alternative energy requires Capital and other resources, and that increases Demand and results in price increases. Your food prices will continually rise because you stupidly chose to produce corn-based ethanol, and as of January 1, 2012, you're supposed to be using cellulostic plants to produce all of the remaining billions of gallons of ethanol for your short-sighted E85 mandate.

    So, tell us, Sweetvelocity, which of your crop fields are you going to plow under to start growing cellulostic plants? Hmmmmm? Are you going to plow under your cucumber crops, creating a shortage of cucumbers and drive up the price of cucumbers and pickles? Or do you intend to plow under your wheat crops and drive up the price of wheat and all food-stuffs made from wheat? I have a suggestion, why don't you plow under your corn crops to grow cellulostic plants? That way you could drive up the price of price of ethanol and the price of gasoline, plus drive up the price off food products.

    Wouldn't that be grand?

    Once upon a time, in the United States, there was an American corporation named Zenith that manufactured consumer electronic devices like televisions, stereos and radios. But in a foreign land far, far away, there was a Korean corporation called Life's Good, or LG for short. LG also manufactured consumer electronic devices like televisions, stereos and radios. But LG had a number of distinct advantages over Zenith: LG's labor force was paid far less than Zenith's over-paid union workers; LG did not have to suffer through and pay through the eyeballs for senseless bureaucratic regulations that accomplish absolutely nothing very slowly; and LG paid far less in corporate taxes than Zenith, plus LG was subsidized by the Korean government, while Liberals in the US fought to take away everything they could from Zenith.

    LG was able to sell their products to 6.6 Billion people all over the whole Earth; but poor Zenith could only sell their products to 30 Million O Canadians, 312 Million Americans and 300 Million Western Europeans.

    LG made massive profits, while Zenith made very little in profits. LG took it's massive profits and started buying up all the Zenith stock it could on the Dow Jones.

    By 1995, LG had acquired 51% of all Zenith stock and so ---- LG owned Zenith. Over the next several years LG continued to buy more and more Zenith stock on the Dow Jones until one day in 1999, Zenith was no more -- it no longer existed, because it was now completely owned by a foreign corporation, one from Korea, named LG.

    Now, what is so goddam hard to understand here?

    You are just 312 Million people; you are nothing; you are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things; you are meaning and totally unnecessary; you are just a small drop of water in big frigging ocean that has 6.6+ Billion people screaming for consumer goods -- and if you cannot sell to them -- then you lose.

    And you cannot sell to them paying ridiculous $48/hour union wages saddled with all manner of taxes and other regulatory nonsense.

    I'll put it another way.....in order for an American corporation to stay alive....to stay in business....then they must be able to compete in the Global Market which is 95.5% of the friggin' Earth. US corporations are competing against foreign corporations who pay less in corporate taxes, and who are subsidized by their governmetn tax dollars, who are not burdened by bureaucratic nonsense, and the wages of their workers are lower, so it costs less for them to produce goods.

    So you can continue to live in a fantasy world and I'll laugh my ass off when the US because just another ritzy Belarus, or you can wake up and get with the program.
    This White House photograph is made available for publication by news organizations or personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House.

  2. #52
    FlatLiner Contributor DontBeAfraid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Your mothers vagina
    Posts
    11,414
    So, show us the math, or at least give us a source.
    I asked you first windbag...


    That's a classic Straw Man Fallacy. You have completely twisted and distorted the position in order to deceitfully misrepresent the position.

    No one said a 2.3% sales tax turns into a 50% tax, and only you would be dumb enough to say something as stupid as that
    Actually windbag, had you BOTHERED to read the thread, you would see that that is EXACTLY the claim that was made...

    A 2.3% sales tax on the manufacture turns out to be a 15% tax on the end-user. The manufacturer is originally saddled with the 2.3% tax increase when they make the sale to a whole-sale distributor. The wholesale distributor must pay more, and as a result, increase the prices of the medical devices when when they sell them to retailers or other distributors. Since retailers and distributors are paying higher prices, they must increase the sale price of the medical devices to cover their losses to the end-users, so the price ends up increase in this instance about 15%.
    So now its 2.3% = 15%...


    It is neither "off-topic" nor irrelevant and it is not simple math.
    ya it is...

    Contrary to your claim, elasticity is not easily determined. If you had a BA in Economics (like I do), you'd know that. In order to determine the elasticity of your product or services, you must conduct a survey of users to see how they'll react to changes in prices (or you have to pay to hire a consulting firm to do that for you -- which is what 90% of companies do), then statistically analyze the data and then do your cost scenarios.
    A Bachelors in Arts... LOL... no wonder you think its hard math... No wonder you think running tangentially from a particular argument is still on topic... No wonder you think 2.3% = 15%... BA... good job tiger.
    I aggressively attack stupidity... If you feel I am being aggressive, well....

  3. #53
    Bite Me Contributor JenaS62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Southeast Florida
    Age
    52
    Posts
    10,220
    Quote Originally Posted by DontBeAfraid View Post

    Actually windbag, had you BOTHERED to read the thread, you would see that that is EXACTLY the claim that was made...

    No it's not at all the claim that was made. On the first page of this thread, I posted this because neither you nor your twin GG seemed able to grasp it.:

    Quote Originally Posted by JenaS62 View Post
    No one and I repeat no one said that 2.3% tax was turned into 50% tax. Are you competing with GG now?


    50% total tax burden

    50% total tax burden

    50% total tax burden

    50% total tax burden


    Do you understand now GG?

  4. #54
    FlatLiner Contributor DontBeAfraid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Your mothers vagina
    Posts
    11,414
    ok... so show me how the 2.3% increase is turned into a 50% total tax burden...
    I aggressively attack stupidity... If you feel I am being aggressive, well....

  5. #55
    Bite Me Contributor JenaS62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Southeast Florida
    Age
    52
    Posts
    10,220
    Wow. And you claim to be highly intelligent.

    Obviously - total tax burden would indicate that that is the total tax burden. Total, as in all taxes added together. So I would figure fed corp tax, state corp tax, maybe a local corp tax, property tax, intangible tax, plus whatever other taxes they pay. As I already stated - I am not privy to their financial information.

  6. #56
    FlatLiner Contributor DontBeAfraid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Your mothers vagina
    Posts
    11,414
    Oh... so you are telling me that the 2.3 % has VERY little to do with them not expanding manufacturing... Thanks for agreeing with me genius.
    I aggressively attack stupidity... If you feel I am being aggressive, well....

  7. #57
    Bite Me Contributor JenaS62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Southeast Florida
    Age
    52
    Posts
    10,220
    Well genius - I'm not telling you that at all. If this tax equates to $20 - $30M, that could certainly affect their ability to expand.


    **edit - and actually it's 20 to 30 million per year.



    and as I already posted but which you obviously ignored - this is the medical device tax impact projected by Moodys for other large medical supply companies. chump change huh?

    [QUOTE]Here's a look at Moody's estimates for the after-tax impact of the medical device tax on the 21 companies in its med-tech coverage universe:
    Estimated medical device tax impact:

    Company Estimated after-tax
    Medtronic (NYSE:MDT) $136 million
    Stryker (NYSE:SYK) $77 million
    Boston Scientific (NYSE:BSX) $63 million
    Covidien (NYSE:COV) $61 million"[QUOTE]
    Last edited by JenaS62; Aug 1st, 2012 at 10:27 PM.

  8. #58
    Prepared survivor Seasoned Member SuperDig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    US
    Posts
    395
    Quote Originally Posted by JenaS62 View Post
    Wow. And you claim to be highly intelligent.
    Burn! In yo face DBA!

  9. #59
    Lucky survivor Seasoned Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    GONE, to a friendlier place
    Posts
    205
    Quote Originally Posted by JenaS62 View Post
    This is great news for the US. A potential 1500 jobs in the mid-west are not going to happen due to a tax on medical devices that goes into effect next year. Cook Medical was planning to open 3 new plants but cite the medical device tax as a reason to scrap the plans. The new tax is going to cost Cook Medical approximately 20 million per year and they will therefore look to expand their plants in other countries.
    Cook Medical ALREADY HAS multiple points of presence in other countries. And if they IMPORT their products into the US, they will STILL face any tax on sales of the product. If they make them HERE but sell there in other countries, NO tax. So completely disingenuous rhetoric.

  10. #60
    AO Feminazi GamerGal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Maine
    Age
    26
    Posts
    9,476


    And yet Mitt's plan is to cut taxes for those 400 families instead of the other millions of families...
    http://www.bartcop.com/gop-war-on-hellhath.jpg
    Non Alcoholic Beer is like a Vibrator without batteries. Fills you up but without the buzz.

  11. #61
    ### of all Things Nuclear Ningishiddza's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Eastern Europe most of the time
    Posts
    4,039
    Quote Originally Posted by The Realist View Post
    Cook Medical ALREADY HAS multiple points of presence in other countries. And if they IMPORT their products into the US, they will STILL face any tax on sales of the product. If they make them HERE but sell there in other countries, NO tax. So completely disingenuous rhetoric.
    Obviously, The Realist is really ignorant.

    http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/...253892,00.html
    Q. What is the medical device excise tax?

    A. The medical device excise tax is a tax on the sale of certain medical devices by the manufacturer, producer or importer of the device.

    Q. Who is responsible for reporting and paying the medical device excise tax?

    A. The manufacturer or importer of a taxable medical device is responsible for reporting and paying the tax.
    So, uh, what part of "manufacturer" do you not understand?


    Quote Originally Posted by GamerGal View Post


    And yet Mitt's plan is to cut taxes for those 400 families instead of the other millions of families...
    Super.

    Another chance to embarrass GomerPyletards and expose their lying propaganda.

    In typical fashion, Gomer gets beaten down with facts, and then throws up an off-topic propaganda and disinformation cartoon to spread lies in the best tradition of NAZIs.

    Let's show GG's lies.

    The claim is that, "Collectively, the 400 richest households in the US own $1.37 trillion dollars;...."

    Let's look at the Truth. We can find the Truth here:

    http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/12inw...omeprlim10.pdf

    If we look on Page 8 in Acrobat or on Page 12 (actual), then we see that 2,739,048 households had an adjusted gross income of $1,845,861,843,000 or $1.8 TRILLION.

    GomerPyletard claims 400 households have $1.37 TRILLION. Let's do the math:

    $1.800 TRILLION
    $1.370 TRILLION less the 400 richest households
    --------------------
    $430 Billion


    2,739,048 households
    - 400 richest households
    -------------------------------------
    2,738,648

    $430,000,000,000 / 2,738,648 = $157,011

    Ooooopps!

    Gomer lied.

    Nice try at spreading propaganda and disinformation. You get today's AO Herr Josef Göbbels Propaganda Award.
    This White House photograph is made available for publication by news organizations or personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House.

  12. #62
    AO Feminazi GamerGal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Maine
    Age
    26
    Posts
    9,476
    Ah yes those poor poor rich people

    But they need more tax breaks!

    Because that just isn't enough PROFIT

    Of course what do you expect from Mitt the Twit?
    "Let Detroit Die"
    But then he attacks Obama for not saving enough of Detroit
    Seriously?

    You attack Obama for saving Detroit, but then complain he didn't save more of it?
    YOU would have tet those 2,200 dealerships and all the other dealerships DIE.

    ...and don't you love the last line of Team Obama's reply?
    http://www.bartcop.com/gop-war-on-hellhath.jpg
    Non Alcoholic Beer is like a Vibrator without batteries. Fills you up but without the buzz.

  13. #63
    Bite Me Contributor JenaS62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Southeast Florida
    Age
    52
    Posts
    10,220
    HAHA - as usual GG could not refute anything so she put up yet another irrelevant cartoon.

  14. #64
    ### of all Things Nuclear Ningishiddza's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Eastern Europe most of the time
    Posts
    4,039
    Quote Originally Posted by GamerGal View Post
    Ah yes those poor poor rich people

    But they need more tax breaks!

    Because that just isn't enough PROFIT

    Of course what do you expect from Mitt the Twit?
    "Let Detroit Die"
    But then he attacks Obama for not saving enough of Detroit
    Great, another off-topic comment and more irrelevant cartoons with examples from GG The Lying Propaganda & Disinformation Artist™.

    This a great example to deconstruct Liberal Propaganda & Disinformation.

    Note how the issue is framed: $342 Million in Profits.

    But, aren't there 5 oil companies mentioned? Yes, ExxonMobil (formerly Standard Oil of New Jersey before becoming Exxon and merging with Mobil), AmocoBP -- a foreign oil company based in the United Kingdom who purchased Standard Oil of Ohio and then later acquired Amoco, Chevron (who acquired UNOCAL), Royal Dutch Shell -- another foreign oil company based in the Netherlands, and Conoco-Phillips.

    So we have 5 oil companies, with 3 being American and two being foreign -- that's part of the lies and propaganda.

    Next, let's divided the $342 Million in profits by the 5 oil companies to get the average profits:

    $342,000,000 / 5 = $68,400,000

    So each of the 5 oil companies -- including both of the foreign oil companies -- average only $68 Million in profits. If we look at earlier information provided courtesy of JenaS62, we see:

    Company Estimated after-tax
    Medtronic (NYSE:MDT) $136 million
    Stryker (NYSE:SYK) $77 million
    Boston Scientific (NYSE:BSX) $63 million
    Covidien (NYSE:COV) $61 million

    So is $68 Million really out of line?

    If we seek the Truth, and we can find the Truth here:

    http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=SBUX...atement&annual

    We see that Starbucks had gross revenues of $9,774,600,000 -- $9 Billion in gross revenues with $5.45 Billion in gross profits and a net income of $440 Million and an after tax income of $390 Million.

    Let's compare:

    Starsucks: $390 Million
    5 oil companies $342 Million

    Starsucks made more money than "Big Oil."

    Starsucks: $390 Million
    Oil Company average: $68 Million

    Starsucks made more than 5x times the average big oil company made.

    So, what exactly is the beef here? Americans are being gouged? Yeah, by Starsucks.

    Net income for Duke was $444 million
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...mer-rates.html

    So what about the $444 Million Duke Energy made?

    Some more pertinent information that the sack of runny excrement intentionally omitted in an attempt to deceive you: US corporations pay more in taxes than corporations in other countries, and foreign corporations are subsidized by their respective governments. When Chevron goes to bid on a geologic tract of land, Chevron has only an average of $68 Million. That might seem on par and very fair with British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell, but those can bid higher, and so can Statoil the Norwegian owned oil company, and Gazprom of Russia and many others.

    Think of it as a criminal case by the State, where you are the defendant. You have only the resources that you have, but the State has deep-pockets and virtually unlimited resources to come after you. That's what US oil companies, and in fact all US companies are up against in the Global Market-Place.

    So let's penalize Chevron, ExxonMobil and Conoco-Phillips any way we can, so they can end up being owned by British Petroleum, Royal Dutch Shell, Total (France) and other foreign oil companies, because, you know that makes a lot of sense.
    This White House photograph is made available for publication by news organizations or personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House.

  15. #65
    Survivalist! Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    next to a volcano near a subduction zone fault line by the ocean.
    Posts
    2,500
    Attention Liberals, there is no need to worry about Mitt Romney being elected president, can't happen w/o michigan, ohio and pennsylvania.
    "The problem with the world is the intelligent are full of doubts while the stupid are full of confidence." - Bukowski

  16. #66
    Bite Me Contributor JenaS62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Southeast Florida
    Age
    52
    Posts
    10,220
    I have this saved to my favorites and I read it about once a week. I have to have hope. Real hope.

    http://townhall.com/columnists/wayne...ide/page/full/


    Why Obama Will Lose in a Landslide


    "Most political predictions are made by biased pollsters, pundits, or prognosticators who are either rooting for Republicans or Democrats. I am neither. I am a former Libertarian Vice Presidential nominee, and a well-known Vegas oddsmaker with one of the most accurate records of predicting political races.

    Neither Obama nor Romney are my horses in the race. I believe both Republicans and Democrats have destroyed the U.S. economy and brought us to the edge of economic disaster. My vote will go to Libertarian Presidential candidate Gary Johnson in November, whom I believe has the most fiscally conservative track record of any Governor in modern U.S. political history. Without the bold spending cuts of a Gary Johnson or Ron Paul, I don’t believe it’s possible to turnaround America.

    But as an oddsmaker with a pretty remarkable track record of picking political races, I play no favorites. I simply use common sense to call them as I see them. Back in late December I released my New Years Predictions. I predicted back then- before a single GOP primary had been held, with Romney trailing for months to almost every GOP competitor from Rick Perry to Herman Cain to Newt- that Romney would easily rout his competition to win the GOP nomination by a landslide. I also predicted that the Presidential race between Obama and Romney would be very close until election day. But that on election day Romney would win by a landslide similar to Reagan-Carter in 1980.

    Understanding history, today I am even more convinced of a resounding Romney victory. 32 years ago at this moment in time, Reagan was losing by 9 points to Carter. Romney is right now running even in polls. So why do most pollsters give Obama the edge?

    First, most pollsters are missing one ingredient- common sense. Here is my gut instinct. Not one American who voted for McCain 4 years ago will switch to Obama. Not one in all the land. But many millions of people who voted for an unknown Obama 4 years ago are angry, disillusioned, turned off, or scared about the future. Voters know Obama now- and that is a bad harbinger.

    Now to an analysis of the voting blocks that matter in U.S. politics:

    *Black voters. Obama has nowhere to go but down among this group. His endorsement of gay marriage has alienated many black church-going Christians. He may get 88% of their vote instead of the 96% he got in 2008. This is not good news for Obama.

    *Hispanic voters. Obama has nowhere to go but down among this group. If Romney picks Rubio as his VP running-mate the GOP may pick up an extra 10% to 15% of Hispanic voters (plus lock down Florida). This is not good news for Obama.

    *Jewish voters. Obama has been weak in his support of Israel. Many Jewish voters and big donors are angry and disappointed. I predict Obama's Jewish support drops from 78% in 2008 to the low 60’s. This is not good news for Obama.

    *Youth voters. Obama’s biggest and most enthusiastic believers from 4 years ago have graduated into a job market from hell. Young people are disillusioned, frightened, and broke- a bad combination. The enthusiasm is long gone. Turnout will be much lower among young voters, as will actual voting percentages. This not good news for Obama.

    *Catholic voters. Obama won a majority of Catholics in 2008. That won’t happen again. Out of desperation to please women, Obama went to war with the Catholic Church over contraception. Now he is being sued by the Catholic Church. Majority lost. This is not good news for Obama.

    *Small Business owners. Because I ran for Vice President last time around, and I'm a small businessman myself, I know literally thousands of small business owners. At least 40% of them in my circle of friends, fans and supporters voted for Obama 4 years ago to “give someone different a chance.” I warned them that he would pursue a war on capitalism and demonize anyone who owned a business...that he’d support unions over the private sector in a big way...that he'd overwhelm the economy with spending and debt. My friends didn’t listen. Four years later, I can't find one person in my circle of small business owner friends voting for Obama. Not one. This is not good news for Obama.

    *Blue collar working class whites. Do I need to say a thing? White working class voters are about as happy with Obama as Boston Red Sox fans feel about the New York Yankees. This is not good news for Obama.

    *Suburban moms. The issue isn’t contraception…it’s having a job to pay for contraception. Obama’s economy frightens these moms. They are worried about putting food on the table. They fear for their children’s future. This is not good news for Obama.

    *Military Veterans. McCain won this group by 10 points. Romney is winning by 24 points. The more our military vets got to see of Obama, the more they disliked him. This is not good news for Obama.

    Add it up. Is there one major group where Obama has gained since 2008? Will anyone in America wake up on election day saying “I didn’t vote for Obama 4 years ago. But he’s done such a fantastic job, I can’t wait to vote for him today.” Does anyone feel that a vote for Obama makes their job more secure?

    Forget the polls. My gut instincts as a Vegas oddsmaker and common sense small businessman tell me this will be a historic landslide and a world-class repudiation of Obama’s radical and risky socialist agenda. It's Reagan-Carter all over again.

    But I’ll give Obama credit for one thing- he is living proof that familiarity breeds contempt."

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Site Meter