PDA

View Full Version : Oh YEA! ITS ON!



WVDolphan
10-03-2012, 11:05 PM
Its ON bitches!!!! This race is now wide open. Obama was straight up DESTROYED by Romney in this debate on basically each and every topic presented. Some great lines as Romney straight up bitch slapped Obama on several occasions. When Obama was talking about some completely nonsensical BS about businesses and taxes overseas and Romney hit him with....... "Ive been in business 25 years and I dont know what youre talking about." I LOST!!!! HARD!!!! :lol:


WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

Poors, get your work boots out. If you can find them that is. I know they have been stored away somewhere for over 3 years now. I know all of you are sweating your balls off now worried that Romney is going to put your asses back to work.

No longer will my working class Mrs. and I have to go shopping, spend almost one fifth of one of our paychecks on groceries for a couple of weeks and watch some lazy bum get the same amount of food for free. These people will be working and contributing to society, paying their share of taxes, instead of freeloading off us middle class folks. Its going to be great. In fact, I may not even have to set foot in WalMart myself anyway once Romney gets in. He should give me enough of a break that I can shop exclusively at Kroger.

Lets ****ing GO!!!!!!!!!

How bout Obama's face all night. Head down with that smirk as he took shot after shot on the ****ing chin. Great TV. That was better than watching the phins run it down the Faiders throats all day. Obama is the Faiders of the white house come to think of it. Worst president Ive ever seen and thats saying A LOT considering we had to look at W. for 8 years.

Someone needs to remind Obama that Romney is not Bush. Thats Obama's only defense before his pathetic performance. Blame everything on Bush and compare Romney to Bush. Its a joke. Obama also really needs to quit with comparing himself to Clinton. You sir are no Bill Clinton. Not even close.

Meantime Romney has been a beast in the business world for years and then turned Mass. around as Governor of that state. He is the man we need running things right now. FACT. :woot:

Spesh
10-03-2012, 11:20 PM
But we have to focus on the important issue: Would Romney draft Matt Ryan first overall?

Dolphins9954
10-03-2012, 11:20 PM
It's like cheering for the tallest midget in a contest to play center for our basketball team. At least Romney has the oompa tan look going for him.

WVDolphan
10-03-2012, 11:23 PM
But we have to focus on the important issue: Would Romney draft Matt Ryan first overall?

No question. Matty Ice at Boston College was critical to Romney's success as governor of Mass.

D0lphan72
10-03-2012, 11:26 PM
#Romney2012

JamesBW43
10-04-2012, 12:14 AM
The opinion that I keep seeing (and mostly agree with) is that Romney won because he was more aggressive and organized while the President was simply too docile, but nothing about winning on substance or argumentation. On that front, I think they were both equally weak.

The only thing I've seen so far regarding facts is that Romney's denial of the $5 trillion tax cut doesn't fly.

rob19
10-04-2012, 12:52 AM
WOOHOO GO TEAM!!

Only funny thing about that line is he's been practicing them on unlucky interns for the past couple months.

"Ive been in business 25 years and I dont know what youre talking about!"
".....would you like another coffee Mr. Romney?"

I'll start off by saying I didn't watch the debates as I don't care for either candidate, but hold on a second before you jizz your overalls about Romney's Utopian society, do you make over 250,000 thousand dollars a year? Unless you have 15 kids, I'm judging by your '1/5th of your paycheck on groceries' statement that you probably don't. If you do make more than 250,000k a year, that'd probably be the only reason to be excited about a Romney presidency.


On “60 Minutes” last night, Mitt Romney said it again. “I want to keep the current progressivity in the code. There should be no tax reduction for high income people.”


You’ve heard Romney say this — or some variant of it –dozens of times before. What’s changed since then is that Romney has admitted that his tax cuts, if they’re not going to add to the deficit, will have to increase taxes on people he defines as middle income and cut them on people he defines as high income.

Before we get to that admission, a quick refresher. Romney’s tax plan proposes to cut tax rates by 20 percent. That would cost trillions of dollars, and mean a particularly big tax cut for the rich.
But Romney promises his tax cut won’t cost anything, won’t raise taxes on the middle class, won’t cut taxes on the rich, and won’t end the tax breaks for savings and investment.

The Tax Policy Center, the gold standard in nonpartisan tax wonkery, looked at the tax cut and these promises and declared the proposal “not mathematically possible.” Since Romney doesn’t want to touch tax breaks for savings and investment like the capital gains cut — a position he reiterated last night on “60 Minutes” — there just isn’t enough money in the remaining tax breaks for people making over $250,000 to pay for their tax cuts.

For awhile, the Romney campaign had no answer to this. They just said they didn’t believe the Tax Policy Center — called it biased, even though it’s run by one of George W. Bush’s top economists.
Then, slowly, right-leaning economists and outlets began releasing their own studies showing that, if you made some really, really questionable assumptions, you could kinda sorta make Romney’s math look like it might add up. And so you might have heard Romney say this to David Gregory on “Meet the Press”:

The good news is that five different economic studies, including one at Harvard and Princeton and AEI and a couple
at The Wall Street Journal all show that if we bring down our top rates and actually go across the board, bring down rates for everyone in America, but also limit deductions and exemptions for people at the high end, while you can keep the progressivity in the code, you could remain revenue neutral and you create an enormous incentive for growth in the economy.

The Harvard study was done by economist Martin Feldstein, and he makes a very important decision in his paper. He writes, “I think it is very reasonable to say that people in that high-income group” — by which means people making over $100,000 — “are not the ‘middle class.’”

And so, under really, really unrealistic assumptions, he shows that the math can kind of work, but that Romney’s policies would mean a really big tax increase for people making between $100,000 and $250,000 in order to pay for a big tax cut on people making more than $250,000. But that’s okay, because people making over $100,000 are not in the middle class.

And Romney has been all over the place trumpeting this study, saying this study shows his math works out. But then ABC’s George Stephanopoulos caught him out:
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Is $100,000 middle income?

MITT ROMNEY: No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less.
For the record, I’m actually with Feldstein on this one: I think it’s reasonable to say households making more than $100,000 are not middle income. But Romney disagrees with me, and with Feldstein.

So the study Romney is promoting — the one he says is the study you should be looking at — actually shows even under the most favorable assumptions possible, he’s going to have to raise taxes on the people he defines as the middle class. In saying that that study is credible, he has admitted he can’t make his tax promises add up. And yet he constantly, repeatedly says the opposite.

Romney has clearly calculated that there aren’t many people who read these analyses. If he just keeps saying his tax plan can cut taxes on the rich while cutting taxes on the middle class while not cutting taxes on the rich while not costing a dime, eventually, his version of this will come to be seen as the truth. And perhaps he’s right. But the numbers show what they show.

Romney's top campaign contributors:
1. Goldman Sachs
2. JPMorgan Chase & Co.
3. Bank of America
4. Morgan Stanley
5. Credit Suisse Group
6. Citigroup Inc

He doesn't have your best interest at heart WV (neither does Obama really), he's going to make policy that favors government-deregulation of corporations (banks in particular), and is going to cut taxes on people who make over 250,000 dollars a year, forcing tax increases on everyone below that. I think it's pretty clear he's interested in making the rich richer, and the poor poorer (including yourself, because to Romney, he probably considers you a "poor" as well). So instead of your hard earned tax dollars going to poor people, it'll be going to one-tenth of one percent of the Countries richest citizens, I hope that sounds more appealing to you. Mitt paid 15% in federal taxes last year, you probably paid more. Mitt got a 75,000 dollar tax break last year for owning a Dressage horse, which is probably a better idea than giving kids student-loans to get an education.

Now, I know that "poor people living off the government socialist blah blah" rhetoric gives you guy's a rock-solid chubby, but I think you might have some misconceptions about the current state of wellfare, (which I agree could be better).


Washington (CNN) -- Welfare reform, which added a work requirement tied to welfare benefits, is often cited as a major bipartisan political success of President Bill Clinton's second term.
So the idea of the next Democratic president, Barack Obama, taking the work requirement off the table is political dynamite.

Apparently, the Romney campaign believes it is.
A Romney campaign ad titled "Welfare Reform," which came out earlier in August, says that's just what Obama did.
"On July 12, President Obama quietly ended the work requirement, gutting welfare reform. One of the most respected newspapers in the country called it 'nuts,' " the ad says.

"Under Obama's plan, you wouldn't have to work and you wouldn't have to train for a job," the ad continues. "They just send you your welfare check. And welfare to work goes back to being plain old welfare ..."
But the Obama campaign calls Romney's ad "nuts."
CNN's Fact-check agrees.

Clinton calls out 'disappointing' Romney ad
"Every single person here who's looked at it says it's patently false,"Obama said a news conference on Monday.
So where did the notion of a major welfare reform overhaul come from?

Where it didn't come from is Washington but rather from Utah, Nevada, California, Connecticut and Minnesota.
These states, some with Republican governors, asked the federal government for more flexibility in how they hand out welfare dollars. Their purpose was to spend less time on federal paperwork and more time experimenting with ways to connect welfare recipients with jobs.

The Obama administration cooperated, granting waivers to some states from some of the existing rules.
The waivers gave "those states some flexibility in how they manage their welfare rolls as long as it produced 20% increases in the number of people getting work."

In some small way, the waivers might change precisely how work is calculated but the essential goal of pushing welfare recipients to work -- something both Democrats and Republicans agreed to in the 1990s -- remains the same.

I also find it interesting that Romney wants to repeal the Dream Act when his father was born in a polygamist commune in Northern Mexico.


The governor said Romney will also have trouble attracting Latino voters, adding that it was ”kind of ironic given that his family came from a polygamy commune in Mexico, but then he’d have to talk about his family coming from a polygamy commune in Mexico, given the gender discrepancy.”

BOTH the candidates endorse the NDAA, & the fact that no one's talking about it blows my mind.

Romney is just as much George Bush as Bush ever was.
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/10/rsz_616_1348251015-1.jpg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1NBPaIL7BI&list=PL25ADD73EDD8771DC&index=61&feature=plpp_video

What probably rubs me the wrong way the most though is this clip; I won't ever vote for a soulless robot like that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vPK6q-PSSE

In conclusion, Obama’s a c*nt, & Romney’s a special kind of c*nt forged in the fires of Mount Doom.

overworkedirish
10-04-2012, 02:35 AM
Romney spoke about making federal agencies state-run. Great. Because state-run EPAs will DEFINITELY have the resources to defend state environmental issues from corporate giants with piles of money. :rolleyes2: (sarcasm) Piles, of course, that will get bigger with Romney's tax cuts.

overworkedirish
10-04-2012, 02:38 AM
Poors, get your work boots out. If you can find them that is. I know they have been stored away somewhere for over 3 years now. I know all of you are sweating your balls off now worried that Romney is going to put your asses back to work.

No longer will my working class Mrs. and I have to go shopping, spend almost one fifth of one of our paychecks on groceries for a couple of weeks and watch some lazy bum get the same amount of food for free. These people will be working and contributing to society, paying their share of taxes, instead of freeloading off us middle class folks. Its going to be great. In fact, I may not even have to set foot in WalMart myself anyway once Romney gets in. He should give me enough of a break that I can shop exclusively at Kroger.

Your ignorance baffles me.

WVDolphan
10-04-2012, 09:16 AM
Rob, bro, just smoke your weed and chill. None of this will effect you. Unless of course you get the Obama phone. You may lose that. Im sure your weed hookup is within walking distance though so its all good for you. Let the adults with jobs sort this out.

Vaark
10-04-2012, 09:46 AM
Romney, 25 years of acquiring, bloodletting companies, cutting labor costs to the bone in order to flip them for profit.. and/or shipping jobs offshore (as well as his wealth from these misadventures to tax shelters). But yes, it looked last night like it was Obama who was wearing the too-tight magic underwear.

Spesh
10-04-2012, 10:37 AM
Rob, bro, just smoke your weed and chill. None of this will effect you. Unless of course you get the Obama phone. You may lose that. Im sure your weed hookup is within walking distance though so its all good for you. Let the adults with jobs sort this out.

Romney's going to have to up his game to beat Obama and his phone.

Economy and foreign issues? Screw it, i want the Romney flat screen. Bitch better be a Sharp or ill vote Gary Johnson out of spite. And none of that 3D crap.

COphinphan89
10-04-2012, 11:14 AM
I would love to hear Dovahkiin's spin on this.

Dovahkiin
10-04-2012, 11:31 AM
I would love to hear Dovahkiin's spin on this.

Mitt Romney verbally abused Obuma last night! I was up off of my couch celebrating like I was watching a football game. I strolled into my office this morning walking with a limp because my wallet felt a tad bit heavier than usual. Even high fived my secretary.

**** BIG BIRD!

Buddy
10-04-2012, 01:18 PM
Romney, 25 years of acquiring, bloodletting companies, cutting labor costs to the bone in order to flip them for profit.. and/or shipping jobs offshore (as well as his wealth from these misadventures to tax shelters). But yes, it looked last night like it was Obama who was wearing the too-tight magic underwear.

Yeah, that is capitalism, my friend. Despite all the liberal union rhetoric, jobs do not exist because someone is there to fill it. They exist because someone invested money and has a need for a skill set. People do not start or grow businesses to see how many people they can employ, they start or grow them to make a profit. Part of making a profit is filling your necessary labor with the best balance of cost and skill. Labor is often a company's greatest ongoing cost. If the domestic labor market is too expensive or under skilled then the jobs will move offshore or businesses will fail. That is why it is critical to create the best possible business environment here in the US as possible...it keeps the money and jobs here.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Statler Waldorf
10-04-2012, 02:40 PM
The opinion that I keep seeing (and mostly agree with) is that Romney won because he was more aggressive and organized while the President was simply too docile, but nothing about winning on substance or argumentation. On that front, I think they were both equally weak.

The only thing I've seen so far regarding facts is that Romney's denial of the $5 trillion tax cut doesn't fly.

I find it hilarious that Obama supporters would have the audacity to whine about being beat by style rather than substance. The only reason Obama ever was elected in the first place was because of style and not substance. Fact check also found that Obama’s “tax cuts for shipping jobs overseas” claim was factually untrue, so I guess that knife cuts both ways. I have watched hundreds of debates, and I have never seen a blowout like this one, from start to finish it wasn’t even close.

Ilovemyfins4eva
10-04-2012, 02:44 PM
I find it hilarious that Obama supporters would have the audacity to whine about being beat by style rather than substance. The only reason Obama ever was elected in the first place was because of style and not substance. Fact check also found that Obama’s “tax cuts for shipping jobs overseas” claim was factually untrue, so I guess that knife cuts both ways. I have watched hundreds of debates, and I have never seen a blowout like this one, from start to finish it wasn’t even close.
when people on msnbc like chris matthews who maybe the biggest obama supporter out there are conceding that romney won the debate last night u know it wasn't close because it would take a lot ( such as last night) to concede that.

romney still has along way to go to win this election and is still an underdog, but last night was deff a positive for him and a big negative for obama.

Statler Waldorf
10-04-2012, 03:02 PM
when people on msnbc like chris matthews who maybe the biggest obama supporter out there are conceding that romney won the debate last night u know it wasn't close because it would take a lot ( such as last night) to concede that.

romney still has along way to go to win this election and is still an underdog, but last night was deff a positive for him and a big negative for obama.

Yes I completely agree, I even told my best friend before the debate, “Romney could kill this thing and the media would never admit he actually won.” I was happy to be wrong though; I guess when you kill it that badly even the media is forced to concede it. I am not convinced he’s the underdog though, undecided voters historically always break for the challenger nearly 100 percent; that would put Romney up 53-47 on Obama as we speak, and I don’t even think it will end up being that close because Republicans historically out perform their polling (Reagan was down by 8 points to Carter at this point and that election was not even close).

Eshlemon
10-04-2012, 03:05 PM
The opinion that I keep seeing (and mostly agree with) is that Romney won because he was more aggressive and organized while the President was simply too docile, but nothing about winning on substance or argumentation. On that front, I think they were both equally weak.

The only thing I've seen so far regarding facts is that Romney's denial of the $5 trillion tax cut doesn't fly.

Would say Obama thought he was going to win just by coming out and lacing them up and seemed like he thought the game is won and playing prevent defense. Expect that won't be the case next debate and Romney better not get complacent.

The 5 trillion is mostly fiction...from Obama. Many of the other stuff is the same old same old, especially regarding healthcare, whether Obamacare cut 700 billion in medicare or 20 million lose insurance or Ryancare cost seniors $6000 and end medicare. Others tend to be exagerated or misses on the numbers with jist of the statments right...not surprising given the tremendous amount of numbers and stats being thrown around by the candidates.

Fact Checking the Presidential Debate in Denver
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/fact-checking-the-presidential-debate-in-denver/

Ilovemyfins4eva
10-04-2012, 03:11 PM
Yes I completely agree, I even told my best friend before the debate, “Romney could kill this thing and the media would never admit he actually won.” I was happy to be wrong though; I guess when you kill it that badly even the media is forced to concede it. I am not convinced he’s the underdog though, undecided voters historically always break for the challenger nearly 100 percent; that would put Romney up 53-47 on Obama as we speak, and I don’t even think it will end up being that close because Republicans historically out perform their polling (Reagan was down by 8 points to Carter at this point and that election was not even close). i hope
your right man, but its going to take a lot more to win. trust me though, i will be just as happy as u if obama is out of office come jan.

looking forward to the final 2 debates, and especially next week ryan vs biden, that should be entertaining.

Dolphins9954
10-04-2012, 03:11 PM
There were no winners in last nights debate, only losers, the American people and the Constitution.

Statler Waldorf
10-04-2012, 03:17 PM
i hope
your right man, but its going to take a lot more to win. trust me though, i will be just as happy as u if obama is out of office come jan.

looking forward to the final 2 debates, and especially next week ryan vs biden, that should be entertaining.

I am just going off of what has historically taken place in these elections; the incumbent never wins if he’s polling below 50 percent. However, I completely agree with you, it will be tough because we can’t underestimate just how vicious the Obama campaign can be once they realize they’re in trouble. We’re going to see all kinds of fictional wars on woman and gays, and how Republicans hate old people and want to go back to the days of segregation…blah…blah…blah. Fortunately, I think the American voting public isn’t going to buy any of that, all they know is that the economy is horrible and has been horrible for Obama’s entire presidency. The last person I would want to be right now (besides Mark Sanchez) is Joe Biden, his friend just laid an egg in a debate and now there is more pressure for him to do well against Paul Ryan, and everyone knows that Ryan is as sharp as they come when it comes to the economy. Gaff alert!

nick1
10-04-2012, 03:17 PM
Romney won yes but did so by changing his whole stance on viturally everything, Obama just didnt call him out on it. I definitely cant vote for Romney what the hell is this guy standing for? he does not want to cut taxes for the rich? thats a different stance then the one he has already given for the past year. he does not want to cut education? thats new. how the heck can this guy oppose the simpson bowles? hes an idiot

Vertical Limit
10-04-2012, 03:21 PM
There were no winners in last nights debate, only losers, the American people and the Constitution.

Yawn. :rolleyes2: Your crowd has been repeating the same bull**** ever since Americans were allowed to vote.

Statler Waldorf
10-04-2012, 03:24 PM
I definitely cant vote for Romney what the hell is this guy standing for?

…but you can vote for Obama? Was Obama for traditional marriage when he was elected? Is he for traditional marriage now? Was Obama for shutting down Gitmo when he was elected? Is he for shutting it down now? Obama said you never want to raise taxes during economic downturn, but now he wants to raise taxes during economic downturn? The man’s a political chameleon.


he does not want to cut taxes for the rich? thats a different stance then the one he has already given for the past year.

He wants to cut their rates but not the share they end up paying, that’s the same position he’s had for the last year.


he does not want to cut education? thats new. how the heck can this guy oppose the simpson bowles? hes an idiot

I guess when you’re out of good ideas just personally attack the man; the game plan of the left.

Dovahkiin
10-04-2012, 03:30 PM
There were no winners in last nights debate, only losers, the American people and the Constitution.

Pretty positive that I won last night. Cheers to future business ventures, my friend!

nick1
10-04-2012, 03:36 PM
when did I personally attack him by calling him an idiot because of a stucturely sound plan to erase the deficit which he opposes which paul ryan himself supported, except for when its more convenient not too? yea Im guilty for attacking his lack of support

nick1
10-04-2012, 03:40 PM
and let me ask you about this tax plan, the same one you say wont cut their share? that doesnt check out

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/08/romneys-impossible-tax-promise/

---------- Post added at 03:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:39 PM ----------

sounds nice on the surface but thats not your plan governor

nick1
10-04-2012, 03:42 PM
furthermore how did Obama raise taxes again? certainly not on the middle class which if you were paying attention 4 years ago he promised not to raise taxes on the middle class. which checks out

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/28/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-taxes-families-are-their-lowest-/

Locke
10-04-2012, 03:50 PM
Oh, of course Statler would be a staunch partisan evangelical. Great, and I thought his shtick was confined to the religion forum...

Dolphins9954
10-04-2012, 03:53 PM
Yawn. :rolleyes2: Your crowd has been repeating the same bull**** ever since Americans were allowed to vote.

Both these guys don't have our interests at heart and especially can't stand our liberties.

JackFinfan
10-04-2012, 03:54 PM
He wants to cut their rates but not the share they end up paying, that’s the same position he’s had for the last year.


His position is that he'll cut the rates, but to make it revenue neutral he'll also get rid of deductions. Which as a public accountant I find hilarious because rich people don't get those deductions anyway. Those deductions get phased out for people in the high brackets. So basically he's saying that he'll cut the tax rates for the rich, and the middle class won't get deductions (middle class tax hike). That would be bad enough, but to make it even worse, there is no way that taking away deductions would even come close to offsetting the rate cuts he wants to put in place.

Cutting the rates but not the share they end up paying is code for tax cuts for the rich and tax hikes for the middle class and it's a lie.

rob19
10-04-2012, 04:09 PM
Rob, bro, just smoke your weed and chill. None of this will effect you. Unless of course you get the Obama phone. You may lose that. Im sure your weed hookup is within walking distance though so its all good for you. Let the adults with jobs sort this out.

"I'm immune to facts and reasoning"

rob19
10-04-2012, 04:55 PM
Yawn. :rolleyes2: Your crowd has been repeating the same bull**** ever since Americans were allowed to vote.

He's right at least to some degree. NDAA is proof-positive. Last time I checked Due Process of Law was a basic constitutional right.

JamesBW43
10-04-2012, 05:36 PM
Would say Obama thought he was going to win just by coming out and lacing them up and seemed like he thought the game is won and playing prevent defense. Expect that won't be the case next debate and Romney better not get complacent.

The 5 trillion is mostly fiction...from Obama. Many of the other stuff is the same old same old, especially regarding healthcare, whether Obamacare cut 700 billion in medicare or 20 million lose insurance or Ryancare cost seniors $6000 and end medicare. Others tend to be exagerated or misses on the numbers with jist of the statments right...not surprising given the tremendous amount of numbers and stats being thrown around by the candidates.

Fact Checking the Presidential Debate in Denver
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/fact-checking-the-presidential-debate-in-denver/

I read and saw different sources say that Governor Romney's tax proposals amount to $4.8 trillion in cuts. The only thing anyone seems to say in defense of the contrary is that the Governor keeps saying his proposal will eventually be revenue neutral, but he hasn't given any specifics on what he'd cut.

I don't quite understand how anyone can consider that an acceptable position.

Statler Waldorf
10-04-2012, 05:38 PM
when did I personally attack him by calling him an idiot

Is this a serious question? :-P


furthermore how did Obama raise taxes again? certainly not on the middle class which if you were paying attention 4 years ago he promised not to raise taxes on the middle class. which checks out

Obamacare raises taxes on millions of Americans who are in the middle class, so he broke that promise along with many others (cutting the deficit in half, closing Gitmo, ending military tribunals, unemployment never going over 8 percent, and the list goes on and on and on).


Oh, of course Statler would be a staunch partisan evangelical.

I see you are not any more well informed today as you were weeks ago, I am not an evangelical .


His position is that he'll cut the rates, but to make it revenue neutral he'll also get rid of deductions. Which as a public accountant I find hilarious because rich people don't get those deductions anyway. Those deductions get phased out for people in the high brackets. So basically he's saying that he'll cut the tax rates for the rich, and the middle class won't get deductions (middle class tax hike). That would be bad enough, but to make it even worse, there is no way that taking away deductions would even come close to offsetting the rate cuts he wants to put in place.

That’s just factually incorrect; the wealthy are able to take advantage of numerous tax loopholes that will be closed by Romney. How’s Obama tax plan working out for you? :-P

JamesBW43
10-04-2012, 05:40 PM
I find it hilarious that Obama supporters would have the audacity to whine about being beat by style rather than substance. The only reason Obama ever was elected in the first place was because of style and not substance. Fact check also found that Obama’s “tax cuts for shipping jobs overseas” claim was factually untrue, so I guess that knife cuts both ways. I have watched hundreds of debates, and I have never seen a blowout like this one, from start to finish it wasn’t even close.

I don't recall saying that I thought the President brought any substance to the table, or that I supported him.

Statler Waldorf
10-04-2012, 05:54 PM
I don't recall saying that I thought the President brought any substance to the table, or that I supported him.

You didn’t have to, you always running to his defense is pretty telling of whom you support.

rob19
10-04-2012, 06:01 PM
That’s just factually incorrect; the wealthy are able to take advantage of numerous tax loopholes that will be closed by Romney. How’s Obama tax plan working out for you? :-P

Like the one's he's currently using to only pay 15% in federal taxes? Or maybe you're referring to tax loopholes like a 75,000 tax break for owning a Dressage horse?

Roman529
10-04-2012, 06:08 PM
I don't know how anyone could vote for Obama after witnessing the beat down Romney gave to him. It was like a seasoned Professor educating a freshman college student (Obama) on the basic fundamentals of business and economics. Without a teleprompter Obama is totally lost and clueless.

JamesBW43
10-04-2012, 06:11 PM
You didn’t have to, you always running to his defense is pretty telling of whom you support.

I don't always defend the President. I do, however, defend him when I see a criticism that I think is unwarranted, ignorant, or stupid.

Maybe you should concentrate on improving your grammar before you try your hand at deductive reasoning.

Roman529
10-04-2012, 06:14 PM
Like the one's he's currently using to only pay 15% in federal taxes? Or maybe you're referring to tax loopholes like a 75,000 tax break for owning a Dressage horse?

What you don't understand is A) Romney already paid taxes on INCOME he earned, he is paying 15% on his capital gains and dividends on investments, and this is the same amount everyone else pays on capital gains, and B) Romney doesn't make the tax laws... he isn't doing anything illegal.

Ilovemyfins4eva
10-04-2012, 06:18 PM
I don't know how anyone could vote for Obama after witnessing the beat down Romney gave to him. It was like a seasoned Professor educating a freshman college student (Obama) on the basic fundamentals of business and economics. Without a teleprompter Obama is totally lost and clueless.this is totally true, he maybe able to speak well with a teleprompter, but without it, he looks clueless, stuttering constantly

Spesh
10-04-2012, 06:21 PM
What you don't understand is A) Romney already paid taxes on INCOME he earned, he is paying 15% on his capital gains and dividends on investments, and this is the same amount everyone else pays on capital gains, and B) Romney doesn't make the tax laws... he isn't doing anything illegal.

You realize nobody has accused Romney of doing anything illegal, right?

rob19
10-04-2012, 06:22 PM
What you don't understand is A) Romney already paid taxes on INCOME he earned, he is paying 15% on his capital gains and dividends on investments, and this is the same amount everyone else pays on capital gains, and B) Romney doesn't make the tax laws... he isn't doing anything illegal.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Mitt Romney made $13.7 million last year and paid $1.94 million in federal income taxes, giving him an effective tax rate of 14.1%, his campaign said Friday.
His effective tax rate was up slightly from the 13.9% ratehe paid in 2010 (http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/24/news/economy/Romney_tax_return/index.htm?iid=EL).

The majority of the candidate's income came from his investments.
His 2011 income was considerably lower than the $21 million estimated by the campaign in February.

The majority of the candidate's income last year came from his investments: capital gains ($6.8 million), taxable interest ($3 million) and dividends ($3.7 million).
In addition, Romney reported $450,470 in business income.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/21/pf/taxes/romney-tax-return/index.html

- I never said what he did was illegal, but if you guys are going to believe Mitt Romney is going to close the very same tax-holes he's currently using then good luck to you.

CattailsrEdible
10-04-2012, 06:22 PM
Romney kicked osamas butt last nite!

Sent From My EVO 4G LTE!

Dolphins9954
10-04-2012, 06:55 PM
Romney makes his money from investments. Which is why his tax rate is lower around 15%. Raise that rate to 30% or more like everyone else pays on income and what do you think will happen to investments in this country??? Not a fan of Romney at all but I do believe lower tax investment rates are good for the country.

WVDolphan
10-04-2012, 07:22 PM
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Mitt Romney made $13.7 million last year and paid $1.94 million in federal income taxes, giving him an effective tax rate of 14.1%, his campaign said Friday.
His effective tax rate was up slightly from the 13.9% ratehe paid in 2010 (http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/24/news/economy/Romney_tax_return/index.htm?iid=EL).

The majority of the candidate's income came from his investments.
His 2011 income was considerably lower than the $21 million estimated by the campaign in February.

The majority of the candidate's income last year came from his investments: capital gains ($6.8 million), taxable interest ($3 million) and dividends ($3.7 million).
In addition, Romney reported $450,470 in business income.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/21/pf/taxes/romney-tax-return/index.html

- I never said what he did was illegal, but if you guys are going to believe Mitt Romney is going to close the very same tax-holes he's currently using then good luck to you.



No one believes he is going to do anything to fix the loopholes. What do a lot of people not understand about the fact that most of us simply DO NOT CARE about making these ultra rich people pay every last penny they possibly can on taxes?

Facts are this......

Ultra rich wind up paying a **** ton of taxes as it is.

If we want to bring in more money through taxes, we need more people WORKING and therefore paying their share.

When people work and pay taxes, they are contributing to society in two ways(paying taxes and working a job that does something for people)

When people are working and paying taxes, they ARE NOT being dependants.

When people are dependants, they are taking tax money from the people who are working. Less workers and more people mooching puts a huge strain on us.

When business owners arent taxed to death, they can hire more workers.

When they hire more workers, more people work and pay taxes.

Everybody wins. Especially the working class. The ones Obama pretends to care about. Obama cares about the ****ing poors. He gives them free everything. They have no desire to work, because what they hell, they can sit on their sorry ass and make about 60% of what working people make.

The people who dont want these tax breaks for small business owners and middle class people are the sorry ****ing bums who dont want to go to work. Im tired of floating the bill for these dependants.

Dolphins9954
10-04-2012, 07:22 PM
Romney kicked osamas butt last nite!

Sent From My EVO 4G LTE!

The only reason why I didn't give you a negative is because you have Lauren doggie style as your sig. On man I would dig some tunnels with her.

rob19
10-04-2012, 07:25 PM
The people who dont want these tax breaks for small business owners and middle class people are the sorry ****ing bums who dont want to go to work. Im tired of floating the bill for these dependants.

Ain't no tax-break for the middle class coming for you.

I don't know where some of you guys get the notion that Mitt Romney's gonna "crack down on taxing rich people", when he plans on giving people with an income above 250,000 dollars a tax-break, and to do that he has to increase taxes on everyone below that. He's said he won't have to raise taxes on people below 250,000, but the numbers show that isn't mathematically feasible.


On “60 Minutes” last night, Mitt Romney said it again. “I want to keep the current progressivity in the code. There should be no tax reduction for high income people.”

You’ve heard Romney say this — or some variant of it –dozens of times before. What’s changed since then is that Romney has admitted that his tax cuts, if they’re not going to add to the deficit, will have to increase taxes on people he defines as middle income and cut them on people he defines as high income.

Before we get to that admission, a quick refresher. Romney’s tax plan proposes to cut tax rates by 20 percent. That would cost trillions of dollars, and mean a particularly big tax cut for the rich.

But Romney promises his tax cut won’t cost anything, won’t raise taxes on the middle class, won’t cut taxes on the rich, and won’t end the tax breaks for savings and investment.

The Tax Policy Center, the gold standard in nonpartisan tax wonkery, looked at the tax cut and these promises and declared the proposal “not mathematically possible.” Since Romney doesn’t want to touch tax breaks for savings and investment like the capital gains cut — a position he reiterated last night on “60 Minutes” — there just isn’t enough money in the remaining tax breaks for people making over $250,000 to pay for their tax cuts.

For awhile, the Romney campaign had no answer to this. They just said they didn’t believe the Tax Policy Center — called it biased, even though it’s run by one of George W. Bush’s top economists.

Then, slowly, right-leaning economists and outlets began releasing their own studies showing that, if you made some really, really questionable assumptions, you could kinda sorta make Romney’s math look like it might add up. And so you might have heard Romney say this to David Gregory on “Meet the Press”:

The good news is that five different economic studies, including one at Harvard and Princeton and AEI and a couple at The Wall Street Journal all show that if we bring down our top rates and actually go across the board, bring down rates for everyone in America, but also limit deductions and exemptions for people at the high end, while you can keep the progressivity in the code, you could remain revenue neutral and you create an enormous incentive for growth in the economy.

The Harvard study was done by economist Martin Feldstein, and he makes a very important decision in his paper. He writes, “I think it is very reasonable to say that people in that high-income group” — by which means people making over $100,000 — “are not the ‘middle class.’”

And so, under really, really unrealistic assumptions, he shows that the math can kind of work, but that Romney’s policies would mean a really big tax increase for people making between $100,000 and $250,000 in order to pay for a big tax cut on people making more than $250,000. But that’s okay, because people making over $100,000 are not in the middle class.

And Romney has been all over the place trumpeting this study, saying this study shows his math works out. But then ABC’s George Stephanopoulos caught him out:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Is $100,000 middle income?

MITT ROMNEY: No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less.

For the record, I’m actually with Feldstein on this one: I think it’s reasonable to say households making more than $100,000 are not middle income. But Romney disagrees with me, and with Feldstein.

So the study Romney is promoting — the one he says is the study you should be looking at — actually shows even under the most favorable assumptions possible, he’s going to have to raise taxes on the people he defines as the middle class. In saying that that study is credible, he has admitted he can’t make his tax promises add up. And yet he constantly, repeatedly says the opposite.

Romney has clearly calculated that there aren’t many people who read these analyses. If he just keeps saying his tax plan can cut taxes on the rich while cutting taxes on the middle class while not cutting taxes on the rich while not costing a dime, eventually, his version of this will come to be seen as the truth. And perhaps he’s right. But the numbers show what they show.

rob19
10-04-2012, 07:28 PM
Obama cares about the ****ing poors. He gives them free everything. They have no desire to work, because what they hell, they can sit on their sorry ass and make about 60% of what working people make.

Source

Spesh
10-04-2012, 07:38 PM
Ain't no tax-break for the middle class coming for you.

I don't know where some of you guys get the notion that Mitt Romney's gonna "crack down on taxing rich people", when he plans on giving people with an income above 250,000 dollars a tax-break, and to do that he has to increase taxes on everyone below that. He's said he won't have to raise taxes on people below 250,000, but the numbers show that isn't mathematically feasible.


Numbers are hiding in an offshore bank account. He'll let us know them after the election.

Thread has brought good laffs, keep it going. And i think i know how:

Solyndra.

JamesBW43
10-04-2012, 07:38 PM
No one believes he is going to do anything to fix the loopholes. What do a lot of people not understand about the fact that most of us simply DO NOT CARE about making these ultra rich people pay every last penny they possibly can on taxes?

Facts are this......

Ultra rich wind up paying a **** ton of taxes as it is.

If we want to bring in more money through taxes, we need more people WORKING and therefore paying their share.

When people work and pay taxes, they are contributing to society in two ways(paying taxes and working a job that does something for people)

When people are working and paying taxes, they ARE NOT being dependants.

When people are dependants, they are taking tax money from the people who are working. Less workers and more people mooching puts a huge strain on us.

When business owners arent taxed to death, they can hire more workers.

When they hire more workers, more people work and pay taxes.

Everybody wins. Especially the working class. The ones Obama pretends to care about. Obama cares about the ****ing poors. He gives them free everything. They have no desire to work, because what they hell, they can sit on their sorry ass and make about 60% of what working people make.

The people who dont want these tax breaks for small business owners and middle class people are the sorry ****ing bums who dont want to go to work. Im tired of floating the bill for these dependants.

**** ton of taxes is relative. To us, it's a **** ton, but as a percentage of their total wealth, the ultra rich typically pay less than the average.

Higher taxes and lower unemployment are not mutually exclusive. It greatly depends on circumstances. For example, corporations are currently sitting on plenty of capital, but they are choosing not to do anything with it right now. An increase in taxes for them right now is unlikely to affect employment. On the other hand, because demand is still low, an increase in taxes on people with low disposable income or on struggling small businesses could very likely affect employment.

TheWalrus
10-04-2012, 07:38 PM
No one believes he is going to do anything to fix the loopholes. What do a lot of people not understand about the fact that most of us simply DO NOT CARE about making these ultra rich people pay every last penny they possibly can on taxes?

Facts are this......

Ultra rich wind up paying a **** ton of taxes as it is.

If we want to bring in more money through taxes, we need more people WORKING and therefore paying their share.

When people work and pay taxes, they are contributing to society in two ways(paying taxes and working a job that does something for people)

When people are working and paying taxes, they ARE NOT being dependants.

When people are dependants, they are taking tax money from the people who are working. Less workers and more people mooching puts a huge strain on us.

When business owners arent taxed to death, they can hire more workers.

When they hire more workers, more people work and pay taxes.

Everybody wins. Especially the working class. The ones Obama pretends to care about. Obama cares about the ****ing poors. He gives them free everything. They have no desire to work, because what they hell, they can sit on their sorry ass and make about 60% of what working people make.

The people who dont want these tax breaks for small business owners and middle class people are the sorry ****ing bums who dont want to go to work. Im tired of floating the bill for these dependants.

A whole bunch of bull**** from a professional poker player who admits he only works "when I have to".

Here's a few choice quotes from a post WV made in the AM thread (smileys his):

http://www.finheaven.com/forums/showthread.php?240523-AM-Crew-The-Best-Damn-BIBLICAL-Thread-on-the-Interwebz&p=1064444490&highlight=#post1064444490


Nevertheless, the two previous years I made almost exactly the amount of money playing poker as I did teaching full time last year. (Tax free though...SHHHH) :lol:


Past 4 years..... Years one and two I hardly worked at all. I only went bust once the year before last. I worked a total of 4 days the entire school year. :lol:


Its a tough grind but it all beats the hell out of working a regular job.

I mean, are you ****ing kidding me? GTFO, seriously.

Statler Waldorf
10-04-2012, 07:40 PM
Like the one's he's currently using to only pay 15% in federal taxes? Or maybe you're referring to tax loopholes like a 75,000 tax break for owning a Dressage horse?

The first one is not a tax loophole, it's a tax rate. I think the capital gains tax should be zero percent because that money was already taxed as an income, no double taxation.


I don't always defend the President. I do, however, defend him when I see a criticism that I think is unwarranted, ignorant, or stupid.

Well apparently you think all criticisms of the president qualify as such, you’re an Obama fanboy, everyone knows it.


Maybe you should concentrate on improving your grammar before you try your hand at deductive reasoning.

There’s nothing wrong with writing in the passive voice, and your arguments are based on INDCUCTIVE reasoning, not deductive reasoning; read a textbook for once.


You realize nobody has accused Romney of doing anything illegal, right?

Nobody? Really?

““Either Mitt Romney (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/mitt-romney/), through his own words and his own signature, was misrepresenting his position at Bain (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/bain-capital/) [Capital] to the SEC (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/united-states-securities-and-exchange-commission/), which is a felony, or he misrepresented his position to the public.” - Stephanie Cutler, Obama’s deputy campaign manager

Classy…


Point is I don't know where some of you guys get the notion that Mitt Romney's gonna "crack down on taxing rich people",

What on Earth makes you think he should? Increasing taxes on the job creators in America is the worst way to create jobs, I have never worked for a low income person and I never will; I have worked for many “wealthy” people though.

WVDolphan
10-04-2012, 07:44 PM
Source[/COLOR]

Wal Mart. Go there. Ask the poors how much easier it is to get their checks and stamps while not working under Obama. Ask them who they are voting for. The answer is the guy who will continue to not make them go to work in order to keep a roof over their heads, plenty of free food, and enough cash to buy cases of cheap beer and blunts. Oh... and throw in a free cell phone.

rob19
10-04-2012, 07:45 PM
Nobody? Really?

““Either Mitt Romney (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/mitt-romney/), through his own words and his own signature, was misrepresenting his position at Bain (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/bain-capital/) [Capital] to the SEC (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/united-states-securities-and-exchange-commission/), which is a felony, or he misrepresented his position to the public.” - Stephanie Cutler, Obama’s deputy campaign manager

Classy…

So which was it? Which of them was he lying to?


What on Earth makes you think he should? Increasing taxes on the job creators in America is the worst way to create jobs, I have never worked for a low income person and I never will; I have worked for many “wealthy” people though.

You realize the tax-breaks he's giving to people above the 250,000 bracket will increase YOUR taxes, correct?

rob19
10-04-2012, 07:47 PM
Wal Mart. Go there. Ask the poors how much easier it is to get their checks and stamps while not working under Obama. Ask them who they are voting for. The answer is the guy who will continue to not make them go to work in order to keep a roof over their heads, plenty of free food, and enough cash to buy cases of cheap beer and blunts. Oh... and throw in a free cell phone.


Washington (CNN) -- Welfare reform, which added a work requirement tied to welfare benefits, is often cited as a major bipartisan political success of President Bill Clinton's second term.
So the idea of the next Democratic president, Barack Obama, taking the work requirement off the table is political dynamite.

Apparently, the Romney campaign believes it is.
A Romney campaign ad titled "Welfare Reform," which came out earlier in August, says that's just what Obama did.
"On July 12, President Obama quietly ended the work requirement, gutting welfare reform. One of the most respected newspapers in the country called it 'nuts,' " the ad says.

"Under Obama's plan, you wouldn't have to work and you wouldn't have to train for a job," the ad continues. "They just send you your welfare check. And welfare to work goes back to being plain old welfare ..."
But the Obama campaign calls Romney's ad "nuts."
CNN's Fact-check agrees.

Clinton calls out 'disappointing' Romney ad
"Every single person here who's looked at it says it's patently false,"Obama said a news conference on Monday.
So where did the notion of a major welfare reform overhaul come from?

Where it didn't come from is Washington but rather from Utah, Nevada, California, Connecticut and Minnesota.
These states, some with Republican governors, asked the federal government for more flexibility in how they hand out welfare dollars. Their purpose was to spend less time on federal paperwork and more time experimenting with ways to connect welfare recipients with jobs.

The Obama administration cooperated, granting waivers to some states from some of the existing rules.
The waivers gave "those states some flexibility in how they manage their welfare rolls as long as it produced 20% increases in the number of people getting work."

In some small way, the waivers might change precisely how work is calculated but the essential goal of pushing welfare recipients to work -- something both Democrats and Republicans agreed to in the 1990s -- remains the same.

.

WVDolphan
10-04-2012, 07:48 PM
A whole bunch of bull**** from a professional poker player who admits he only works "when I have to".

Here's a few choice quotes from a post WV made in the AM thread (smileys his):

http://www.finheaven.com/forums/showthread.php?240523-AM-Crew-The-Best-Damn-BIBLICAL-Thread-on-the-Interwebz&p=1064444490&highlight=#post1064444490







I mean, are you ****ing kidding me? GTFO, seriously.

Hey bro, I earn my money through the skills I was fortunate to have and developed.

Also, I need coal to start dominating again. One of my best group of customers is coal miners with excess money. Less and less of them are showing up. Obama is killing the coal industry for these green movement BS.

Statler Waldorf
10-04-2012, 07:48 PM
So which was it? Which of them was he lying to?

Neither, Cutler set up a false dichotomy. Logic is not the Obama camp’s strong suit, emotionalism is.


You realize the tax-breaks he's giving to people above the 250,000 bracket will increase YOUR taxes, correct?

Nope, my tax rate will stay the same. They will however create jobs which will bring more workers into the tax pool and thus increase revenue, it always works.

rob19
10-04-2012, 07:51 PM
Nope, my tax rate will stay the same. They will however create jobs which will bring more workers into the tax pool and thus increase revenue, it always works.

Nope, it won't.


On “60 Minutes” last night, Mitt Romney said it again. “I want to keep the current progressivity in the code. There should be no tax reduction for high income people.”

You’ve heard Romney say this — or some variant of it –dozens of times before. What’s changed since then is that Romney has admitted that his tax cuts, if they’re not going to add to the deficit, will have to increase taxes on people he defines as middle income and cut them on people he defines as high income.

Before we get to that admission, a quick refresher. Romney’s tax plan proposes to cut tax rates by 20 percent. That would cost trillions of dollars, and mean a particularly big tax cut for the rich.

But Romney promises his tax cut won’t cost anything, won’t raise taxes on the middle class, won’t cut taxes on the rich, and won’t end the tax breaks for savings and investment.

The Tax Policy Center, the gold standard in nonpartisan tax wonkery, looked at the tax cut and these promises and declared the proposal “not mathematically possible.” Since Romney doesn’t want to touch tax breaks for savings and investment like the capital gains cut — a position he reiterated last night on “60 Minutes” — there just isn’t enough money in the remaining tax breaks for people making over $250,000 to pay for their tax cuts.

For awhile, the Romney campaign had no answer to this. They just said they didn’t believe the Tax Policy Center — called it biased, even though it’s run by one of George W. Bush’s top economists.

Then, slowly, right-leaning economists and outlets began releasing their own studies showing that, if you made some really, really questionable assumptions, you could kinda sorta make Romney’s math look like it might add up. And so you might have heard Romney say this to David Gregory on “Meet the Press”:

The good news is that five different economic studies, including one at Harvard and Princeton and AEI and a couple at The Wall Street Journal all show that if we bring down our top rates and actually go across the board, bring down rates for everyone in America, but also limit deductions and exemptions for people at the high end, while you can keep the progressivity in the code, you could remain revenue neutral and you create an enormous incentive for growth in the economy.

The Harvard study was done by economist Martin Feldstein, and he makes a very important decision in his paper. He writes, “I think it is very reasonable to say that people in that high-income group” — by which means people making over $100,000 — “are not the ‘middle class.’”

And so, under really, really unrealistic assumptions, he shows that the math can kind of work, but that Romney’s policies would mean a really big tax increase for people making between $100,000 and $250,000 in order to pay for a big tax cut on people making more than $250,000. But that’s okay, because people making over $100,000 are not in the middle class.

And Romney has been all over the place trumpeting this study, saying this study shows his math works out. But then ABC’s George Stephanopoulos caught him out:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Is $100,000 middle income?

MITT ROMNEY: No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less.

For the record, I’m actually with Feldstein on this one: I think it’s reasonable to say households making more than $100,000 are not middle income. But Romney disagrees with me, and with Feldstein.

So the study Romney is promoting — the one he says is the study you should be looking at — actually shows even under the most favorable assumptions possible, he’s going to have to raise taxes on the people he defines as the middle class. In saying that that study is credible, he has admitted he can’t make his tax promises add up. And yet he constantly, repeatedly says the opposite.

Romney has clearly calculated that there aren’t many people who read these analyses. If he just keeps saying his tax plan can cut taxes on the rich while cutting taxes on the middle class while not cutting taxes on the rich while not costing a dime, eventually, his version of this will come to be seen as the truth. And perhaps he’s right. But the numbers show what they show.

Statler Waldorf
10-04-2012, 07:52 PM
Obama is killing the coal industry for these green movement BS.

He's got to line the pockets of his financial supporters, you know that as well as I do : -) They give him their money, he gives them more of our money in return, it's classic corruption.

WVDolphan
10-04-2012, 07:57 PM
neither, cutler set up a false dichotomy. Logic is not the obama camp’s strong suit, emotionalism is.



nope, my tax rate will stay the same. They will however create jobs which will bring more workers into the tax pool and thus increase revenue, it always works.

ftmfw.

Dovahkiin
10-04-2012, 07:58 PM
What on Earth makes you think he should? Increasing taxes on the job creators in America is the worst way to create jobs, I have never worked for a low income person and I never will; I have worked for many “wealthy” people though.

I'd probably fire you.

Statler Waldorf
10-04-2012, 07:59 PM
Nope, it won't.

I don't make more than 100,000 a year, so you're wrong, my taxes will not go up.

JamesBW43
10-04-2012, 08:02 PM
Well apparently you think all criticisms of the president qualify as such, you’re an Obama fanboy, everyone knows it.

There’s nothing wrong with writing in the passive voice, and your arguments are based on INDCUCTIVE reasoning, not deductive reasoning; read a textbook for once.


Ha, you got me, I typed the wrong word. You, on the other hand, don't seem to know the definition of the word "all". Do you see me defending the President from all of D9954's posts? Have you ever seen me defend the President's lies, broken promises, or weak leadership? How many policy positions of his have you seen me defend?

Ask anyone who's been around the PoFo for a little while. I have my own issues with the President. It's just that mine are based in reality.

TheWalrus
10-04-2012, 08:03 PM
Hey bro, I earn my money through the skills I was fortunate to have and developed.

Also, I need coal to start dominating again. One of my best group of customers is coal miners with excess money. Less and less of them are showing up. Obama is killing the coal industry for these green movement BS.

:lol:

Ok, buddy. As long as we're clear on the fact that you were trolling with straight bull**** there.

WVDolphan
10-04-2012, 08:06 PM
:lol:

Ok, buddy. As long as we're clear on the fact that you were trolling with straight bull**** there.

I havent trolled at all in this thread. Its all true. Obama is killing our businesses in this country. We need a leader like Romney that will get these poors back to work.

rob19
10-04-2012, 08:09 PM
He's got to line the pockets of his financial supporters, you know that as well as I do : -) They give him their money, he gives them more of our money in return, it's classic corruption.

You could say the same thing about Romney

Romney's top campaign contributors:
1. Goldman Sachs
2. JPMorgan Chase & Co.
3. Bank of America
4. Morgan Stanley
5. Credit Suisse Group
6. Citigroup Inc

Or do the banks not expect favorable policy in return for their investments?

That's one of the reasons I dig Ron Paul, contrast his top contributors with Romney.

Paul's biggest campaign contributors
1. US Army
2. US Navy
3. US Air Force

Spesh
10-04-2012, 08:10 PM
I havent trolled at all in this thread. Its all true. Obama is killing our businesses in this country. We need a leader like Romney that will get these poors back to work.

And Romney knows how to get those poors back to work.

Building car elevators for everyone, other then low income, homes. Id vote for that.

rob19
10-04-2012, 08:14 PM
I havent trolled at all in this thread. Its all true. Obama is killing our businesses in this country. We need a leader like Romney that will get these poors back to work.

You've yet to list one actual way his welfare system will differ from the current system. Long on rhetoric, short on facts.

WVDolphan
10-04-2012, 08:18 PM
You've yet to list one actual way his welfare system will differ from the current system. Long on rhetoric, short on facts.

It will be different because the system will actually work. Jobs will be created and poors will be placed in them.

rob19
10-04-2012, 08:19 PM
It will be different because the system will actually work. Jobs will be created and poors will be placed in them.

Like I said, long on rhetoric.

I suppose you could say he's going to get rid of a myriad of environmental regulations, & that might work to some degree for a couple years. I do however think it's a selfish & short-sighted thing to do to damage the environment permanently for the sake of temporary profit. You won't complain until your water starts doing this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U01EK76Sy4A

rob19
10-04-2012, 08:32 PM
I don't make more than 100,000 a year, so you're wrong, my taxes will not go up.

Well they certainly wont go down as WV seems to think.

Maybe you don't make over 100,000 a year, but if you did I bet you probably wouldn't be happy about your taxes increasing to give a tax-reduction to people making over 250,000. Especially when Romney's stated he won't need to raise taxes in order to give tax-deductions to people making over 250k, i.e, he lied.

overworkedirish
10-04-2012, 08:53 PM
I am blown away by the amount of people that find the environment to not be a paramount issue when it comes to policies in this election.

Thank you, Rob, for posting that vid. We are on the brink of serious environmental disaster if the EPA regulations are tromped over by Romney and crew.

TheWalrus
10-04-2012, 09:02 PM
I havent trolled at all in this thread. Its all true. Obama is killing our businesses in this country. We need a leader like Romney that will get these poors back to work.

Poors like you... who only work when they "have to" and admit they let someone else pay their share because they don't declare most of their income to the IRS? By your own definition, you're a mooch. You're a dependent.

Calling you a troll is giving you the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise you're Craig T. Nelson.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTwpBLzxe4U

Spesh
10-04-2012, 09:13 PM
Poors like you... who only work when they "have to" and admit they let someone else pay their share because they don't declare most of their income to the IRS? By your own definition, you're a mooch. You're a dependent.

Calling you a troll is giving you the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise you're Craig T. Nelson.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTwpBLzxe4U

One of the best clips in the history of mankind. Nothing explains the current Republican position on...well anything...better than that clip.

WVDolphan
10-04-2012, 09:44 PM
Poors like you... who only work when they "have to" and admit they let someone else pay their share because they don't declare most of their income to the IRS? By your own definition, you're a mooch. You're a dependent.

Calling you a troll is giving you the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise you're Craig T. Nelson.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTwpBLzxe4U

Listen bro, Im not dependant on anyone. I make my own way for my family and myself. Also, I DO NOT cheat on my taxes. I list all of my income that is required. I play in no illegal home games and the signs at the casino clearly state I must report when I cash chips totaling over 9,999. That never happens. Now, whenever I win a tournament of that amount or larger I must report that.

Also, all tournament winnings or side amounts(such as when they give away $500 or so for best hand of the evening) I fill out the appropriate paperwork. If those amounts combined total over 10k for a year, I must report it. Each time I win one of those things they take my ID and fill out paperwork that I sign. Chips won and cashed out after an evening of play however do not have to be reported unless they reach a specific total for that transaction. If you want to say Ive found a loophole, be my guest, but I do not do anything illegal.(Well, often times I drive over the speed limit) Also, all of those games are ran by the state lottery. Each hand is raked. I happen to drive a lot of that action. Therefore, I help the state bring in plenty of money.

No one pays my share. Also, being legally married after having registered for a liscense and filed the appropriate paperwork with the state, my wife and I are considered ONE. We file jointly. She works full time as a teacher. Whats mine is hers and whats hers is mine. So even on years where I dont work full time teaching, Im still contributing to the public tax funds.

On top of all of that, that ******* Obama took away our $300 teacher credit. He also stripped those of us who pay back student loans the ability to use what we pay in interest on those things as a deduction. Why? So he could give more food stamps to poors.

I dont take handouts when I dont need them bro. Fortunately, I never have been in that position. I use the skills I have to EARN a living. And you can bet your ass that when I need money and Im capable of working, I dont sit around waiting for government to send me checks.

Listen, I know everyone can fall on hard times. And Im all about helping people out when they are in need. Thats a great thing about this country. Having a system where people can have each others backs is a good thing. Its when people are so easily allowed to abuse that system that everyone gets dragged down.

WVDolphan
10-04-2012, 10:05 PM
I am blown away by the amount of people that find the environment to not be a paramount issue when it comes to policies in this election.

Thank you, Rob, for posting that vid. We are on the brink of serious environmental disaster if the EPA regulations are tromped over by Romney and crew.

Allow me to be like Rob and not post my own thoughts or ideas but instead someone else's words via video or article..............


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNobFi3Q-9Y

WVDolphan
10-04-2012, 10:09 PM
Well they certainly wont go down as WV seems to think.

Maybe you don't make over 100,000 a year, but if you did I bet you probably wouldn't be happy about your taxes increasing to give a tax-reduction to people making over 250,000. Especially when Romney's stated he won't need to raise taxes in order to give tax-deductions to people making over 250k, i.e, he lied.

I never stated that I think average earning working folks' taxes will go down immediately. With Romney's plans however, they should go down in the long run. They wont increase thats for sure. He can give deductions to people making over 250k without raising taxes on lesser income people. It isnt a lie. If he lowers taxes on those small business owners, they will be able to employ more people as their business prospers. As a result, there will be more people earning taxable income and therefore everyone can get a tax break. How can you socialists not understand that?

rob19
10-04-2012, 10:35 PM
I never stated that I think average earning working folks' taxes will go down immediately. With Romney's plans however, they should go down in the long run. They wont increase thats for sure. He can give deductions to people making over 250k without raising taxes on lesser income people. It isnt a lie. If he lowers taxes on those small business owners, they will be able to employ more people as their business prospers. As a result, there will be more people earning taxable income and therefore everyone can get a tax break. How can you socialists not understand that?

No he can't, according to his own study he can't even under the most favorable conditions. At the very least he'd have to increase taxes on people making between 100 to 250k. Want me to post the article again?


Allow me to be like Rob and not post my own thoughts or ideas but instead someone else's words via video or article..............

I'm familiar with that bit, & Carlin's correct. The planet will be 'fine', but the people on the planet will indeed be ****ed. I don't inherently care about the planet itself, I care about our ability to live on it. If you want to temporarily profit by means of damaging our ability to currently, as well as our future generations capability to reside on this planet, then it's extremely selfish and short-sighted. Period. & You won't complain until you can't drink your water because it's either got methane running through it or too much dumpage of raw-sewage has contaminated it, or until you can't go outside without getting skin-cancer because that ozone-layer you've been taking for granted won't be there.

rob19
10-04-2012, 10:42 PM
How can you socialists not understand that?

I also see we brought out our big-boy buzzwords.

Btw, don't show your buddy Statler that video, he believes the Earth is only 6000 years old.

While were showing Carlin bits though, I like these as well.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqW-Fv1eLCU&list=PL25ADD73EDD8771DC&index=53&feature=plpp_video


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q&list=PL25ADD73EDD8771DC&index=52&feature=plpp_video

MarshallFin1
10-04-2012, 10:59 PM
Listen bro, Im not dependant on anyone. I make my own way for my family and myself. Also, I DO NOT cheat on my taxes. I list all of my income that is required. I play in no illegal home games and the signs at the casino clearly state I must report when I cash chips totaling over 9,999. That never happens. Now, whenever I win a tournament of that amount or larger I must report that.

Also, all tournament winnings or side amounts(such as when they give away $500 or so for best hand of the evening) I fill out the appropriate paperwork. If those amounts combined total over 10k for a year, I must report it. Each time I win one of those things they take my ID and fill out paperwork that I sign. Chips won and cashed out after an evening of play however do not have to be reported unless they reach a specific total for that transaction. If you want to say Ive found a loophole, be my guest, but I do not do anything illegal.(Well, often times I drive over the speed limit) Also, all of those games are ran by the state lottery. Each hand is raked. I happen to drive a lot of that action. Therefore, I help the state bring in plenty of money.

No one pays my share. Also, being legally married after having registered for a liscense and filed the appropriate paperwork with the state, my wife and I are considered ONE. We file jointly. She works full time as a teacher. Whats mine is hers and whats hers is mine. So even on years where I dont work full time teaching, Im still contributing to the public tax funds.

On top of all of that, that ******* Obama took away our $300 teacher credit. He also stripped those of us who pay back student loans the ability to use what we pay in interest on those things as a deduction. Why? So he could give more food stamps to poors.

I dont take handouts when I dont need them bro. Fortunately, I never have been in that position. I use the skills I have to EARN a living. And you can bet your ass that when I need money and Im capable of working, I dont sit around waiting for government to send me checks.

Listen, I know everyone can fall on hard times. And Im all about helping people out when they are in need. Thats a great thing about this country. Having a system where people can have each others backs is a good thing. Its when people are so easily allowed to abuse that system that everyone gets dragged down.

why do poor people get blamed for everything??

WVDolphan
10-04-2012, 11:01 PM
No he can't, according to his own study he can't even under the most favorable conditions. At the very least he'd have to increase taxes on people making between 100 to 250k. Want me to post the article again?
Hell no.

And on the short term, perhaps he would have to increase taxes on those making between 100 and 250k. But, long term everyone will be paying less because he will get a lot of people back to work.



I'm familiar with that bit, & Carlin's correct. The planet will be 'fine', but the people on the planet will indeed be ****ed. I don't inherently care about the planet itself, I care about our ability to live on it. If you want to temporarily profit by means of damaging our ability to currently, as well as our future generations capability to reside on this planet, then it's extremely selfish and short-sighted. Period. & You won't complain until you can't drink your water because it's either got methane running through it or too much dumpage of raw-sewage has contaminated it, or until you can't go outside without getting skin-cancer because that ozone-layer you've been taking for granted won't be there.


Damn right Carlin is right.... he always was.

The people ARE ****ed. Not will be ****ed. The people are ****ed anyway you slice it. You seem to be missing the point. Our behavior on the planet simply isnt going to make a huge difference. We need to burn coal. Its a cheap way to provide energy. Its much more cost efficient than all that "green" bull****.

Using our NATURAL resources such as natural gas, oil, and coal is just not going to make near as much difference as you environmentalists claim. I understand its a sensationalists thing right now. I understand the science and mathematics of global warming as well. I never argue with math and science so long as its done correctly. Science and math are completely nuetral. Thats the beauty of it. Its cold hard reality. Math and science are the ultimate GET REAL. They never play favorites or have a dog in the fight. They are simply reality. However, math can often be skewed to fit people's agendas. People do this with statistics in sports all the time. And people love to do it with politics.

Also, my water will be fine. I live in a decent area. The water system here is pretty good. Look at the dude in that video you posted. He is so obviously a poor. Just look at him for starters. Then examine his personal environment. Appears he lives in some kind of a basement or trailer. He has a weightbench within a few feet of his sink. Also, that plastic dish rest thing indicates he lacks a dishwasher. Granted, I have one of those in my kitchen. For some reason my wife likes to use it when she washes larger pans. I just throw everything in the dishwasher myself. If I do wash some large pan in the sink, I just dry that **** out real well with paper towels or something and put it away. Anyhoo.........

If the sun becomes too much of a problem, I can wear clothing over my skin or something when going outside. People adapt. The earth adapts. Not a big deal. **** can be worked around.

Finally, let me attack the most huge flaw in the whole environmentalists movement. You do realize, that by the time any major **** like an ice age or a complete breakdown of the ozone would occur due to our burning coal and **** like that, each and everyone one of us alive now will have been DEAD for a LONG LONG LONG LONG LONG time. You do realize that right? Also, by the time **** gets so unmanageable that humans wouldnt be able to adapt, we will likely have found ways to use all these alternate energy sources in a much more cost efficent way. Hell, we may be using entirely different forms of energy than what the environmental *******s want us using now.

Point is, other than the fact we will ALL DIE at some point, none of you have any ****ing clue about **** 200+ years in the future. You dont know how things will run. You dont even know if we will be engaging in industry. Hell some super virus like the plague may come along that we have no ****ing answer for and wipe us the **** out in 2209. You dont know. ****, at the rate Obama is cutting military spending, some other country may ****ing nuke us all in 3 years.

So why sweat all this environmental bull****. The earth will adapt and we as humans will adapt as a result. Simple as that. To **** ourselves in the ass by not using the natural resources that we know how to use at a cost effective way in the present is just beyond foolish IMHO.

WVDolphan
10-04-2012, 11:07 PM
I also see we brought out our big-boy buzzwords.

Btw, don't show your buddy Statler that video, he believes the Earth is only 6000 years old.

While were showing Carlin bits though, I like these as well.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqW-Fv1eLCU&list=PL25ADD73EDD8771DC&index=53&feature=plpp_video


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q&list=PL25ADD73EDD8771DC&index=52&feature=plpp_video

:lol: Are you trying to divide and conquer by bringing religion into this? You know damn well Statler and I will not see eye to eye there and that Im with you and a few others on that issue. Nice little tactic there since Statler and I are crushing you on this economy issue. :lol:

Those are great Carlin clips. The American Dream one is one of my all time favs of his. I love "by the way its the same big club theyve been beatin ya over the head with for the last 40 years" :lol: Again, he is correct. Believe me, I realize Im not in the big club and never will be. I also realize that simple millionaires are themselves nowhere close to being in the big club.

Rob, youre alright bro. Im still going to clown you on being a reefer head and completely disagree with you on a lot of political issues, but youre alright.

WVDolphan
10-04-2012, 11:13 PM
why do poor people get blamed for everything??

Because blaming rich people is foolish. They have all the money. If you need a favor one day, you may be at their mercy. Cant blame other average folks, because hell, we take **** from both sides. Easy to blame poor people. :lol:

Which while were on a Carlin streak, reminds me of another great bit.....

damn cant remember what bit its a part of but.... he states "The rich people, pay none of the taxes, do none of the work, and get all of the money. The middle class does all of the work and pays all of the taxes. The poor people are there........... JUST TO SCARE THE **** OUT OF THE MIDDLE CLASS!!!! Keep em showin up at those jobs". :lol:

rob19
10-04-2012, 11:17 PM
I love you too WV, but you've got some goofy ideas and leaps of faith in rhetoric.

Back the environment, as long as it doesn't happen to you, right WV? Forget your kids and their kids, they can just 'adapt' and be mole-people living underground, no big deal.

By the way, your water won't be fine.


West Virginians have seen their fair share of disastrous energy extraction techniques – like mountaintop removal coal mining - but as the fracking boom makes its way to their home state, residents face a whole new set of problems. The gas industry is taking advantage of lax regulations in West Virginia to pump the streams excessively, sometimes until they are dry. And fracking-related activity was the suspected culprit in a toxic algae bloom that wiped out thousands of fish, mussels and other aquatic life in 35 miles of Dunkard creek – one of the most biologically diverse creeks in the state.


http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/10/marcellushalemap2-1.jpg

So I guess it might be a bit of poetic justice that you'll get to experience and reap some of the consequences of your beliefs first-hand.


damn cant remember what bit its a part of but.... he states "The rich people, pay none of the taxes, do none of the work, and get all of the money. The middle class does all of the work and pays all of the taxes. The poor people are there........... JUST TO SCARE THE **** OUT OF THE MIDDLE CLASS!!!! Keep em showin up at those jobs".

It’s in the first of the two videos I posted.

TheMageGandalf
10-04-2012, 11:21 PM
they should go down in the long run. They wont increase thats for sure. He can give deductions to people making over 250k without raising taxes on lesser income people. It isnt a lie. If he lowers taxes on those small business owners, they will be able to employ more people as their business prospers. As a result, there will be more people earning taxable income and therefore everyone can get a tax break. How can you socialists not understand that?

'Poors' and now 'socialists'. Great. I wonder what other neat monickers are used by you.

I would've bothered to respond but being that you are being that disrespectful to fellow Americans then forget it. Why bother.

phins_4_ever
10-04-2012, 11:37 PM
Listen bro, Im not dependant on anyone. I make my own way for my family and myself. Also, I DO NOT cheat on my taxes. I list all of my income that is required. I play in no illegal home games and the signs at the casino clearly state I must report when I cash chips totaling over 9,999. That never happens. Now, whenever I win a tournament of that amount or larger I must report that.

Also, all tournament winnings or side amounts(such as when they give away $500 or so for best hand of the evening) I fill out the appropriate paperwork. If those amounts combined total over 10k for a year, I must report it. Each time I win one of those things they take my ID and fill out paperwork that I sign. Chips won and cashed out after an evening of play however do not have to be reported unless they reach a specific total for that transaction. If you want to say Ive found a loophole, be my guest, but I do not do anything illegal.(Well, often times I drive over the speed limit) Also, all of those games are ran by the state lottery. Each hand is raked. I happen to drive a lot of that action. Therefore, I help the state bring in plenty of money.

No one pays my share. Also, being legally married after having registered for a liscense and filed the appropriate paperwork with the state, my wife and I are considered ONE. We file jointly. She works full time as a teacher. Whats mine is hers and whats hers is mine. So even on years where I dont work full time teaching, Im still contributing to the public tax funds.

On top of all of that, that ******* Obama took away our $300 teacher credit. He also stripped those of us who pay back student loans the ability to use what we pay in interest on those things as a deduction. Why? So he could give more food stamps to poors.

I dont take handouts when I dont need them bro. Fortunately, I never have been in that position. I use the skills I have to EARN a living. And you can bet your ass that when I need money and Im capable of working, I dont sit around waiting for government to send me checks.

Listen, I know everyone can fall on hard times. And Im all about helping people out when they are in need. Thats a great thing about this country. Having a system where people can have each others backs is a good thing. Its when people are so easily allowed to abuse that system that everyone gets dragged down.

I read a few posts of yours. Forget for a moment all the the crap you are flipping around but you are really trying to tell us that you are a substitute teacher? Come on man. We all make the occasional grammatical or spelling error and I am the last one to harass anybody on their English but if you claim to be a teacher I will hold you to that. Even on a message board I expect more from a teacher (substitute or not). If that is the level of our educational standard I will propose an immediate pay-stop to all teachers and have them undergo exams.

Now just for your information and before you scream 'personal attack'. My post is content driven based on your statement "I am a substitute teacher'. Since I don't believe that (otherwise our education system is truly in the garbage dumbster) I declare everything else you have written as BS.

WVDolphan
10-04-2012, 11:39 PM
I love you too WV, but you've got some goofy ideas and leaps of faith in rhetoric.


More evidence to the fact that you smoke way too much reefer bro. :lol:



Back the environment, as long as it doesn't happen to you, right WV? Forget your kids and their kids, they can just 'adapt' and be mole-people living underground, no big deal.

Again, you miss the point. Did you ever feel a certain way about something and then 20 years later you think back about your views and youre like "WTF why did I ever think like that" or something to that effect. Youre failing to realize that 100 years from now you simply WILL NOT CARE about the conditions on earth for those currently living. Why? Because you will be ****ING DEAD!!! And the fact that you are dead means you will cease having the ability to give a **** about anything. You do realize what being dead entails dont you? I know you arent a religious moron so I dont think I need to explain to you what it is to be dead.

Even youre own children if you have or will have any. Personally, I do. And I LOVE my children more than anything or anyone I could possibly ever love. I would choose my own kids over Matty Ice even. :lol: And despite that, I realize that when Im dead the love I have for them will cease to exist. So while I am currently living, of course I have concern over what conditions on earth will be for them and their children and grandchildren etc etc. But, I also realize that concern will eventually be impossible..... because I will be ****ing dead.

Also, when trying to project that far into the future you simply dont ****ing know. Even if you apply the crazy gorilla math Al Gore uses, how does he know the human race will exist at that point. Also, this change takes place OVER TIME, not all at once. People will indeed adapt. They will find solutions to problems as they arise just as the earth will adapt as we cause it very slight problems over time. And again, whos to say we wont find better alternate energy sources down the line that are way more cost efficent than the popular ideas now? No need to panic IMHO. You post those Carlin videos yet you go along with the environmentalists who want to cause a panic over all this **** in order to get people to make changes that arent definatively necessary at this point.


By the way, your water won't be fine.

Meh. Its fine now. I mean, I buy drinking water in those big plastic jugs at Kroger. Its only 97 cents for a gallon. It tastes superior to the tap for sure. But, when I shower the water seems clean enough. I dont sweat cooking with it because that **** gets super heated when I cook with it. Its fine.




http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/10/marcellushalemap2-1.jpg


So I guess it might be a bit of poetic justice that you'll get to experience and reap some of the consequences of your beliefs first-hand.

I have no idea where that body of water is that is talked about there. If it has so many different fish and **** in it Im kinda glad its going to get ****ed up anyway. I dont like large bodies of water. Honestly, they freighten me. I wont go out into the ocean. Im not joking here. I kinda like getting my feet wet in it and the sand and all, but I stay the **** out of the ocean or other large bodies of water that are meant for sea creatures. Thats their environment. They dont come in my house so I dont **** with their ****.




It’s in the first of the two videos I posted

Ahhh. Gold. I didnt watch them because obv Ive seen all of his material 1000 times over. Watched it now though.

WVDolphan
10-04-2012, 11:43 PM
I read a few posts of yours. Forget for a moment all the the crap you are flipping around but you are really trying to tell us that you are a substitute teacher? Come on man. We all make the occasional grammatical or spelling error and I am the last one to harass anybody on their English but if you claim to be a teacher I will hold you to that. Even on a message board I expect more from a teacher (substitute or not). If that is the level of our educational standard I will propose an immediate pay-stop to all teachers and have them undergo exams.

Now just for your information and before you scream 'personal attack'. My post is content driven based on your statement "I am a substitute teacher'. Since I don't believe that (otherwise our education system is truly in the garbage dumbster) I declare everything else you have written as BS.

Meh. I realize my grammar is poor in most of these long posts. I hammer them out quick. What can I tell ya?

Honestly, I dont care what you think I do for work.


EDIT: Btw, as I just read your post again, I notice quite a few grammatical errors. If I were an English teacher, I would circle them in red for you and subtract a few points. :lol: Glass house bro.(That isnt a complete sentece btw. Also, bro is a stupid slang term) :lol:

WVDolphan
10-04-2012, 11:57 PM
'Poors' and now 'socialists'. Great. I wonder what other neat monickers are used by you.

I would've bothered to respond but being that you are being that disrespectful to fellow Americans then forget it. Why bother.

I have a tremendous amount of respect for most of my fellow Americans. Dont get the wrong idea. Poors is just something that has been used around here as kind of an inside joke. You missed out on that one. Sorry if you take that out of context. Socialists Im throwing out there to **** with Rob and a couple of other people. They love it. I knew as soon as I used that one a couple of people would jump on it. Its a hot button term thrown around on FOX news a lot. Personally, I hate Fox news because its so one sided its silly. Also, there is an inside joke type reference to that as well. But, you probably dont get that.

Point is, Im having some fun with these guys on here. Try not to take everything so serious. I know its the POFO and all but, realize that some of us talk to each other a good bit.

And yes, while I do actually support Romney in the upcoming election, I dont see it as a life and death thing. I find it fun to debate issues with friends and not be so serious all the time when it comes to some of this stuff. Again, sorry if you were offended. Please dont be.

Spesh
10-05-2012, 12:13 AM
Hell yeah, Wv went with Socialism. By the rules of Fox News, debate over, he wins.

rob19
10-05-2012, 04:06 AM
At least you're full aware you're making the planet less inhabitable for your children & children's children. Yes, maybe we'll figure out some miracle source of energy, & maybe we'll figure out some miracle technology that can reverse all the horrifying things we're currently doing & things you propose we keep on doing; but there's also a chance those things don't happen either. Personally I think waiting till the brink of catastrophe to take action is dumb as hell, but again we'll have to agree to disagree there.


But, when I shower the water seems clean enough. I dont sweat cooking with it because that **** gets super heated when I cook with it. Its fine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U01EK76Sy4A&feature=player_embedded


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LBjSXWQRV8&feature=player_embedded#start=0:00;end=1:44;autoreplay=false;showoptions=false

Personally, I wouldn't want my kids drinking & showering in an infected water supply. I feel bad that your kids & a whole state of people right now are suffering because of people with views as short-sighted & selfish as yourself.


I have no idea where that body of water is that is talked about there. If it has so many different fish and **** in it Im kinda glad its going to get ****ed up anyway. I dont like large bodies of water. Honestly, they freighten me. I wont go out into the ocean. Im not joking here. I kinda like getting my feet wet in it and the sand and all, but I stay the **** out of the ocean or other large bodies of water that are meant for sea creatures. Thats their environment. They dont come in my house so I dont **** with their ****.

Pure gold, Wv. Pure. Gold.


I read a few posts of yours. Forget for a moment all the the crap you are flipping around but you are really trying to tell us that you are a substitute teacher? Come on man. We all make the occasional grammatical or spelling error and I am the last one to harass anybody on their English but if you claim to be a teacher I will hold you to that.
They lower the bar a bit in West Virginia :rimshot:

Skip to :55 :lol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiYzZz9_X6s

Just messin' West Virginians, you know I love ya.

JackFinfan
10-05-2012, 11:16 AM
That’s just factually incorrect; the wealthy are able to take advantage of numerous tax loopholes that will be closed by Romney. How’s Obama tax plan working out for you? :-P

Please name me some of these loopholes and provide me a source where Romney says he'll specifically eliminate that loophole. Cause I do audits and tax returns for a living, many of them for rich people, and I can tell you that there's a reason why Romney won't be specific about the loopholes. It's because at the individual level, they really don't exist. Also, once again you assume that because I'm against Romney that I'm for Obama. Just like you assumed that because I didn't believe in young Earth that I was an atheist. I'm voting for neither of these clowns this election.

TheWalrus
10-05-2012, 12:45 PM
Listen bro, Im not dependant on anyone. I make my own way for my family and myself. Also, I DO NOT cheat on my taxes. I list all of my income that is required. I play in no illegal home games and the signs at the casino clearly state I must report when I cash chips totaling over 9,999. That never happens. Now, whenever I win a tournament of that amount or larger I must report that.

Also, all tournament winnings or side amounts(such as when they give away $500 or so for best hand of the evening) I fill out the appropriate paperwork. If those amounts combined total over 10k for a year, I must report it. Each time I win one of those things they take my ID and fill out paperwork that I sign. Chips won and cashed out after an evening of play however do not have to be reported unless they reach a specific total for that transaction. If you want to say Ive found a loophole, be my guest, but I do not do anything illegal.(Well, often times I drive over the speed limit) Also, all of those games are ran by the state lottery. Each hand is raked. I happen to drive a lot of that action. Therefore, I help the state bring in plenty of money.

You are legally required to report ALL gambling winnings on your tax return whether the casino reports it or not. Failing to report daily, non-tournament winnings as if you were never there and never won that money isn't a "loophole", it's cheating your taxes.


Even if you do not win as much as the amounts above, you are still legally obligated to report. This is done on Line 21 (“Other Income”) of Form 1040. This is also where you would report any awards or prize money you won during the year in question. Yes, even if you only win $10 you still technically have to report it (even if the casino didn’t). Gambling income plus your job income (and any other income) equals your total income.

http://blog.turbotax.intuit.com/2012/03/30/how-are-gambling-winnings-taxed/

But you know that.


No one pays my share.

Yes, they do. On behalf of everyone that chips in, you're welcome. Now stop bitching.

Statler Waldorf
10-05-2012, 01:34 PM
Ha, you got me, I typed the wrong word.

You typed the wrong word because you didn’t know it was the wrong word.


Ask anyone who's been around the PoFo for a little while. I have my own issues with the President. It's just that mine are based in reality.

What a complete non-statement.


You could say the same thing about Romney

No you can’t, he’s not allocating tax payer’s money to his supporters.


Romney's top campaign contributors:

1. Goldman Sachs
2. JPMorgan Chase & Co.
3. Bank of America
4. Morgan Stanley
5. Credit Suisse Group
6. Citigroup Inc
Goldman Sachs only recently jumped ship; they used to be one of Obama’s biggest supporters, which is probably why he views them as “too big to fail”. Did you ever think that maybe banks support Romney because they realize he knows how to fix the economy? Makes sense to me.

Or do the banks not expect favorable policy in return for their investments?
They expect an improved economy because of their investment.

That's one of the reasons I dig Ron Paul, contrast his top contributors with Romney.

Paul's biggest campaign contributors
1. US Army
2. US Navy
3. US Air Force
You’re so full of beans, Government Agencies openly supporting a political candidate is a direct violation of the Hatch Act. None of these agencies would be allowed to give a dime to Ron Paul’s campaign.

Well they certainly wont go down as WV seems to think.
Actually by repealing Obamacare, which is the largest tax ever passed on the American people my taxes will go down a bit.

Maybe you don't make over 100,000 a year, but if you did I bet you probably wouldn't be happy about your taxes increasing to give a tax-reduction to people making over 250,000. Especially when Romney's stated he won't need to raise taxes in order to give tax-deductions to people making over 250k, i.e, he lied.
Actually I have many family members who make over 100K and they have no problem with his policies. He didn’t lie, you are basing all of this on a speculative study that ignores several key factors. Romney can do exactly what he says he will do, and even if he can’t all he has to do is not reduce the tax rate by as much as he wants to in order to remain revenue neutral and nobody will say he lied. You’re just mad because your guy lost the debate, get over it. Did Obama lie when he said he’d cut the deficit in half his first term? What about closing down Gitmo? What about unemployment never going over 8 percent?

JamesBW43
10-05-2012, 01:51 PM
You typed the wrong word because you didn’t know it was the wrong word.

What a complete non-statement.


Wrong again. I also constantly type/say Van Halen when I mean to type/say Aerosmith, it doesn't mean I don't know which is which. But I don't expect you to actually accept something that doesn't support your own preconceived notions. That much is obvious since you conveniently skipped over my questions challenging your false assumptions.

Statler Waldorf
10-05-2012, 01:52 PM
Please name me some of these loopholes

Sure, the wealthy use variable pre-paid forward contracts to avoid paying billions of dollars in capital gains taxes every year.


Cause I do audits and tax returns for a living, many of them for rich people, and I can tell you that there's a reason why Romney won't be specific about the loopholes. It's because at the individual level, they really don't exist.

Except they do exist, I just gave you an example of one; it sounds to me like you need to learn more about your own profession.


I'm voting for neither of these clowns this election.

Good, the more of you that stay home the better chance Romney has of winning.

Statler Waldorf
10-05-2012, 01:55 PM
Wrong again. I also constantly type/say Van Halen when I mean to type/say Aerosmith, it doesn't mean I don't know which is which.

Yeah right, “Really sometimes I say 2+2=5 when I really know it equals 4, honest!” You brought that on yourself, you made an irrelevant point about grammar but then followed it up with a boneheaded mistake about logic, should I really have let that slide?

Which question are you referring to?

CedarPhin
10-05-2012, 01:58 PM
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/10/128976846278802035-1.jpg

JamesBW43
10-05-2012, 02:11 PM
Yeah right, “Really sometimes I say 2+2=5 when I really know it equals 4, honest!” You brought that on yourself, you made an irrelevant point about grammar but then followed it up with a boneheaded mistake about logic, should I really have let that slide?

Which question are you referring to?

The questions in my post on page 7... asking you to defend your false assumption that I'm a fanboy of the President...

Is this what your shtick is? To act like you don't see or understand what's in front of your face? Because you did the same thing in the religion forum for God knows how many posts.

Or is it that you truly and honestly cannot comprehend something that doesn't fit into your world view?

Statler Waldorf
10-05-2012, 02:28 PM
The questions in my post on page 7... asking you to defend your false assumption that I'm a fanboy of the President...

Oh, I didn’t realize you seriously wanted me to address that, no I have not read ALL of your posts, but all of the posts of yours I have read have defended Obama, so it comes back to that inductive reasoning again, based on my observations I can reason that all of your posts defend Obama.


Is this what your shtick is? To act like you don't see or understand what's in front of your face? Because you did the same thing in the religion forum for God knows how many posts.

Nope, I am just a stickler for proper reasoning and logic, if you commit an informal error in reasoning I will always point it out. I realize that doesn’t make me popular, but I’d rather be logical than popular. If you cease making mistakes then we won’t have any problems with one another, in fact we may even become friends. :- )


Or is it that you truly and honestly cannot comprehend something that doesn't fit into your world view?
How on earth does any of this deal with my worldview? I simply stated you’re an Obama fanboy, and I have reasons for thinking that. It’s completely evidenced by the fact that your objections to Romney are tenfold more applicable to Obama and yet you seem to have no problem supporting him.

JamesBW43
10-05-2012, 02:44 PM
Oh, I didn’t realize you seriously wanted me to address that, no I have not read ALL of your posts, but all of the posts of yours I have read have defended Obama, so it comes back to that inductive reasoning again, based on my observations I can reason that all of your posts defend Obama.



Nope, I am just a stickler for proper reasoning and logic, if you commit an informal error in reasoning I will always point it out. I realize that doesn’t make me popular, but I’d rather be logical than popular. If you cease making mistakes then we won’t have any problems with one another, in fact we may even become friends. :- )


How on earth does any of this deal with my worldview? I simply stated you’re an Obama fanboy, and I have reasons for thinking that. It’s completely evidenced by the fact that your objections to Romney are tenfold more applicable to Obama and yet you seem to have no problem supporting him.

You speak of logic yet you say my support of the President is completely evidenced. And you say the reasons are because of my objections to Governor Romney and because all the posts of mine that you've read have defended President Obama.

Do you truly not see your error in reasoning?

Locke
10-05-2012, 02:49 PM
You speak of logic yet you say my support of the President is completely evidenced. And you say the reasons are because of my objections to Governor Romney and because all the posts of mine that you've read have defended President Obama.

Do you truly not see your error in reasoning?

You're talking to a crazy person. You can't make someone with a distorted worldview and completely illogical thought processes try to understand you. We tried ad nauseum in the Religion forum. You'd make more progress trying to get into Kate Beckinsale's pants than you would trying to talk rationally with this guy...

JamesBW43
10-05-2012, 02:52 PM
You're talking to a crazy person. You can't make someone with a distorted worldview and completely illogical thought processes try to understand you. We tried ad nauseum in the Religion forum. You'd make more progress trying to get into Kate Beckinsale's pants than you would trying to talk rationally with this guy...

:ponder:

Statler Waldorf
10-05-2012, 03:19 PM
Let’s all take a closer look at the goofy rationale behind the Left’s objection about Romney, based on a Harvard study they believe that Romney will have to break his pledge to lower tax rates for higher income people but keep the amount they pay static due to closures in loopholes and deductions. Of course this is a completely speculative argument and cannot be proven either way; however let’s just grant them this for the sake of argument. So Romney may have one campaign promise he won’t come through on; does the left really think this is enough to not vote for someone? This puts them in a real bind because if they say no then their objection is irrelevant, if they say yes then they cannot vote for Obama and here’s why. The following are examples of campaign promises Obama made in 2008…

PROMISE: I will close Gitmo in my first term. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will Increase the capital gains and dividends taxes for higher-income taxpayers. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will expand the child and dependent care credit. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will create a foreclosure prevention fund for homeowners. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will provide option for a pre-filled-out tax form. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will create a mortgage interest tax credit for non-itemizers. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will require automatic enrollment in 401k plans. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will require automatic enrollment in IRA plans. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will create a retirement savings tax credit for low incomes. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will end income tax for seniors making less than $50,000. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will end no-bid contracts above $25,000. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will create a $60 billion bank to fund roads and bridges. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will phase out exemptions and deductions for higher earners. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will repeal the Bush tax cuts for higher incomes. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will Sign the Employee Free Choice Act. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will lift the payroll tax cap on earnings above $250,000. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will forbid companies in bankruptcy from giving executives bonuses. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will allow workers to claim more in unpaid wages and benefits in bankruptcy court. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will allow imported prescription drugs. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will prevent drug companies from blocking generic drugs. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will allow Medicare to negotiate for cheaper drug prices. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will double funding for the Federal Charter School Program and require more accountability. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will support repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will bring Democrats and Republicans together to pass an agenda. NEVER HAPPENED

Couple that with the numerous promises he has broken since taking office (unemployment never going above 8 percent) and Obama supporters have a serious problem because they claim an apparent broken promise by Romney based solely on speculation is enough to disqualify him from getting a chance, and yet dozens of actual broken promises by Obama are enough to earn him re-election?

Statler Waldorf
10-05-2012, 03:26 PM
You speak of logic yet you say my support of the President is completely evidenced. And you say the reasons are because of my objections to Governor Romney and because all the posts of mine that you've read have defended President Obama.

Do you truly not see your error in reasoning

That’s not an error in reasoning; it’s an inductive argument arguing from specific observed instances to a general statement.



You're talking to a crazy person. You can't make someone with a distorted worldview and completely illogical thought processes try to understand you.
Prove my worldview and thought process are distorted and illogical (claiming anyone’s worldview is “distorted” just demonstrates that you don’t have the foggiest clue about how reasoning actually works), you talk a good game but when the chips are down you get thumped and you know it.


We tried ad nauseum in the Religion forum.
Haha, ad nauseum is a logical fallacy, so I am not surprised your attempts failed, they were illogical.


You'd make more progress trying to get into Kate Beckinsale's pants than you would trying to talk rationally with this guy...

Your inability to “talk rationally” sounds like more of a problem on your part than it is my part.

JackFinfan
10-05-2012, 05:18 PM
Sure, the wealthy use variable pre-paid forward contracts to avoid paying billions of dollars in capital gains taxes every year.



Except they do exist, I just gave you an example of one; it sounds to me like you need to learn more about your own profession.



Good, the more of you that stay home the better chance Romney has of winning.

lmao, if you think that loophole will even come close to covering a tenth of the revenue loss that will occur when you lower the rates. Also, please show me a source saying Romney will eliminate your forward contract example.

rob19
10-05-2012, 06:17 PM
Did you ever think that maybe banks support Romney because they realize he knows how to fix the economy? Makes sense to me.

You believe that because you're biased.


You’re so full of beans, Government Agencies openly supporting a political candidate is a direct violation of the Hatch Act. None of these agencies would be allowed to give a dime to Ron Paul’s campaign.

These aren't the agencies themselves that are donating to the campaigns, these are donations from actual every-day people who've joined those agencies. Look it up.

US Army $78,056
US Navy $56,769
US Air Force $55,405
Google Inc $52,801
Microsoft Corp $47,923
US Postal Service $26,591


He didn’t lie, you are basing all of this on a speculative study that ignores several key factors.

It's his own study, which he's personally endorsed, that shows even under the most favorable conditions he won't be able to give a tax reduction to people making over 250k without at the very least raising taxes on people in the 100k to 250k bracket.


You’re just mad because your guy lost the debate, get over it.

Obama's not "my guy". I didn't vote for him in 08', I won't be voting for him now. Ron Paul I would vote for, Gary Johnson I would vote for (Both happen to be Republican). Both of the current candidates support the National Defense Authorization Act, which would give the government the ability to detain American citizens indefinitely without access to due process of law; a basic constitutional right.

Again, like Jack said, just because I criticize Romney doesn't mean I support Obama, and just because I criticize Young Earth Creationists doesn't mean I'm an atheist. You know what they say about assuming, don't you?

rob19
10-05-2012, 06:24 PM
Let’s all take a closer look at the goofy rationale behind the Left’s objection about Romney, based on a Harvard study they believe that Romney will have to break his pledge to lower tax rates for higher income people but keep the amount they pay static due to closures in loopholes and deductions. Of course this is a completely speculative argument and cannot be proven either way; however let’s just grant them this for the sake of argument. So Romney may have one campaign promise he won’t come through on; does the left really think this is enough to not vote for someone? This puts them in a real bind because if they say no then their objection is irrelevant, if they say yes then they cannot vote for Obama and here’s why. The following are examples of campaign promises Obama made in 2008…

PROMISE: I will close Gitmo in my first term. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will Increase the capital gains and dividends taxes for higher-income taxpayers. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will expand the child and dependent care credit. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will create a foreclosure prevention fund for homeowners. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will provide option for a pre-filled-out tax form. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will create a mortgage interest tax credit for non-itemizers. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will require automatic enrollment in 401k plans. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will require automatic enrollment in IRA plans. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will create a retirement savings tax credit for low incomes. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will end income tax for seniors making less than $50,000. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will end no-bid contracts above $25,000. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will create a $60 billion bank to fund roads and bridges. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will phase out exemptions and deductions for higher earners. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will repeal the Bush tax cuts for higher incomes. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will Sign the Employee Free Choice Act. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will lift the payroll tax cap on earnings above $250,000. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will forbid companies in bankruptcy from giving executives bonuses. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will allow workers to claim more in unpaid wages and benefits in bankruptcy court. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will allow imported prescription drugs. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will prevent drug companies from blocking generic drugs. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will allow Medicare to negotiate for cheaper drug prices. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will double funding for the Federal Charter School Program and require more accountability. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will support repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will bring Democrats and Republicans together to pass an agenda. NEVER HAPPENED

Couple that with the numerous promises he has broken since taking office (unemployment never going above 8 percent) and Obama supporters have a serious problem because they claim an apparent broken promise by Romney based solely on speculation is enough to disqualify him from getting a chance, and yet dozens of actual broken promises by Obama are enough to earn him re-election?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_pgfWK3sxw

rob19
10-05-2012, 06:39 PM
Actually by repealing Obamacare, which is the largest tax ever passed on the American people my taxes will go down a bit.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfXE-k-StEI


by Robert I. Field, Ph.D., J.D., M.P.H.

Mitt Romney says his Massachusetts health reform plan is much better than Obama’s. He claims it’s different in important ways.

If there are big differences, it’s difficult to find them.

In an interview last week with a Denver TV station (http://denver.cbslocal.com/2012/08/23/romney-massachusetts-health-care-better-than-obamacare/), Romney cited the key features that differentiate his reform approach from Obama’s.
He declared, “My health care plan I put in place in my state has everyone insured, but we didn’t go out and raise taxes on people and have a unelected board tell people what kind of health care they can have.”

Let’s do some quick fact checking.

Does Romneycare have everyone insured? Close, but not fully there. The plan cut the state’s rate of uninsurance by almost half. As of 2010, the rate was just over 6% (http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8311.pdf) for the nonelderly population, the lowest of any state. That’s a huge accomplishment, but there is still a ways to go before everyone has coverage.

Did Romneycare raise taxes? No, but the state didn’t need to. It covered the cost of reform with larger payments that it negotiated from the federal government for its Medicaid program.

Does Romneycare have an unelected board that tells people what kinds of health care they can have? It does. The Massachusetts Connector Authority serves as the state’s insurance exchange. It sets standards for the types of plans that may be sold, thereby determining the kind of access residents will have to health care services.

Is Obamacare any different? Not really.
It will extend coverage to 30 million more people, which will reduce the country’s rate of uninsurance by about half to roughly 8 percent. Not too different from Romneycare.

It does raise taxes in a number of ways, including new levies on tanning salons, medical devices, and high-end insurance policies. But, unlike Massachusetts, it doesn’t have a higher level of government to turn to for help, so it needs a new source of revenue to cover the cost.
It does let unelected officials determine what kind of insurance people can receive by setting standards for coverage under the state exchanges that will
sell it. Just like Romneycare.

Romney’s comment about an unelected board was probably also a reference to a new board that Obamacare created called the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). It recommends cost-cutting measures under Medicare. Romney, along with several fellow Republicans, has complained (http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/politics-elections/245089-romney-healthcare-reform-was-better-in-mass-) about the scope of its power. But Romneycare is a state-based program while Medicare is purely federal. It couldn’t have included an IPAB or any other measure concerning Medicare, even if Romney had wanted it to.

After all is said and done, these aspects of the plans are relatively minor, anyway. In their underlying structure, Obamacare and Romneycare are almost identical.

Both expand coverage in the same three ways. They reform the market for individual insurance by creating exchanges to sell it, subsidizing those with low incomes, and mandating that everyone maintain coverage in some form. They expand Medicaid to cover more people. And they penalize employers who don’t offer coverage to their workers.

Romney and his fellow Republicans should be proud that Obama copied their health reform approach. Instead of drawing false distinctions between the two plans, they should boast of leading on health reform and leaving Obama and Democrats to follow.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Spesh
10-05-2012, 07:24 PM
U.S. Rep. Jeff Landry, R-Pa., put it this way: "This is the largest tax increase on the poor and the middle class in the history of this country (http://washingtonexaminer.com/rep.-landry-largest-tax-increase-in-history/article/2500855)"; and Alabama Republican Party chair Bill Armistead said that "The United States Supreme Court has essentially created the largest tax increase in American history (http://www.myfoxal.com/story/18904378/alabama-leaders-react-to)."

Then there's Limbaugh, who turned up the rhetoric on radio (http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/06/limbaugh-blasts-biggest-tax-increase-in-the-history-127609.html) the way only he can.

Forget the United States,"Obamacare is nothing more than the largest tax increase in the history of the world," he declared.

This claim is wrong.

While the health care law certainly is, on the whole, a tax increase, it’s not the largest in American history -- and as such -- cannot be the largest in the history of the world.



Depending on your rounding, that would mean the tax increases resulting from the health care law would be about the size of tax increases proposed and passed in 1980 by President Jimmy Carter, in 1990 by President George H.W. Bush and in 1993 by President Bill Clinton.

The health care-related tax increases are smaller than the tax increase signed into law by President Ronald Reagan in 1982 and a temporary tax signed into law in 1968 by President Lyndon B. Johnson. And they are significantly smaller than two tax increases passed during World War II and a tax increase passed in 1961.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/28/rush-limbaugh/health-care-law-not-largest-tax-increase-us-histor/

What a socialist Reagan was.

JamesBW43
10-05-2012, 07:31 PM
That’s not an error in reasoning; it’s an inductive argument arguing from specific observed instances to a general statement.


Simply defining an inductive argument doesn't mean yours isn't erroneous.

Spesh
10-05-2012, 07:44 PM
In a surprise development, the unemployment rate, at 7.8 percent, now stands the same level as when President Obama (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Barack+Obama) took office in January 2009.
On Friday, the Department of Labor reported the widely watched rate fell from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent in September.


http://news.yahoo.com/jobs-report-timely-lift-obamas-record-economy-164607240.html

:lol:

-=DolfanDave=-
10-05-2012, 07:52 PM
Hard to turn chicken **** into chicken salad when that's what was handed to you.

Maintaining or even increasing military spending is (one of) the main reasons why I would never vote for Romney. **** Romney.

Obama 2012!

irish fin fan
10-05-2012, 08:08 PM
Oh my, unemployment rate is less than 8%. I can hear Romney now "I never said that that the unemployment rate under Obama never dropped below 8%, I said 7%".

phins_4_ever
10-05-2012, 08:34 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/jobs-report-timely-lift-obamas-record-economy-164607240.html

:lol:

Anybody who thought that the unemployment rate eventually would not drop below 8% was hoping for this country to fail. Right Mr Romney.

Romney banked so heavily on unemployment rate of 8% and higher that he has to find a new shtick now. The entire Republican Party banked on unemployment otherwise they would have not blocked the American Jobs Act.

White House Fact Sheet: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/08/fact-sheet-american-jobs-act
Summary: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/09/07/812251/republicans-blocked-jobs-act-one-year/
Moody Analysis: http://www.economy.com/dismal/article_free.asp?cid=224641&src=mark-zandi
EPI Analysis: http://www.epi.org/blog/quick-job-impact-president%E2%80%99s-proposals/

More analysis:
http://macroadvisers.blogspot.com/2011/09/american-jobs-act-significant-boost-to.html

jguig
10-05-2012, 09:13 PM
And you think that the unemployment number is credible? This is the same administration that said that Obamacare wouldn't raise the price of healthcare. It provided a number bases on a shell game to fabricate savings: they got the CBO to state the cost over a specific 10 year span, fully knowing that 4 of the 10 years were all tax revenues, while only 6 of those years would actually contain expenses. It was a deliberate attempt to misinform you and me. Now these good numbers come out within 2 days of all the headlines talking about how Romney cleaned Obama's clock in the debate. They are again attempting to own the headline and take control of the news stories to get Obama's failure off the map.

phins_4_ever
10-05-2012, 09:36 PM
And you think that the unemployment number is credible? This is the same administration that said that Obamacare wouldn't raise the price of healthcare. It provided a number bases on a shell game to fabricate savings: they got the CBO to state the cost over a specific 10 year span, fully knowing that 4 of the 10 years were all tax revenues, while only 6 of those years would actually contain expenses. It was a deliberate attempt to misinform you and me. Now these good numbers come out within 2 days of all the headlines talking about how Romney cleaned Obama's clock in the debate. They are again attempting to own the headline and take control of the news stories to get Obama's failure off the map.

Oh sure, as long it was an unemployment rate above 8% it was credible number. Now its not. Figures.

Ilovemyfins4eva
10-05-2012, 09:47 PM
its funny the people who are bragging how the unemployment rate is at 7.8 percent. you do realize that when obama took office that it was at that, so even if that number is credible, he still didnt reduce it, and as a matter of fact, i remember obama promising when he was elected that with the new stimulus package, the unemployment rate would be at 5.6 percent lol.

its funny how many people on here bash romney ( not saying he does not deserve any criticism) yet will defend anything obama does. under obama, the economy still ****ing blows, and for me personally as someone who makes a lot of money yearly, i dont need to be taxed more so i can ****ing pay for the bums who just decide to live off the government bc they are to lazy to get a ****ing job.

if you dont work or are lazy, obama is deff ur guy and should be, but for me i just cant afford for obama to be elected another term, it would hurt me, but to each his own i guess.

---------- Post added at 08:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:45 PM ----------


And you think that the unemployment number is credible? This is the same administration that said that Obamacare wouldn't raise the price of healthcare. It provided a number bases on a shell game to fabricate savings: they got the CBO to state the cost over a specific 10 year span, fully knowing that 4 of the 10 years were all tax revenues, while only 6 of those years would actually contain expenses. It was a deliberate attempt to misinform you and me. Now these good numbers come out within 2 days of all the headlines talking about how Romney cleaned Obama's clock in the debate. They are again attempting to own the headline and take control of the news stories to get Obama's failure off the map.
u cant argue vs these people who love obama, they will use anything to defend him. its not even worth it, i shouldnt have even gotten involved bc i wont win the argument, they are going to believe what they want to and nothing can change it. even if it was a credible number, thats still ****ing awful, its the same as when bush left, and if people destroyed bush over it, obama deserves the same bashing.

rob19
10-05-2012, 10:05 PM
its funny how many people on here bash romney ( not saying he does not deserve any criticism) yet will defend anything obama does. under obama, the economy still ****ing blows, and for me personally as someone who makes a lot of money yearly, i dont need to be taxed more so i can ****ing pay for the bums who just decide to live off the government bc they are to lazy to get a ****ing job.

if you dont work or are lazy, obama is deff ur guy and should be, but for me i just cant afford for obama to be elected another term, it would hurt me, but to each his own i guess.

---------- Post added at 08:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:45 PM ----------


u cant argue vs these people who love obama, they will use anything to defend him. its not even worth it, i shouldnt have even gotten involved bc i wont win the argument, they are going to believe what they want to and nothing can change it. even if it was a credible number, thats still ****ing awful, its the same as when bush left, and if people destroyed bush over it, obama deserves the same bashing.

Like I've said I'm not an Obama supporter either, but I've yet to hear anyone say one actual way Mitt's Welfare program will be different than the current one.


“We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers,” says Neil Newhouse (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Neil+Newhouse), a Romney (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Mitt+Romney) pollster.

A half dozen fact-checking organizations and websites have refuted Romney’s claims that Obama removed the work requirement from the welfare law and will cutMedicare (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Medicare) benefits by $216 billion.

Last Sunday’s New York Times (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/The+New+York+Times+Company) even reported on its front page that Romney has been “falsely charging”President Obama (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Barack+Obama) with removing the work requirement. Those are strong words from the venerable Times. Yet Romney is still making the false charge. Ads containing it continue to be aired.

Presumably the Romney campaign continues its false claims because they’re effective. But this raises a more basic question: How can they remain effective when they’ve been so overwhelmingly discredited by the media?

The answer is the Republican Party has developed three means of bypassing the mainstream media and its fact-checkers.

The first is by repeating big lies so often in TV spots – financed by a mountain of campaign money – that the public can no longer recall (if it ever knew) that the mainstream media and its fact-checkers have found them to be lies.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Robert-Reich/2012/0829/Mitt-Romney-vs-fact-checkers-the-welfare-law-dispute

Spesh
10-05-2012, 10:15 PM
And you think that the unemployment number is credible? This is the same administration that said that Obamacare wouldn't raise the price of healthcare. It provided a number bases on a shell game to fabricate savings: they got the CBO to state the cost over a specific 10 year span, fully knowing that 4 of the 10 years were all tax revenues, while only 6 of those years would actually contain expenses. It was a deliberate attempt to misinform you and me. Now these good numbers come out within 2 days of all the headlines talking about how Romney cleaned Obama's clock in the debate. They are again attempting to own the headline and take control of the news stories to get Obama's failure off the map.

Even Republicans admit the numbers are sound. Even Romney has admitted the numbers are sound(his stance is its not good enough and it took way to long). They are published by a non-partisan part of the government that has never given in to Presidential pressure, even Nixon couldnt successfully pressure them.


Jack Welch (http://www.jwmi.com/), the former CEO of General Electric (http://www.ge.com/), quickly came out with a tweet, voicing his suspicion. On his Twitter account he accused the Obama administration of manipulating U.S. employment data for political advantage.

"Unbelievable jobs numbers…these Chicago guys will do anything…can't debate so change numbers," Welch, 76, and a Republican, said.

Other GOP members also blasted the numbers.

"In regards to today's Jobs report-I agree with former GE CEO Jack Welch, Chicago style politics is at work here," Florida Rep. Allen West wrote (http://www.facebook.com/note.php?saved&&note_id=412361562150210&id=153872224661543)....


(To be fair, not all GOP members felt something underhanded was going on. As former Bush White House aide Tony Fratto (http://www.politico.com/arena/bio/tony_fratto.html) put it, " BLS (http://www.bls.gov/dolfaq/bls_ques26.htm) is not manipulating data. Evidence of such would be a scandal of enormous proportions & loss of credibility.")

That is pretty much the sentiment among economists.

"I would be very skeptical of any claims the job statistics are manipulated," Gary Burtless (http://www.brookings.edu/experts/burtlessg), an economist at the Brookings Institution, in Washington, D.C., told ABC News. "If they were, the administration's record so far in 2012 would undoubtedly look a lot brighter." Indeed, as Ezra Klein points out in the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/05/september-jobs-report-debunking-the-jobs-report-conspiracy-theories/), the drop is a mere three-tenths of one percent, from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent-not exactly a reason to crack open the Veuve Clicquot.

What's more, Burless said it's uncharacteristic of the Obama administration to lie about something like this. "Richard Nixon was notorious for distrusting the BLS, and he probably managed to frighten some long-time BLS employees," said Burtless. "But I have not heard any persuasive reports of statistical manipulation in the BLS, even during the Nixon administration. So it would be astounding if President Obama has been more successful along those lines than Nixon managed to be."

http://news.yahoo.com/does-white-house-manipulate-jobs-numbers-164654738--abc-news-deals.html;_ylt=AhuXtcYi9.6JPsf_KJ.nsnX9r.l_;_ylu=X3oDMTIybTFyOGZkBG1pdANIQ01PTCBvbiBhcnRpY2xlIHJpZ2h0IHJhaWwEcGtnA2lkLTI2OTMzODQEcG9zAzQEc2VjA2hjbQR2ZXIDOA--;_ylg=X3oDMTJqZjV2ZHU4BGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDNTYwYjM3OTItNjdhZi0zNmRhLWI0MDQtOTYzYWIxZTkyYzhkBHBzdGNhdAMEcHQDc3RvcnlwYWdl;_ylv=3

Only those who live in a reality of conspiracy theories believe this report is fabricated. Then again, thats pretty much all the right runs with: Make wild accusations, easily be proven wrong, declare a conspiracy.

Obama caught a break. The timing was incredibly lucky. But then again, had the numbers gone up, Obama would have been toasted.

Spesh
10-05-2012, 10:30 PM
Like I've said I'm not an Obama supporter either, but I've yet to hear anyone say one actual way Mitt's Welfare program will be different than the current one.

Of course you are rob. You disagreed with something Romney said, that makes you an Obama supporter.

Overlooking the fact that a year ago many of these same people probably bent over backwards to keep Romney off the ballot because hes to liberal, keep in mind this is the same party that has been vilifying Chief Justice John Roberts as a closet democrat.

You are either with them or against them. Compromise is weakness. Pathological hatred for the United States government. Obsession over ideological purity. Vote Republican 2012!(Because lord knows it didnt matter what name was on the ballot).

phins_4_ever
10-05-2012, 10:33 PM
its funny the people who are bragging how the unemployment rate is at 7.8 percent. you do realize that when obama took office that it was at that, so even if that number is credible, he still didnt reduce it, and as a matter of fact, i remember obama promising when he was elected that with the new stimulus package, the unemployment rate would be at 5.6 percent lol.

You can not be serious. Sometimes when I read these posts I feel like I am on a different planet.

We know totally disregard the fact that he stepped into a totally crappy economy with rising unemployment with an unemployment rate increased by 3% in one year alone before he took office.

-=DolfanDave=-
10-05-2012, 11:49 PM
Of course you are rob. You disagreed with something Romney said, that makes you an Obama supporter.

Overlooking the fact that a year ago many of these same people probably bent over backwards to keep Romney off the ballot because hes to liberal, keep in mind this is the same party that has been vilifying Chief Justice John Roberts as a closet democrat.

You are either with them or against them. Compromise is weakness. Pathological hatred for the United States government. Obsession over ideological purity. Vote Republican 2012!(Because lord knows it didnt matter what name was on the ballot).

Why? Because you say so?

lol... some people think they have ALL the answers. There isn't just two schools of thought in politics. You know that, right? "Your either with them or against them" ?! WTF is that? Are you a member of the nazi party?

rob19
10-05-2012, 11:51 PM
Why? Because you say so?

lol... some people think they have ALL the answers. There isn't just two schools of thought in politics. You know that, right? "Your either with them or against them" ?! WTF is that? Are you a member of the nazi party?

I think his sarcasm might have escaped you.

irish fin fan
10-06-2012, 12:00 AM
And you think that the unemployment number is credible? This is the same administration that said that Obamacare wouldn't raise the price of healthcare. It provided a number bases on a shell game to fabricate savings: they got the CBO to state the cost over a specific 10 year span, fully knowing that 4 of the 10 years were all tax revenues, while only 6 of those years would actually contain expenses. It was a deliberate attempt to misinform you and me. Now these good numbers come out within 2 days of all the headlines talking about how Romney cleaned Obama's clock in the debate. They are again attempting to own the headline and take control of the news stories to get Obama's failure off the map.

Same old nonsense posts. Listening to conspiracy stories again are we?

irish fin fan
10-06-2012, 12:03 AM
its funny the people who are bragging how the unemployment rate is at 7.8 percent. you do realize that when obama took office that it was at that, so even if that number is credible, he still didnt reduce it, and as a matter of fact, i remember obama promising when he was elected that with the new stimulus package, the unemployment rate would be at 5.6 percent lol.

its funny how many people on here bash romney ( not saying he does not deserve any criticism) yet will defend anything obama does. under obama, the economy still ****ing blows, and for me personally as someone who makes a lot of money yearly, i dont need to be taxed more so i can ****ing pay for the bums who just decide to live off the government bc they are to lazy to get a ****ing job.

if you dont work or are lazy, obama is deff ur guy and should be, but for me i just cant afford for obama to be elected another term, it would hurt me, but to each his own i guess.

---------- Post added at 08:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:45 PM ----------


u cant argue vs these people who love obama, they will use anything to defend him. its not even worth it, i shouldnt have even gotten involved bc i wont win the argument, they are going to believe what they want to and nothing can change it. even if it was a credible number, thats still ****ing awful, its the same as when bush left, and if people destroyed bush over it, obama deserves the same bashing.

This post is so pathetic I won't even bother commenting on it, except to say its pathetic.

Spesh
10-06-2012, 12:05 AM
Why? Because you say so?

lol... some people think they have ALL the answers. There isn't just two schools of thought in politics. You know that, right? "Your either with them or against them" ?! WTF is that? Are you a member of the nazi party?

I believe the correct accusation towards those who dont agree with everything Republicans say is "socialist". "Communist" is also acceptable.

WVDolphan
10-06-2012, 12:06 AM
its funny the people who are bragging how the unemployment rate is at 7.8 percent. you do realize that when obama took office that it was at that, so even if that number is credible, he still didnt reduce it, and as a matter of fact, i remember obama promising when he was elected that with the new stimulus package, the unemployment rate would be at 5.6 percent lol.

its funny how many people on here bash romney ( not saying he does not deserve any criticism) yet will defend anything obama does. under obama, the economy still ****ing blows, and for me personally as someone who makes a lot of money yearly, i dont need to be taxed more so i can ****ing pay for the bums who just decide to live off the government bc they are to lazy to get a ****ing job.

if you dont work or are lazy, obama is deff ur guy and should be, but for me i just cant afford for obama to be elected another term, it would hurt me, but to each his own i guess.

---------- Post added at 08:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:45 PM ----------


u cant argue vs these people who love obama, they will use anything to defend him. its not even worth it, i shouldnt have even gotten involved bc i wont win the argument, they are going to believe what they want to and nothing can change it. even if it was a credible number, thats still ****ing awful, its the same as when bush left, and if people destroyed bush over it, obama deserves the same bashing.

:lol: I was going to say the EXACT same thing after reading the previous posts about the unemployment rate.

These Obama people remind me of the Tony Sparano supporters around here following his third season.

The dude just now got the unemployment rate back to where it was when he took office. Which means the rest of the time he was in office it was WORSE than what it is now. Thats like a manager taking over a team that was 20 games under .500, making it worse for a long time, then getting them back to 20 games under by seasons end and the fans saying..... "oooo yea this guy is solid. we need to extend his contract". :lol: Clueless.

Facts are Obama has done an absolute **** job for 4 years. Just look at the numbers. If you want to blame Bush for the first 1 or 2 years, I will almost buy some of that ****. But, once youre several years into your own term, the **** that goes down is on you. Accountability. Thats all. Hold this loser accountable for 4 years of ****.

All he did was have Bin Laden killed. I give him credit for that. Some republicans want to argue that was thanks to all the work Bush did, but I call BS there because then you have to lend credibility to the Obama excuses for the economy. I simply hold people accountable for **** that happens when they are in office.

Ilovemyfins4eva
10-06-2012, 07:34 AM
:lol: I was going to say the EXACT same thing after reading the previous posts about the unemployment rate.

These Obama people remind me of the Tony Sparano supporters around here following his third season.

The dude just now got the unemployment rate back to where it was when he took office. Which means the rest of the time he was in office it was WORSE than what it is now. Thats like a manager taking over a team that was 20 games under .500, making it worse for a long time, then getting them back to 20 games under by seasons end and the fans saying..... "oooo yea this guy is solid. we need to extend his contract". :lol: Clueless.

Facts are Obama has done an absolute **** job for 4 years. Just look at the numbers. If you want to blame Bush for the first 1 or 2 years, I will almost buy some of that ****. But, once youre several years into your own term, the **** that goes down is on you. Accountability. Thats all. Hold this loser accountable for 4 years of ****.

All he did was have Bin Laden killed. I give him credit for that. Some republicans want to argue that was thanks to all the work Bush did, but I call BS there because then you have to lend credibility to the Obama excuses for the economy. I simply hold people accountable for **** that happens when they are in office.it is what it is man, some people just cant face the truth.

there are people on here who hate both romney and obama, which is fine, but then there are people who will bash Romney non stop and always defend obama, and yet theyll claim there not obama guys, those are my favorite.

---------- Post added at 06:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:32 AM ----------


This post is so pathetic I won't even bother commenting on it, except to say its pathetic.of course its pathetic, u disagree with it. is anything anti obama considered pathetic on this site by you?

cuzinvinny
10-06-2012, 10:18 AM
[QUOTE=rob19;1064447578]Like I've said I'm not an Obama supporter either, but I've yet to hear anyone say one actual way Mitt's Welfare program will be different than the current one.


Well to begin with, Mitt Romneys policies will bring jobs bring JOBS JOBS you know JOBS, People working and not needing to be on welfare. Lowering the amount of people on welfare so that we will still have a country able to give welfare to those who truly need it down the road, otherwise look at Europe Gov. control is workin great there right...NOT ). You have a great gift in a "vote" but it requires some level of intiative and responsibility to take the time to understand to some degree whats going on......With all due respect, It's hard to fathom your inability to see the answer to your question without feeling you haven't been paying enough attention .......This is the most important election of the last half century your future and ours is at stake and hopefully you will realize the seriousness and take the time to be more informed (either way) ....And I'm not saying that to be personnally critical Hopefully your young and politics is not very high on your list of priorities but son your future is going to be directly effect by the direction this country decides to go.........and you need to be informed enough to make a clear judgement (either way ) on whether or not you feel the policies of the last 4 years is working for our country or a change is in order.........

-=DolfanDave=-
10-06-2012, 11:38 AM
I think his sarcasm might have escaped you.

It did. I'll admit it. Thought he was being serious like 99.9% of the other posts here.

irish fin fan
10-06-2012, 12:24 PM
it is what it is man, some people just cant face the truth.

there are people on here who hate both romney and obama, which is fine, but then there are people who will bash Romney non stop and always defend obama, and yet theyll claim there not obama guys, those are my favorite.

---------- Post added at 06:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:32 AM ----------

of course its pathetic, u disagree with it. is anything anti obama considered pathetic on this site by you?

It's pathetic because its so full of bulls$&@ so called facts. The fact that I need to even point that out to you shows how deluded ultra right posters are.

rob19
10-06-2012, 12:47 PM
Well to begin with, Mitt Romneys policies will bring jobs bring JOBS JOBS you know JOBS, People working and not needing to be on welfare. Lowering the amount of people on welfare so that we will still have a country able to give welfare to those who truly need it down the road, otherwise look at Europe Gov. control is workin great there right...NOT ). You have a great gift in a "vote" but it requires some level of intiative and responsibility to take the time to understand to some degree whats going on......With all due respect, It's hard to fathom your inability to see the answer to your question without feeling you haven't been paying enough attention .......This is the most important election of the last half century your future and ours is at stake and hopefully you will realize the seriousness and take the time to be more informed (either way) ....And I'm not saying that to be personnally critical Hopefully your young and politics is not very high on your list of priorities but son your future is going to be directly effect by the direction this country decides to go.........and you need to be informed enough to make a clear judgement (either way ) on whether or not you feel the policies of the last 4 years is working for our country or a change is in order.........


First off, WV stated the "poors" will have no motivation to work because he thinks Obama's removed the work requirement law for Welfare (which is false), so I've yet & still not heard anyone say precisely how the two will be different.

Furthermore, what specific evidence could you point to that indicates further decreasing of taxes paid by people who are in one-tenth of one percent of the highest income bracket in the country fosters job growth? There's actually compelling arguments that there's little to no evidence it fosters growth, but a lot of evidence that it continues to extend the ever-growing gap of income inequality.


At one campaign stop after another, Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney has been telling voters that "I know how to create jobs."Mr. Romney has not yet disclosed the fine points of his plan, but the guts of it are tax cuts. In the short run he would maintain current marginal tax rates-including the 35 percent top rate on earned income and 15 percent on capital gains incorporated in the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003.
In the long run, he wants to cut the corporate tax rate to 25 percent and simplify the tax code, making the top income tax rate 25 percent and eliminating as-yet-unspecified tax loopholes.

Inherent in these plans is the foundational conservative credo that cutting taxes creates growth. Unfortunately, the Congressional Research Service at the Library of Congress, which does research and analysis for members of Congress, has published a new report saying that since World War II, there is little evidence that cutting taxes promotes growth. But there is significant evidence that tax cuts have created more income inequality.
The cut-and-grow school has been around for a hundred years, but got its most thorough airing during the Reagan administration with the ascendancy of the supply-side economic theories of Arthur Laffer and the eponymous "Laffer curve."

It sounds reasonable enough. The theory is that cutting taxes, particularly on those who pay the most, results in more money to invest and greater incentive to do so. This, in turn, would create a big enough pie that even the government would have more revenue than it would have had with higher tax rates.
Skeptics call it "trickle-down economics." In 1982, the liberal economist John Kenneth Galbraith called it "horse-and-sparrow economics," in that, "If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows."

Alas, in a modern economy, the oats that pass through the horse don't necessarily have to land where the horse is standing. Investors can, and often do, choose to invest their tax savings elsewhere, either overseas or in financial products that churn money but don't create many jobs. Individuals amass great fortunes without becoming great industrialists. Companies today are sitting on $2 trillion in cash, which is a lot of oats.
Here is the key portion of the CRS report, written by Thomas L. Hungerford:

"Throughout the late-1940s and 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was typically above 90 percent; today it's 35 percent. Additionally, the top capital gains tax rate was 25 percent in the 1950s and 1960s, 35 percent in the 1970s; today it is 15 percent. The real GDP (gross domestic product) growth rate averaged 4.2 percent and real per capita GDP increased annually by 2.4 percent in the 1950s. In the 2000s, the average real GDP growth rate was 1.7 percent and real per capita GDP increased annually by less than 1 percent.

"There is not conclusive evidence, however, to substantiate a clear relationship between the 65-year steady reduction in the top tax rates and economic growth. Analysis of such data suggests the reductions in the top tax rates have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.

"The share of income accruing to the top 0.1 percent of U.S. families increased from 4.2 percent in 1945 to 12.3 percent by 2007 before falling to 9.2 percent due to the 2007-2009 recession. The evidence does not suggest necessarily a relationship between tax policy with regard to the top tax rates and the size of the economic pie, but there may be a relationship to how the economic pie is sliced."

When the study was released two weeks ago, conservative critics noted how "convenient" it was for President Barack Obama's re-election campaign. It is hard to argue, however, that there is such a thing as "liberal" or "conservative" math.

It is not likely that returning the top marginal tax rate to 39.6 percent-as would happen if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire at the end of this year-would by itself kick off an era of growth. If cutting taxes doesn't yield growth, increasing them is not likely to do so, either.

The importance of the CRS study, as in similar studies by other nonpartisan groups, is to remind us that simple solutions do not answer in complex times.

With all due respect, if you were so informed, I'd expect more of you to actually be able to provide more details and specific facts to expound upon and back your arguments rather than arguing by assertion and rhetoric, or worse of all; football analogies.

Spesh
10-06-2012, 01:32 PM
First off, WV stated the "poors" will have no motivation to work because he thinks Obama's removed the work requirement law for Welfare (which is false), so I've yet & still not heard anyone say precisely how the two will be different.

Furthermore, what specific evidence could you point to that indicates further decreasing of taxes paid by people who are in one-tenth of one percent of the highest income bracket in the country fosters job growth? There's actually compelling arguments that there's little to no evidence it fosters growth, but a lot of evidence that it continues to extend the ever-growing gap of income inequality.

With all due respect, if you were so informed, I'd expect more of you to actually be able to provide more details and specific facts to expound upon and back your arguments rather than arguing by assertion and rhetoric, or worse of all; football analogies.

Out of all the claims Romney has made, that one amuses me the most(well, second to the most, the best one was "Obama would remove God from coins"). Obama gave the states more control to solve their unemployment numbers. Let me repeat: he gave the states more control. Thats a conservative philosophy...and Romney slams him for it. Amuses me endlessly. To be fair, Romney can say whatever he wants, its on Obama to shut down the claim. But still, i chuckle when i see Romney hammer away at it.


PolitiFact checked a Romney campaign ad's claim that Obama ended welfare work requirements earlier this month, rating it Pants On Fire (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/07/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obamas-plan-abandons-tenet/). In reality, the Obama administration has said it will consider proposals from states that are aimed at finding better ways of getting welfare recipients into jobs. FactCheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org/2012/08/does-obamas-plan-gut-welfare-reform/) and the Washington Post Fact Checker (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/spin-and-counterspin-in-the-welfare-debate/2012/08/07/61bf03b6-e0e3-11e1-8fc5-a7dcf1fc161d_blog.html) have also said the claim is false.

But the claim lives on. The Romney campaign has released two (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NB-ZbpwHMRo&feature=player_embedded) more (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/07/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obamas-plan-abandons-tenet/) ads repeating the line that work requirements were "gutted" line and it's become a regular talking point for Romney campaign surrogates.

"Our most effective ad is our welfare ad," strategist Ashley O'Connor said at an RNC forum (http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/romney-camp-bets-welfare-attack) on Tuesday. "It's new information."

"We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers," added Romney pollster Neil Newhouse.


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/28/rick-santorum/Santorum-Romney-claim-Obama-ending-welfare-work/


Romney’s ad says, "Under Obama’s plan (for welfare), you wouldn’t have to work and wouldn’t have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check."

That's a drastic distortion of the planned changes to Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. By granting waivers to states, the Obama administration is seeking to make welfare-to-work efforts more successful, not end them. What’s more, the waivers would apply to individually evaluated pilot programs -- HHS is not proposing a blanket, national change to welfare law.

The ad tries to connect the dots to reach this zinger: "They just send you your welfare check." The HHS memo in no way advocates that practice. In fact, it says the new policy is "designed to improve employment outcomes for needy families."

The ad’s claim is not accurate, and it inflames old resentments about able-bodied adults sitting around collecting public assistance. Pants on Fire!

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/07/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obamas-plan-abandons-tenet/

TheWalrus
10-06-2012, 02:03 PM
So what, Spesh? Everybody knows politifact just a bunch of guys sitting around beating off to Das Capital.

CedarPhin
10-06-2012, 02:09 PM
Right Wing Authoritarians FTW.

cuzinvinny
10-06-2012, 03:12 PM
First off, WV stated the "poors" will have no motivation to work because he thinks Obama's removed the work requirement law for Welfare (which is false), so I've yet & still not heard anyone say precisely how the two will be different.

Furthermore, what specific evidence could you point to that indicates further decreasing of taxes paid by people who are in one-tenth of one percent of the highest income bracket in the country fosters job growth? There's actually compelling arguments that there's little to no evidence it fosters growth, but a lot of evidence that it continues to extend the ever-growing gap of income inequality.



With all due respect, if you were so informed, I'd expect more of you to actually be able to provide more details and specific facts to expound upon and back your arguments rather than arguing by assertion and rhetoric, or worse of all; football analogies.

Not going to argue with you, I stand by my statement.

As far as your new topic Decreasing taxes..In the debate several times as in more than 2-3 times Romney has stated that he was NOT going to decrease the amount of revenue (money) that that 1 in 1/10 % pay, Again will not decrease, Did You Hear That. He said he would lower their tax rate along with everybody elses except get rid of many loopholds being used to save taxes by the very rich. AGAIN... Romney has said he is NOT going to decrease that revenue of the very rich. Hopefully it doesn't need to be said again to You, but Obamas is using this misinformation to distort the truth and they call Romney a Liar.....I can see your next move but what loopholds will he stop. I have no clue how he will do it but will take him at his word and hold him responsible that he will do what is one of his basic policies. I think that more of an issue with the rich is the uncertainty of direction this admin. has taken us and with clarity will begin to put their money into investments again creating more jobs, which in turn greats more revenue which should be going along with a major tightening of the belt.....

TheWalrus
10-06-2012, 03:25 PM
In the debate several times as in more than 2-3 times Romney has stated that he was NOT going to decrease the amount of revenue (money) that that 1 in 1/10 % pay, Again will not decrease, Did You Hear That.

Everyone heard it. Only the credulous believed it.


I have no clue how he will do it but will take him at his word and hold him responsible that he will do what is one of his basic policies.

In the name of Homer J. Simpson and all that is holy... why?

tylerdolphin
10-06-2012, 03:43 PM
Great thread. Would read again.

cuzinvinny
10-07-2012, 09:55 AM
[QUOTE=TheWalrus;1064447889]Everyone heard it. Only the credulous believed it.


I guess thats the big difference. Hope, with one who has shown experience and success in dealing with the business world, compared with outright failure from one who has been cluesless, unable and unwilling to negotiate compromises and a World policy of leading from behind, which has terrorists movement shaking in their shoes, along with Irans nut jobs schooling us in BS while they build their bomb.....and putting a ending date on Afgan. War another mental gem.........

I can also relate to Homer J. Simpson and say with an economy totally in the crapper, 23 million unemployed, 16 trillion and counting deficet, Mid east about to explode, and a president who can't find the time to meet with our most important Ally during this critical period but finds time to go to Vegas campaigning, hobnob with celebrities, Letterman, and be on the View as self expressed " Eye Candy ", Oh ya and misses 47% of his daily Intelligence briefings, and this works for you.........WHY ?.........no I don't need to hear it............

I guess I'd rather be credulous than just out right blind and stupid to agree to give such exposed clueless ineptitude a shot at another 4 years.....Christ even Biden could do better than his boss, and Biden politically is about as smart as a rock.............

irish fin fan
10-07-2012, 10:14 AM
[QUOTE=TheWalrus;1064447889]Everyone heard it. Only the credulous believed it.


I guess thats the big difference. Hope, with one who has shown experience and success in dealing with the business world, compared with outright failure from one who has been cluesless, unable and unwilling to negotiate compromises and a World policy of leading from behind, which has terrorists movement shaking in their shoes, along with Irans nut jobs schooling us in BS while they build their bomb.....and putting a ending date on Afgan. War another mental gem.........

I can also relate to Homer J. Simpson and say with an economy totally in the crapper, 23 million unemployed, 16 trillion and counting deficet, Mid east about to explode, and a president who can't find the time to meet with our most important Ally during this critical period but finds time to go to Vegas campaigning, hobnob with celebrities, Letterman, and be on the View as self expressed " Eye Candy ", Oh ya and misses 47% of his daily Intelligence briefings, and this works for you.........WHY ?.........no I don't need to hear it............

I guess I'd rather be credulous than just out right blind and stupid to agree to give such exposed clueless ineptitude a shot at another 4 years.....Christ even Biden could do better than his boss, and Biden politically is about as smart as a rock.............

And a rock has more intelligence than that displayed in that post. Go and elect Romney, experience an economic sugar high for a couple of years, and them watch the country go into a Great Depression.

Ilovemyfins4eva
10-07-2012, 10:23 AM
[QUOTE=cuzinvinny;1064448264]

And a rock has more intelligence than that displayed in that post. Go and elect Romney, experience an economic sugar high for a couple of years, and them watch the country go into a Great Depression.
electing a new guy gives us hope. no one is saying romney is the best candidate ever. he may or may not turn out to be a good president but he gives a new hope. what we have now has not worked for the past 4 years and what exactly has happened in the last 4 years that makes u believe things are going to get much better?

its like a football team hiring a new coach( and no im not saying a new coach is just as important as the leader of the most powerful country on earth). when a team does poorly after so many years, they fire the leader ( the head coach) and replace him with a new one. now does that mean that the new leader( head coach) is going to come in and automatically take that poor team and turn them into a powerhouse? no, he can also fail, but at least u tried something new to see if things can get turned around.

nothing has improved under obama in this country, the unemployment rate is exactly where it was at when he took office now after almost 4 years in office, and until now has been above 8 percent.

of course though i am expecting nothing more from your response as to '' this is such a pathetic post, i wont even both reading it''.

if this is the type of guy u like leading your country, then god bless u

cuzinvinny
10-07-2012, 10:58 AM
[QUOTE=irish fin fan;1064448280]
electing a new guy gives us hope. no one is saying romney is the best candidate ever. he may or may not turn out to be a good president but he gives a new hope. what we have now has not worked for the past 4 years and what exactly has happened in the last 4 years that makes u believe things are going to get much better?

its like a football team hiring a new coach( and no im not saying a new coach is just as important as the leader of the most powerful country on earth). when a team does poorly after so many years, they fire the leader ( the head coach) and replace him with a new one. now does that mean that the new leader( head coach) is going to come in and automatically take that poor team and turn them into a powerhouse? no, he can also fail, but at least u tried something new to see if things can get turned around.

nothing has improved under obama in this country, the unemployment rate is exactly where it was at when he took office now after almost 4 years in office, and until now has been above 8 percent.

of course though i am expecting nothing more from your response as to '' this is such a pathetic post, i wont even both reading it''.

if this is the type of guy u like leading your country, then god bless u

On the contrary, if you read my post we are actually saying the same thing....


Interesting the way I'm listed as saying " And a rock has more intelligence than that displayed in that post. Go and elect Romney, experience an economic sugar high for a couple of years, and them watch the country go into a Great Depression. " Which I didn't say....

I said " Biden has the political intelligence of a rock "
Some other pebble came up with the the Great Depression crap......funny he's see's Romney leading us into a great depression by creating jobs and tightening the spending belt...........While the economy has gotten pathetic and worse the last 4 years....People that think this are beyond trying to explain basic logic too.....

cuzinvinny
10-07-2012, 11:02 AM
Irish Fin Fan
And a rock has more intelligence than that displayed in that post. Go and elect Romney, experience an economic sugar high for a couple of years, and them watch the country go into a Great Depression.[/QUOTE]

YOU Probably want Sparano back .........& Beck, seems like they set the standards your looking for.....lol

Spesh
10-07-2012, 11:47 AM
Irish Fin Fan
And a rock has more intelligence than that displayed in that post. Go and elect Romney, experience an economic sugar high for a couple of years, and them watch the country go into a Great Depression.

YOU Probably want Sparano back .........& Beck, seems like they set the standards your looking for.....lol

Why are you trying to rehire Cam Cameron?

And to get the qoute bubble around someones post, all you have to do is hit the "reply with quote" option or highlight their post and hit the "quote" command, which is the second to the last on quick reply.

cuzinvinny
10-07-2012, 12:00 PM
Why are you trying to rehire Cam Cameron?

And to get the qoute bubble around someones post, all you have to do is hit the "reply with quote" option or highlight their post and hit the "quote" command, which is the second to the last on quick reply.

And you get I'm trying to rehire Cam from ??????

Well 2-3 threads up Iluvmyfins4eva has me giving a quote I didn't make.....interesting
thanks for the quote info...

Ilovemyfins4eva
10-07-2012, 12:08 PM
And you get I'm trying to rehire Cam from ??????

Well 2-3 threads up Iluvmyfins4eva has me giving a quote I didn't make.....interesting
thanks for the quote info...
i know you didnt say that quote, i agreed with u on every point u made, hence the reason i gave u a thanks.

from time to time, **** like that happens and it looks like im quoting someone else under another name. dont worry man, i agree with ur points, ur dead on.

irish fin fan
10-07-2012, 12:12 PM
[QUOTE=irish fin fan;1064448280]
electing a new guy gives us hope. no one is saying romney is the best candidate ever. he may or may not turn out to be a good president but he gives a new hope. what we have now has not worked for the past 4 years and what exactly has happened in the last 4 years that makes u believe things are going to get much better?

its like a football team hiring a new coach( and no im not saying a new coach is just as important as the leader of the most powerful country on earth). when a team does poorly after so many years, they fire the leader ( the head coach) and replace him with a new one. now does that mean that the new leader( head coach) is going to come in and automatically take that poor team and turn them into a powerhouse? no, he can also fail, but at least u tried something new to see if things can get turned around.

nothing has improved under obama in this country, the unemployment rate is exactly where it was at when he took office now after almost 4 years in office, and until now has been above 8 percent.

of course though i am expecting nothing more from your response as to '' this is such a pathetic post, i wont even both reading it''.

if this is the type of guy u like leading your country, then god bless u

A you want to vote for someone who is the greatest flip flopper in history. I don't even know what he stands for, changes his tune so often depending on the audience.

Now your comparing electing a football coach to electing a president. SMH.

irish fin fan
10-07-2012, 12:15 PM
[QUOTE=Ilovemyfins4eva;1064448293]

On the contrary, if you read my post we are actually saying the same thing....


Interesting the way I'm listed as saying " And a rock has more intelligence than that displayed in that post. Go and elect Romney, experience an economic sugar high for a couple of years, and them watch the country go into a Great Depression. " Which I didn't say....

I said " Biden has the political intelligence of a rock "
Some other pebble came up with the the Great Depression crap......funny he's see's Romney leading us into a great depression by creating jobs and tightening the spending belt...........While the economy has gotten pathetic and worse the last 4 years....People that think this are beyond trying to explain basic logic too.....

Formatting of your post seems screwed up. In any case, I'm not saying you said anything, that's my view regarding the sugar high etc.

rob19
10-07-2012, 12:16 PM
Not going to argue with you, I stand by my statement.

As far as your new topic Decreasing taxes..In the debate several times as in more than 2-3 times Romney has stated that he was NOT going to decrease the amount of revenue (money) that that 1 in 1/10 % pay, Again will not decrease, Did You Hear That. He said he would lower their tax rate along with everybody elses except get rid of many loopholds being used to save taxes by the very rich. AGAIN... Romney has said he is NOT going to decrease that revenue of the very rich. Hopefully it doesn't need to be said again to You, but Obamas is using this misinformation to distort the truth and they call Romney a Liar.....I can see your next move but what loopholds will he stop. I have no clue how he will do it but will take him at his word and hold him responsible that he will do what is one of his basic policies. I think that more of an issue with the rich is the uncertainty of direction this admin. has taken us and with clarity will begin to put their money into investments again creating more jobs, which in turn greats more revenue which should be going along with a major tightening of the belt.....

What you want to believe & what the mathematical reality of the situation is are two different things. Like I said I don't think there's much of a point in debating any of you if you're not going to provide actual details and specific facts to back your assertions, or just taking a politician with a well defined history of waffling's word on the matter.


Romney has proposed cutting tax rates by 20% in each bracket, which, the liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities says would cost $4.9 trillion over 10 years. Romney said his plan will be paid for by curtailing tax deductions, so middle-class people pay less overall and upper-income people don't see lower taxes. Last month in Ohio, Romney said middle-class people would see little change in their taxes under his plan.

Romney has declined to say what tax deductions he would end. The non-partisan Tax Policy Center has contended that middle-class families would see taxes rise about $2,000 a year under Romney's plan if he keeps his promise to make the tax reform revenue neutral, arguing that it can't be done without ending popular middle-class deductions on mortgage interest and charitable contributions.

Ilovemyfins4eva
10-07-2012, 12:18 PM
[QUOTE=Ilovemyfins4eva;1064448293]

A you want to vote for someone who is the greatest flip flopper in history. I don't even know what he stands for, changes his tune so often depending on the audience.

Now your comparing electing a football coach to electing a president. SMH.if u read what i wrote, i clearly said i was NOT comparing a football coach to a president.

i was using an example, of how if one fails in there industry over a lengthy time period and nothing seems to improve, u do not move on with him for another 4 years, u fire his ass and bring in a new face and see if that person can fix the sinking ship.

obviously the ****ing president of the united states whomever it may be is the most powerful man on the planet, and im not saying a football headcoach is as important, just using that as an example to show failure is not acceptable, and when u have the 1 chance every 4 years to make change, u do so. obama has not come close to earning another 4 years as head of the best country on earth.

irish fin fan
10-07-2012, 12:19 PM
Irish Fin Fan
And a rock has more intelligence than that displayed in that post. Go and elect Romney, experience an economic sugar high for a couple of years, and them watch the country go into a Great Depression.

YOU Probably want Sparano back .........& Beck, seems like they set the standards your looking for.....lol[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't claim to know a fraction of what you guys know about American football. I was brought up been fanatical about real football. Joking aside, I think the team is going in the right direction with the new coach and I'm exited about new quarterback.

irish fin fan
10-07-2012, 12:33 PM
[QUOTE=irish fin fan;1064448415]if u read what i wrote, i clearly said i was NOT comparing a football coach to a president.

i was using an example, of how if one fails in there industry over a lengthy time period and nothing seems to improve, u do not move on with him for another 4 years, u fire his ass and bring in a new face and see if that person can fix the sinking ship.

obviously the ****ing president of the united states whomever it may be is the most powerful man on the planet, and im not saying a football headcoach is as important, just using that as an example to show failure is not acceptable, and when u have the 1 chance every 4 years to make change, u do so. obama has not come close to earning another 4 years as head of the best country on earth.

There's a certain thing called a global economy. Do you think the situation in Europe has no impact on this country? Are you still in the era of 40 years ago where what happened in other countries had little or no impact on us.

This country , citizens and country, has been gorging on debt for the last 30 years. Now it's payback time. The payback should have happened at the end of the .com bust but interest rates were slashed to stupid levels starting the housing boom. Admittedly the interest drop was needed followed Sep 11th but was kept way too low for way too long. Non existent regulations in that whole mortgage conveyor belt was the icing on the cake.

A financial led recession/ depression takes typically 6 to 10 years to recover from. Enjoy, payback is a bitch.

Spesh
10-07-2012, 12:56 PM
And you get I'm trying to rehire Cam from ??????

Well 2-3 threads up Iluvmyfins4eva has me giving a quote I didn't make.....interesting
thanks for the quote info...

If we are going to make absurd football comparisons, why not go all in? To suggest that Obama is Sparano is to suggest that we have a Philbin on the horizon. This is not the case. No matter how much Republicans try and change the argument, no matter how much people try and distract, no matter how much the right wishes it so: this election isnt about "whether we were better off 4 years ago"(we werent), this election is about "whether things could get much worse". And it could. Very easily.

Again, this isnt "lolz you'd probably want to keep Sparano", this is "hey, we got this Nick Saban guy...we should hire a new coach, oh look, Cam Cameron is the Chargers OC, i wonder how that would go....".

And glanced around, alot of peoples quotes are screwed up. Not sure why. Hopefully my posts works without problem. My mistake if you knew the commands and the system was messing up.

Statler Waldorf
10-11-2012, 02:35 PM
[QUOTE=JackFinfan;1064447395]lmao, if you think that loophole will even come close to covering a tenth of the revenue loss that will occur when you lower the rates.

This isn’t even a complete sentence. Revenues actually increase when you reduce the tax rates on the upper incomes, that’s a historical fact.


Also, please show me a source saying Romney will eliminate your forward contract example.

I don’t need one, he said he’d eliminate whatever loopholes it takes to be deficit neutral; so he may need to eliminate that one he may not. You simply said such loopholes didn’t even exist, and I proved you were full of it.


You believe that because you're biased.

No, you believe the opposite because you are biased.


These aren't the agencies themselves that are donating to the campaigns, these are donations from actual every-day people who've joined those agencies. Look it up.

Changing your tune a bit now I see, either way this is supposed to prove what? Current military and former military always support the GOP overwhelmingly.


It's his own study, which he's personally endorsed, that shows even under the most favorable conditions he won't be able to give a tax reduction to people making over 250k without at the very least raising taxes on people in the 100k to 250k bracket.

It’s not his own study, it’s a Harvard study, and it ignores the historical fact that tax revenues actually increase whenever you drop the top rates.

Again, like Jack said, just because I criticize Romney doesn't mean I support Obama,

The fact you criticize Romney for things that you let slide when it comes to Obama does mean you support Obama, even if just indirectly.



and just because I criticize Young Earth Creationists doesn't mean I'm an atheist.

Nope, the fact you don’t believe in God means you’re an atheist, definitions matter.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_pgfWK3sxw

So you are not going to join with me and admit that Obama broke dozens of campaign promises? You really are his groupie aren't you?


Simply defining an inductive argument doesn't mean yours isn't erroneous.

Argument from silence, it’s up to you to prove it’s erroneous, just asserting it is proves nothing.


Oh my, unemployment rate is less than 8%. I can hear Romney now "I never said that that the unemployment rate under Obama never dropped below 8%, I said 7%".

It hadn’t when Romney said that silly, and it was Obama who promised it would never go above 8 percent if we passed his stimulus, it only stayed above 8 percent for nearly 3 years. There are less Americans working today than when he took office, the man doesn’t deserve a second chance.


Oh sure, as long it was an unemployment rate above 8% it was credible number. Now its not. Figures.

Nobody ever said that it was credible when it was over 8 percent; actual estimates of the real unemployment rate put it above 11 percent.

rob19
10-11-2012, 02:54 PM
Changing your tune a bit now I see,

Not at all, you apparently didn’t understand me.


either way this is supposed to prove what?

That he isn’t bought and paid for by corporate interests.


Current military and former military always support the GOP overwhelmingly.

Isn’t Romney GOP as well?
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2013/03/militarydonationsbranch500px-1.png


Nope, the fact you don’t believe in God means you’re an atheist, definitions matter.

You're right, they do.

“Athiest- A person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.”

I’m not saying their isn’t a God, but unlike yourself I’m not going to claim to be able to prove he exists through the use of
circular reasoning. Also a key note in that definition Statler, is the word BELIEVE, as in, a BELIEF in God. Want me to define belief while were at it?


So you are not going to join with me and admit that Obama broke dozens of campaign promises? You really are his groupie aren't you?

What part of “it goes both ways”, escaped you?

ROADRUNNER
10-11-2012, 03:00 PM
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/10/tumblr_m1px2zhocI1qbrjx2o1_400-1.gif

Statler Waldorf
10-11-2012, 07:26 PM
Not at all, you apparently didn’t understand me.

You listed off the names of a bunch of government agencies as Paul’s biggest contributors, but when I pointed out that such a thing legally can’t happen you changed it to private contributors who used to or currently belong to such agencies.


That he isn’t bought and paid for by corporate interests.

Corporations create jobs and wealth for everyone else, I see no problem here.


Isn’t Romney GOP as well?

Yup, and that’s why veteran’s support him over Obama by 24 percentage points.


“Athiest- A person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.”

That’s the more traditional definition; the New Atheists such as George Smith define atheism as simply the lack of belief in a God or gods, which means they would certainly claim you. I don’t really care whether you consider yourself atheistic or agnostic, you’re still anti-Christian which is all that concerns me.


I’m not saying their isn’t a God, but unlike yourself I’m not going to claim to be able to prove he exists through the use of circular reasoning.

Its statements like this that really demonstrates your philosophical ignorance, all reasoning is inherently circular, which is completely fine. I believe you are trying to refer to a circular argument which doesn’t actually prove anything; of course my argument was not a circular argument because the conclusion was not simply a restatement of either of the two premises. You just didn’t like it; which is completely fine, but you simply not liking something is a bit irrelevant to me.



Also a key note in that definition Statler, is the word BELIEVE, as in, a BELIEF in God. Want me to define belief while were at it?

Are you really trying to say you in fact do not lack a belief in God? So you do believe in God?


What part of “it goes both ways”, escaped you?

You never said that, you simply posted a video of Romney. If that is really your position then your argument is moot, both candidates make promises they can’t keep, ok I still support Romney between the two because I support his overall position and philosophy more.

JackFinfan
10-11-2012, 11:27 PM
[QUOTE]

This isn’t even a complete sentence. Revenues actually increase when you reduce the tax rates on the upper incomes, that’s a historical fact.



I don’t need one, he said he’d eliminate whatever loopholes it takes to be deficit neutral; so he may need to eliminate that one he may not. You simply said such loopholes didn’t even exist, and I proved you were full of it.



First, the Bush Tax Cuts raised the deficit, so your "historical fact" is anything but.

Second, I initially stated that there aren't any loopholes that will offset the tax rate decreases that he wants to put in place. It's cute that you can google tax loopholes and then cut and paste. But the example you gave wouldn't even put a dent into the amount it would take to offset the revenue loss from his new rates. I believe I asked you to provide a loophole and then provide me a source stating he'd get rid of that loophole. You might have caught that if you didn't cut my posts into 1 sentence quotes. Is it so hard to keep my 3 to 4 sentences in one quote?

Weren't republicans the ones complaining about the whole "we have to pass the bill so we can see whats in it." Yet, when it comes to Mitt Romney's tax plan, they're perfectly fine with absolutely no details until he gets elected.

TrojanFin
10-12-2012, 06:07 AM
[QUOTE=Statler Waldorf;1064456276]

First, the Bush Tax Cuts raised the deficit, so your "historical fact" is anything but.

Second, I initially stated that there aren't any loopholes that will offset the tax rate decreases that he wants to put in place. It's cute that you can google tax loopholes and then cut and paste. But the example you gave wouldn't even put a dent into the amount it would take to offset the revenue loss from his new rates. I believe I asked you to provide a loophole and then provide me a source stating he'd get rid of that loophole. You might have caught that if you didn't cut my posts into 1 sentence quotes. Is it so hard to keep my 3 to 4 sentences in one quote?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzQAuG5CSEg

cue 8:47 - for the long version
cue 10:11 -11:06 - for the short version


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYsOet9ynS0

cue 1:16 - explanation on how how making cuts offsets reduction in taxes (which in turn stimulates economic growth)



RADDATZ: Well, let's talk about this 20 percent. You haverefused - and, again - to offer specifics on how you pay for that 20
percent across-the-board tax cut. Do you actually have the specifics?
Or are you still working on it, and that's why you won't tell voters?
RYAN: Different than this administration, we actually want to

have big bipartisan agreements. You see, I understand the...

***
RADDATZ: Do you know exactly what you're doing?
RYAN: Look - look at what Mitt Romney - look at what Ronald
Reagan and Tip O'Neill did. They worked together out of a framework
to lower tax rates and broaden the base, and they worked together to
fix that.
What we're saying is, here's our framework. Lower tax rates 20
percent. We raised about $1.2 trillion through income taxes. We
forego about $1.1 trillion in loopholes and deductions. And so what
we're saying is, deny those loopholes and deductions to higher-income
taxpayers so that more of their income is taxed, which has a broader

base of taxation...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/12/transcript-vice-presidential-debate/

@ Jackfin- The general ideas are there. By lowering tax rates, more companies will want to do business in the United States and thus make our country more globally competitive. When more business is done in the United States more jobs are created. Since more people will be employed, more citizens will be able to contribute more in taxes and consequently help alleviate our debt crisis.

As for your comment on loopholes. The "framework" is there, but the specifics are not because Romney-Ryan want to get feedback from Democrats, and gain bipartisan support on which loopholes and deductions need to go. In doing so, Progressives won't be able to accuse the GOP of putting forth a plan that is self-serving or benefits the "rich" and punishes the middle-class because they too will have had a hand its creation.


Weren't republicans the ones complaining about the whole "we have to pass the bill so we can see whats in it." Yet, when it comes to Mitt Romney's tax plan, they're perfectly fine with absolutely no details until he gets elected.

Comparing the Romney-Ryan Economic Plan to that of Obamacare is laughable, because Obamacare was a finished product (no severance clause even for changes to be made) that was being pushed through Congress through a partisan effort. Many of the Congressmen that voted on it, didn't even get the full grasp of what was in it because people like Pelosi (famous for said quote)were rushing to get it passed before they lost their super-majority in Congress.

Comparatively, the Romney-Ryan plan wants the full support of Congress, so both parties can again decide loopholes/deductions/exemptions should be done away with so everyone comes away happy. A great analogy would be a house that is waiting to be furnished. The details (decorations) are not as important as knowing that it is a fiscally (structurally) sound policy.

Ryan assures us that enough of these loopholes/deductions/exemptions will be gotten rid of to justify the tax reductions. What is more, lowering taxes helps the middle-class retain some of their hard earned money whereas the reduction in loopholes/deductions/exemptions has more of an impact on the "rich". The main benefit is that it simplifies what has become a complicated tax process, and everyone pays their fair share.

phins_4_ever
10-12-2012, 10:09 AM
[QUOTE=JackFinfan;1064456735]


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzQAuG5CSEg

cue 8:47 - for the long version
cue 10:11 -11:06 - for the short version


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYsOet9ynS0

cue 1:16 - explanation on how how making cuts offsets reduction in taxes (which in turn stimulates economic growth)



http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/12/transcript-vice-presidential-debate/

@ Jackfin- The general ideas are there. By lowering tax rates, more companies will want to do business in the United States and thus make our country more globally competitive. When more business is done in the United States more jobs are created. Since more people will be employed, more citizens will be able to contribute more in taxes and consequently help alleviate our debt crisis.

As for your comment on loopholes. The "framework" is there, but the specifics are not because Romney-Ryan want to get feedback from Democrats, and gain bipartisan support on which loopholes and deductions need to go. In doing so, Progressives won't be able to accuse the GOP of putting forth a plan that is self-serving or benefits the "rich" and punishes the middle-class because they too will have had a hand its creation.



Comparing the Romney-Ryan Economic Plan to that of Obamacare is laughable, because Obamacare was a finished product (no severance clause even for changes to be made) that was being pushed through Congress through a partisan effort. Many of the Congressmen that voted on it, didn't even get the full grasp of what was in it because people like Pelosi (famous for said quote)were rushing to get it passed before they lost their super-majority in Congress.

Comparatively, the Romney-Ryan plan wants the full support of Congress, so both parties can again decide loopholes/deductions/exemptions should be done away with so everyone comes away happy. A great analogy would be a house that is waiting to be furnished. The details (decorations) are not as important as knowing that it is a fiscally (structurally) sound policy.

Ryan assures us that enough of these loopholes/deductions/exemptions will be gotten rid of to justify the tax reductions. What is more, lowering taxes helps the middle-class retain some of their hard earned money whereas the reduction in loopholes/deductions/exemptions has more of an impact on the "rich". The main benefit is that it simplifies what has become a complicated tax process, and everyone pays their fair share.

Wow, so you just trust someone on basically no details. I think anybody can stand there and 'claim' we will reduce taxes and make them 'debt neutral/revenue neutral'. If there is a magic formula to it then I would say many Presidents would have taken that approach before.

Further, I wish the new generation Republicans especially Ryan would not invoke Reagan.


During Reagan's presidency, federal income tax rates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_taxes_in_the_United_States) were lowered significantly with the signing of the bipartisan Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Recovery_Tax_Act_of_1981)[128] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan#cite_note-127) which lowered the top marginal tax bracket from 70% to 50% and the lowest bracket from 14% to 11%, however other tax increases passed by Congress and signed by Reagan, ensured that tax revenues over his two terms were 18.2% of GDP as compared to 18.1% over the 40 year period 1970-2010.[129] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan#cite_note-128) Then, in 1982 the Job Training Partnership Act of 1982 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_Training_Partnership_Act_of_1982) was signed into law, initiating one of the nation's first public/private partnerships and a major part of the president's job creation program. Reagan's Assistant Secretary of Labor and Chief of Staff, Al Angrisani (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Angrisani), was a primary architect of the bill. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986), another bipartisan effort championed by Reagan, further reduced the top rate to 28%, raised the bottom bracket from 11% to 15%, and, cut the number of tax brackets to 4.

Even Reagan saw that he could not cut taxes without raising taxes to offset the cuts. There is many ways you can raise taxes. Just ask Romney as he had increased 'taxes' in MA as a governor by simply increasing simple things like marriage license, driver license, property taxes etc. It hurt the lower income people and the middle class as some of these fees were doubled.

And if you look at Reagan he also created a public/private cooperation for the job training market much like Obamacare in the healthcare sector which at this point is a public/private venture as well but heavily shifted towards the private sector. Reagan must have been a socialist.

Before any of you including Romney and Ryan invoke Reagan you may want to re-read his Presidency. Reagan has become a buzzword without knowledge for the new Republican generation - just like 'Socialist' and 'Communist'.

And if Ryan would love to involve Democrats in the process why not propose it now or in the last year. He is a member of Congress which creates law. It would be of great benefit for him to stand up and say "look, this is what I have done in Congress'. It would be a great campaign tool. I can tell you why neither Romney nor Ryan give you details. It would disfranchise most political supporters across the board. They are playing the 1% as well as the 99%. At the end it will be the 1% which will win out because it will be either stand as is or it will be shifted even more heavily towards the 1%.

Have you looked at the economic chart of the last 4 years and how much the 1% has increased its wealth (despite the economy) and how much the middle class and poor has lost their little bit?

Romney and Ryan are there to protect the 1%. But they can't win elections with the 1% only. That's why they are fuzzy about tax plans, economy, foreign policy and that's why they change positions almost daily. Because in all that confusing information and lack of details everybody will find something they like and not knowing what their current position on issues is the voter sticks with what he/she heard and liked (regardless if it has changed or not).

If Ryan is such an idealist why hasn't he given up on all his government entitlements, i.e. healthcare benefits (government supplemented), huge car allowances. Ryan is as much a normal person to most of us like Romney is. His estimated wealth lies between 3 Million and 7.7 Million. So he has an interest on keeping the taxes for the 1% low. His government income was nearly $200,000 last year. He went to college with government money because he collected social security benefits after his father passed away. With a brief moment in a family business Paul Ryan lived on government funds and became rich through government: Public high school (government), college through social security benefits (the very same program he wants to dismantle), congressional staffer with extra service jobs (government), speechwriter, member of congress. Ryan voted for the bailout of the auto industry and banks, he voted for Medicacare Part D which is considered one of the biggest enacted entitlement programs voted on (during the Bush administration). If you look to government then Mr Ryan is Mr Government. Unfortunately he is exactly one of these people everybody is screaming against.

Ryan of course would benefit from his own policies as well - unproportionally heavy, i.e. His proposed tax breaks and subsidies for the oil and gas company and drilling rights give-away are tied to some Oklahoma business where he is holding shares in.

Paul Ryan is a scumbag. I categorize him as one of the worst in Congress.

rob19
10-12-2012, 10:18 AM
Vague Against the Machine

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/daily-show-vague-against-machine

Statler Waldorf
10-12-2012, 02:29 PM
First, the Bush Tax Cuts raised the deficit, so your "historical fact" is anything but.

Wrong, the United States Government brought in more revenue in 2007 than in any other year in American history thanks to the Bush tax cuts; it was out of control spending that raised the deficit. Cutting taxes increases revenue, it worked when Kennedy did it, it worked when Reagan did it, and it worked when Bush did it.


Second, I initially stated that there aren't any loopholes that will offset the tax rate decreases that he wants to put in place.

uh oh! Someone just caught you in a lie, you really shouldn’t try and claim you didn’t say something when your very own words are still available…

“Please name me some of these loopholes and provide me a source where Romney says he'll specifically eliminate that loophole. Cause I do audits and tax returns for a living, many of them for rich people, and I can tell you that there's a reason why Romney won't be specific about the loopholes. It's because at the individual level, they really don't exist.” -JackFin on 10-05-2012, at 08:16 AM


It's cute that you can google tax loopholes and then cut and paste.

Why didn’t you use Google before you claimed such loopholes didn’t even exist?


But the example you gave wouldn't even put a dent into the amount it would take to offset the revenue loss from his new rates.

Sure it would.




I believe I asked you to provide a loophole and then provide me a source stating he'd get rid of that loophole.

I provided you with an example of a loophole you claimed didn’t exist, and I just caught you lying about what you in fact did say. Why does Romney need to say which loopholes he would eliminate? That’s your own ridiculous standard, not mine. Romney knows that in order to effectively lead and work with both parties the leader needs to provide a goal and a framework for reaching that goal, the specifics can be dealt with during party negotiations, and it’s something Obama should have tried doing four years ago.


You might have caught that if you didn't cut my posts into 1 sentence quotes.

I did catch it, I simply rejected your standard, that’s all.


Is it so hard to keep my 3 to 4 sentences in one quote?

When you obviously don’t understand the purpose of a paragraph you force me to cut your paragraphs up in order to address your different points. If your paragraphs were written like paragraphs are supposed to be written, focusing on one key idea, I wouldn’t have to break them up, so I blame you :-P


Weren't republicans the ones complaining about the whole "we have to pass the bill so we can see whats in it." Yet, when it comes to Mitt Romney's tax plan, they're perfectly fine with absolutely no details until he gets elected.

…but you were fine with Democrats passing a bill into law without anyone knowing what was in it but you are not ok with electing a president who proposes a tax plan you don’t know everything about? Nice double standard. The problem with your analogy is that we will see what is in Romney’s tax plan before congress passes it; we never saw what was in Obamacare until AFTER it was law.

phins_4_ever
10-12-2012, 07:27 PM
When you obviously don’t understand the purpose of a paragraph you force me to cut your paragraphs up in order to address your different points. If your paragraphs were written like paragraphs are supposed to be written, focusing on one key idea, I wouldn’t have to break them up, so I blame you :-P




:lol:

Says the right person. :lol:

TrojanFin
10-12-2012, 08:04 PM
Wow, so you just trust someone on basically no details. I think anybody can stand there and 'claim' we will reduce taxes and make them 'debt neutral/revenue neutral'. If there is a magic formula to it then I would say many Presidents would have taken that approach before.I believe Obama ran on the platform of "Hope & Change" in '08 if you were to ask my many Progressive friends. Talk about trusting someone on basically no details, or much of a past record for that matter. If you listened to the VP debate last night, Ryan said that he even went to the CBO to find out the details of Obama's budget plan only to be disappointed that it was merely a speech with no details. At least Ryan has a plan for getting us out of this mess instead of merely empty rhetoric.
Even Reagan saw that he could not cut taxes without raising taxes to offset the cuts.:confused:
And if you look at Reagan he also created a public/private cooperation for the job training market much like Obamacare in the healthcare sector which at this point is a public/private venture as well but heavily shifted towards the private sector. Reagan must have been a socialist.And you are concerned with present day Conservatives invoking Reagan. Taking an over-reaching program like Obamacare and comparing it to anything the Reagan has done is ridiculous. Reagan would never have stood for the monstrosity that is Obamacare, because he was trying to help businesses grow, and not penalize business owners with tons of regulations. Check this out... http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/07/27/cbo-obamacare-will-spend-more-tax-more-and-reduce-the-deficit-less-than-we-previously-thought/
And if Ryan would love to involve Democrats in the process why not propose it now or in the last year. He is a member of Congress which creates law. It would be of great benefit for him to stand up and say "look, this is what I have done in Congress'. It would be a great campaign tool. I can tell you why neither Romney nor Ryan give you details. It would disfranchise most political supporters across the board. They are playing the 1% as well as the 99%. At the end it will be the 1% which will win out because it will be either stand as is or it will be shifted even more heavily towards the 1%.Wrong again. You see there is this guy called the President (Obama), and you would need to get him on board. He rarely if ever reaches across the aisle, and the last thing he would want to do is make the Republicans look good. Ryan has proposed his ideas to the President, and was simply ignored.
Have you looked at the economic chart of the last 4 years and how much the 1% has increased its wealth (despite the economy) and how much the middle class and poor has lost their little bit? Romney and Ryan are there to protect the 1%. But they can't win elections with the 1% only. That's why they are fuzzy about tax plans, economy, foreign policy and that's why they change positions almost daily. Because in all that confusing information and lack of details everybody will find something they like and not knowing what their current position on issues is the voter sticks with what he/she heard and liked (regardless if it has changed or not).If Ryan is such an idealist why hasn't he given up on all his government entitlements, i.e. healthcare benefits (government supplemented), huge car allowances. Ryan is as much a normal person to most of us like Romney is. His estimated wealth lies between 3 Million and 7.7 Million. So he has an interest on keeping the taxes for the 1% low. His government income was nearly $200,000 last year. He went to college with government money because he collected social security benefits after his father passed away. With a brief moment in a family business Paul Ryan lived on government funds and became rich through government: Public high school (government), college through social security benefits (the very same program he wants to dismantle), congressional staffer with extra service jobs (government), speechwriter, member of congress. Ryan voted for the bailout of the auto industry and banks, he voted for Medicacare Part D which is considered one of the biggest enacted entitlement programs voted on (during the Bush administration). If you look to government then Mr Ryan is Mr Government. Unfortunately he is exactly one of these people everybody is screaming against.Ryan of course would benefit from his own policies as well - unproportionally heavy, i.e. His proposed tax breaks and subsidies for the oil and gas company and drilling rights give-away are tied to some Oklahoma business where he is holding shares in.Paul Ryan is a scumbag. I categorize him as one of the worst in Congress.This whole last part can summarized as typical liberal talking points. Characterize Romney-Ryan as the evil rich, and how they oppress the poor. I get it... you hate Ryan and will do anything to tear down his reputation. Guess what, it's not a zero-sum game like the Progressives would have you believe. Case in point, Bill Gates became wealthy, and through his wealth he created a company that made a lot of other people wealthy when he started Microsoft. His being rich did not make other people poor as a consequence. As for Ryan being big government, he voted to help those he represented. However, he doesn't believe in the way in which the funds were ultimately allocated. Ryan even admitted that the taking on the "super majority" of Progressives was an impossible task, and when he voted in favor of it, he was optimistic that the Democrats would be judicious in their distribution of stimulus funds and not use it for a their own "slush fund". Ultimately, that's what it became. http://dailycaller.com/2010/02/14/paul-ryan-explains-his-votes-for-tarp-auto-bailouts-and-tax-on-aig-bonuses/ Lastly, I would rather have my gas prices come down and assist oil companies in making that happen then to invest more of that previously stated TARP money on green energy companies that will ultimately go bankrupt ala Solyndra. If a green energy company is so amazing and profitable, it will find private investors to fund it without tax dollars needing to be put towards getting it off of the ground.

JackFinfan
10-12-2012, 08:17 PM
Wrong, the United States Government brought in more revenue in 2007 than in any other year in American history thanks to the Bush tax cuts; it was out of control spending that raised the deficit. Cutting taxes increases revenue, it worked when Kennedy did it, it worked when Reagan did it, and it worked when Bush did it.



uh oh! Someone just caught you in a lie, you really shouldn’t try and claim you didn’t say something when your very own words are still available…

“Please name me some of these loopholes and provide me a source where Romney says he'll specifically eliminate that loophole. Cause I do audits and tax returns for a living, many of them for rich people, and I can tell you that there's a reason why Romney won't be specific about the loopholes. It's because at the individual level, they really don't exist.” -JackFin on 10-05-2012, at 08:16 AM



Why didn’t you use Google before you claimed such loopholes didn’t even exist?



Sure it would.





I provided you with an example of a loophole you claimed didn’t exist, and I just caught you lying about what you in fact did say. Why does Romney need to say which loopholes he would eliminate? That’s your own ridiculous standard, not mine. Romney knows that in order to effectively lead and work with both parties the leader needs to provide a goal and a framework for reaching that goal, the specifics can be dealt with during party negotiations, and it’s something Obama should have tried doing four years ago.



I did catch it, I simply rejected your standard, that’s all.



When you obviously don’t understand the purpose of a paragraph you force me to cut your paragraphs up in order to address your different points. If your paragraphs were written like paragraphs are supposed to be written, focusing on one key idea, I wouldn’t have to break them up, so I blame you :-P



…but you were fine with Democrats passing a bill into law without anyone knowing what was in it but you are not ok with electing a president who proposes a tax plan you don’t know everything about? Nice double standard. The problem with your analogy is that we will see what is in Romney’s tax plan before congress passes it; we never saw what was in Obamacare until AFTER it was law.

I didn't realize Gov't Revenue was solely determined by the marginal tax rates. I'm sure there are no other factors that could influence how much money we bring in.

I said they "really don't exist", like they basically don't exist, or they pretty much don't exist. This implies that no individual loophole exists that has any significant impact on revenue loss. I didn't say "they don't exist." Perhaps my word usage could have been better, but I think my context was pretty clear. Although, we already know, you are the king of ignoring context.

Funny how Romney doesn't want to be specific with what he'll eliminate because he wants to hear the ideas on the other side, but he's perfectly fine with being specific with how much he'll cut taxes (20%).

You claiming I don't know how to cut my paragraphs is like Michael J. Fox calling someone jittery.

I wasn't fine with Democrats passing Obamacare. I don't approve of Obamacare. We needed at the very least a public option, but really what we need is a single payer system. Once again, you assume that because I don't agree with Republicans that I automatically agree with everything the Democrats do. I am a registered independent, and I've voted for both a Republican and Democrat in presidential races. This election I'll be voting for Johnson. It's so sad that your whole world is in black and white. We saw that in the religion forum and we're seeing it here.

TrojanFin
10-12-2012, 09:10 PM
You claiming I don't know how to cut my paragraphs is like Michael J. Fox calling someone jittery.

Stay classy now.

cuzinvinny
10-12-2012, 09:13 PM
I didn't realize Gov't Revenue was solely determined by the marginal tax rates. I'm sure there are no other factors that could influence how much money we bring in.

I said they "really don't exist", like they basically don't exist, or they pretty much don't exist. This implies that no individual loophole exists that has any significant impact on revenue loss. I didn't say "they don't exist." Perhaps my word usage could have been better, but I think my context was pretty clear. Although, we already know, you are the king of ignoring context.

Funny how Romney doesn't want to be specific with what he'll eliminate because he wants to hear the ideas on the other side, but he's perfectly fine with being specific with how much he'll cut taxes (20%).

You claiming I don't know how to cut my paragraphs is like Michael J. Fox calling someone jittery.

I wasn't fine with Democrats passing Obamacare. I don't approve of Obamacare. We needed at the very least a public option, but really what we need is a single payer system. Once again, you assume that because I don't agree with Republicans that I automatically agree with everything the Democrats do. I am a registered independent, and I've voted for both a Republican and Democrat in presidential races. This election I'll be voting for Johnson. It's so sad that your whole world is in black and white. We saw that in the religion forum and we're seeing it here.

Don't see much sense in voting for Johnson but I do find most of what you say very interesting and thought provoking....


Funny how Romney doesn't want to be specific with what he'll eliminate because he wants to hear the ideas on the other side, but he's perfectly fine with being specific with how much he'll cut taxes (20%).

Romney, like you said, will have to hear the ideas of the otherside and come to some form of compromise ( interesting concept, compromise) in order to find out specifically whats to be eliminated. So since it's not a known quantity at this point maybe feels it's better to keep it that way so not to give added ammunition to the present administration which you know will try to use to his detriment...
Just a hunch, but does that have in ligitimacy to you, be interseted in your thought....

JackFinfan
10-12-2012, 09:25 PM
Don't see much sense in voting for Johnson but I do find most of what you say very interesting and thought provoking....



Romney, like you said, will have to hear the ideas of the otherside and come to some form of compromise ( interesting concept, compromise) in order to find out specifically whats to be eliminated. So since it's not a known quantity at this point maybe feels it's better to keep it that way so not to give added ammunition to the present administration which you know will try to use to his detriment...
Just a hunch, but does that have in ligitimacy to you, be interseted in your thought....

The way i look at it, if I vote Dem or GOP I know I'll be disappointed. But, I still want to vote. ,A vote for a 3rd party is a vote against both parities propping up these horrible candidates that we're forced to pick between.

I agree that they don't want to give ammunition to the other side, but in an election you have to put your cards on the table. I don't want either side Dems or GOP to say, here's my plan I promise it'll do _____________ but I can't give you the specifics, just trust me.

JackFinfan
10-12-2012, 09:32 PM
Stay classy now.

Yea anyone who makes a joke about Fox and his Parkinson's is just not classy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zI4lFjWoFqc#!

Stay classy Fox

cuzinvinny
10-12-2012, 09:54 PM
The way i look at it, if I vote Dem or GOP I know I'll be disappointed. But, I still want to vote. ,A vote for a 3rd party is a vote against both parities propping up these horrible candidates that we're forced to pick between.

I agree that they don't want to give ammunition to the other side, but in an election you have to put your cards on the table. I don't want either side Dems or GOP to say, here's my plan I promise it'll do _____________ but I can't give you the specifics, just trust me.

Well think I have to disagree with you there and not that I wouldn't like that to be reality. But in the political world it's not done and with some level of wisdom behind it. First you'd need both sides to have that kind of intrgrity and that just doesn't happen. Giving added info to either side of a system built by unscrupulous people isn't very wise even if you were honest.... In the end I feel that you have to go with your gut and pick the man you feel most comfortable with, Mr perfect doesn't come around anymore and if he did he wouldn't be a politician....last Mr perfect if I remember my history correctly, got crucified............. it's almost always a crap shot...

But I do like reading your post....

CANDolphan
10-14-2012, 09:00 PM
Romney makes his money from investments. Which is why his tax rate is lower around 15%. Raise that rate to 30% or more like everyone else pays on income and what do you think will happen to investments in this country??? Not a fan of Romney at all but I do believe lower tax investment rates are good for the country.

They'll still continue because they'll earn more money than if they sat in a bank account earning 0%. 70% of something is still more than 85% of nothing. Come on now.

There are a lot of people with very poor and ignorant views of tax law. I'm far from an expert, my only experience is a couple of tax law classes in law school (including corporate tax, as well as working at a corporate tax firm) but my god there is just some poor understanding of basic economics.

Double tax is something that exists simply because to combat companies from using Type A and C mergers from using incredible tax loopholes and getting massive write offs.

If you are a winning player, and earn enough money to supplant your income, you are taxed at that rate. If you earn over $6000 (at least, in Florida) any one instance, you simply have the amount withheld.

CANDolphan
10-14-2012, 09:04 PM
I havent trolled at all in this thread. Its all true. Obama is killing our businesses in this country. We need a leader like Romney that will get these poors back to work.

You yourself have admitted to not paying taxes on earned income through playing poker professionally yet you don't see the blatant hypocrisy here? Listen, as a person who plays a lot of poker, previously online and in person, I know lots of people who skirt by and don't pay their full income tax as a result. I know this. I went to college with one person who was fortunate enough to earn milions of dollars in the ME of 2011's WSOP.

But you're not paying your fair share. Period.

CANDolphan
10-14-2012, 09:07 PM
On top of all of that, that ******* Obama took away our $300 teacher credit. He also stripped those of us who pay back student loans the ability to use what we pay in interest on those things as a deduction. Why? So he could give more food stamps to poors.


Also, if you genuinely believe that Obama is an ENEMY to those with student loans then I strongly urge you to re-read the consolidation plan of 2011. As an attorney and someone with massive student loans I flat out disagree here. Am I worried about paying them back? Absolutely. Do I have faith I'll pay them back? Absolutely. Do I want to live below the poverty line just to pay loans back while I work hours and hours at a firm making roughly $50,000 a year because my student loans are so high? Hell no. And I shouldn't. It's flat out unfair and ridiculous.

Statler Waldorf
10-16-2012, 05:04 PM
I didn't realize Gov't Revenue was solely determined by the marginal tax rates. I'm sure there are no other factors that could influence how much money we bring in.

I never said it was the only factor; it’s just the dominant factor because it’s directly tied in to how the economy grows.


I said they "really don't exist", like they basically don't exist, or they pretty much don't exist. This implies that no individual loophole exists that has any significant impact on revenue loss. I didn't say "they don't exist." Perhaps my word usage could have been better, but I think my context was pretty clear. Although, we already know, you are the king of ignoring context.

You could just admit you made a mistake you know. The loophole I gave you actually accounts for billions of dollars in dodged taxes every year, that’s a good start if you ask me. It’s hard to take someone out of context when you quote them in their entirety as I did with you.


Funny how Romney doesn't want to be specific with what he'll eliminate because he wants to hear the ideas on the other side, but he's perfectly fine with being specific with how much he'll cut taxes (20%).
That’s a goal, he said he’d be specific when it came to goals, but leave the plan to achieving those goals a bit flexible (as long as it doesn’t go against his principles). Makes sense to me.


I wasn't fine with Democrats passing Obamacare. I don't approve of Obamacare. We needed at the very least a public option, but really what we need is a single payer system. Once again, you assume that because I don't agree with Republicans that I automatically agree with everything the Democrats do. I am a registered independent, and I've voted for both a Republican and Democrat in presidential races. This election I'll be voting for Johnson. It's so sad that your whole world is in black and white. We saw that in the religion forum and we're seeing it here.

I value truth; I will never apologize for doing so. It’s hard to believe that you are really independent when your objections to Obamacare are that it didn’t go far enough, which of course is a very left wing viewpoint.


The way i look at it, if I vote Dem or GOP I know I'll be disappointed. But, I still want to vote. ,A vote for a 3rd party is a vote against both parities propping up these horrible candidates that we're forced to pick between.

Then why not write yourself in? Why vote for Johnson at all? He has no chance of winning, so you might as well just write yourself in since I am sure you support all of your own policies. It just doesn’t make much sense to vote for Johnson.


You yourself have admitted to not paying taxes on earned income through playing poker professionally yet you don't see the blatant hypocrisy here? Listen, as a person who plays a lot of poker, previously online and in person, I know lots of people who skirt by and don't pay their full income tax as a result. I know this. I went to college with one person who was fortunate enough to earn milions of dollars in the ME of 2011's WSOP.

Has the money you are risking to play poker with already been taxed?


But you're not paying your fair share. Period.

How much is a “fair share”? I want specifics! How much is it and who determines that it is “fair”?

JackFinfan
10-16-2012, 05:41 PM
I value truth; I will never apologize for doing so. It’s hard to believe that you are really independent when your objections to Obamacare are that it didn’t go far enough, which of course is a very left wing viewpoint.



Then why not write yourself in? Why vote for Johnson at all? He has no chance of winning, so you might as well just write yourself in since I am sure you support all of your own policies. It just doesn’t make much sense to vote for Johnson.




An independent can have far left wing views, far right wing views, or moderate views depending on the topic. I don't care about Republicans, I don't care about Democrats, and I certainly have never taken a position based on what either party adopts. That makes me independent. When it comes to healthcare I am very progressive. I don't think insurance companies do anything to improve our health care. Half of my wife's family is from Canada, so I go up there a good amount. Every one I've spoken to up there thinks our system is crazy.

I am also pro 2nd amendment even though I don't own or plan on ever owning a gun. I believe in spending cuts to welfare and food stamps, but not to social security and Medicare (not an entitlement, we’ve paid for it in taxes). I think defense needs to be cut drastically and we need to stop being the world police. I don't believe in public sector unions, but I'm pro private sector unions. So, I have views that are considered left wing and right wing. Once again, I realize this is hard to comprehend in your world, because all you see is black and white.

As for your “I should vote for myself argument”...I will be voting for Gary Johnson because he is the leading 3rd party candidate, and I agree with him on a majority of issues. I think that if he can get a good percentage then maybe it would persuade more people to vote for a 3rd party next election. The goal is to create a sort of snowball effect. Remember, it wasn't that long ago when Ross Perot was debating alongside Bush and Clinton. We haven't always shunned the 3rd party like we currently do.

I just don't subscribe to the theory that a vote for anyone other than a D or R is a waste. You do realize you don't get a prize for picking the winner? You can criticize my thought process all you want, but the reality is your thought process is the reason we keep getting two horrible candidates put in front of us. If more people thought like me, we'd have more than 2 major parties and the D's and R's would be forced to provide more competent candidates. I’m not criticizing anyone for voting R or D if that party lines up with their respective values. I’m just saying that voting for the lesser of two evils is dumb.

Statler Waldorf
10-16-2012, 06:29 PM
An independent can have far left wing views, far right wing views, or moderate views depending on the topic. I don't care about Republicans, I don't care about Democrats, and I certainly have never taken a position based on what either party adopts. That makes me independent. When it comes to healthcare I am very progressive. I don't think insurance companies do anything to improve our health care. Half of my wife's family is from Canada, so I go up there a good amount. Every one I've spoken to up there thinks our system is crazy.

Fair enough.


I am also pro 2nd amendment even though I don't own or plan on ever owning a gun. I believe in spending cuts to welfare and food stamps, but not to social security and Medicare (not an entitlement, we’ve paid for it in taxes). I think defense needs to be cut drastically and we need to stop being the world police. I don't believe in public sector unions, but I'm pro private sector unions. So, I have views that are considered left wing and right wing. Once again, I realize this is hard to comprehend in your world, because all you see is black and white.

I agree with you on some of these things, I still think you’d be considered left of center, but maybe you’re not as left as I thought, my apologies.


As for your “I should vote for myself argument”...I will be voting for Gary Johnson because he is the leading 3rd party candidate, and I agree with him on a majority of issues. I think that if he can get a good percentage then maybe it would persuade more people to vote for a 3rd party next election. The goal is to create a sort of snowball effect. Remember, it wasn't that long ago when Ross Perot was debating alongside Bush and Clinton. We haven't always shunned the 3rd party like we currently do.

I think a 3rd party would be the most dangerous thing to ever happen to America because it’d really only split the Republican party (no Liberal is going to vote for Johnson, but many people who lean right may). This would then mean that the democrats would win every election from here on out (often with far less than 50 percent of the vote), so a 3rd party would push America directly into a far left ideology even if a majority of the people disagree with it. In Germany the Nazis gained power with less than 40 percent of the vote because they had a multiple party system, so even though a majority of Germans disagreed with their policies they were allowed to control the nation. That’s scary to me.


I just don't subscribe to the theory that a vote for anyone other than a D or R is a waste. You do realize you don't get a prize for picking the winner? You can criticize my thought process all you want, but the reality is your thought process is the reason we keep getting two horrible candidates put in front of us. If more people thought like me, we'd have more than 2 major parties and the D's and R's would be forced to provide more competent candidates. I’m not criticizing anyone for voting R or D if that party lines up with their respective values. I’m just saying that voting for the lesser of two evils is dumb.

I disagree, with three parties the Democratic Party wouldn’t have to work as hard; they’d be able to win with only 35 percent of the vote because the Republican Party would be fragmented. This would lead to more extreme left-wing candidates winning major office.

WVDolphan
10-16-2012, 06:33 PM
Romney about to bust that ass again tonight!!! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!1

Ilovemyfins4eva
10-16-2012, 06:39 PM
Romney about to bust that ass again tonight!!! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!1
cant wait to see obama look clueless again without his teleprompter

Statler Waldorf
10-16-2012, 06:41 PM
cant wait to see obama look clueless again without his teleprompter

What's the over/under on the number of "uh"s tonight by Obama?

JackFinfan
10-16-2012, 06:42 PM
I disagree, with three parties the Democratic Party wouldn’t have to work as hard; they’d be able to win with only 35 percent of the vote because the Republican Party would be fragmented. This would lead to more extreme left-wing candidates winning major office.

3rd party candidates appeal to both democrats and republicans. Remember, Ralph Nader was blamed for Gore losing. Libertarians appeal to both R's and D's. R's when it comes to the fiscal policies and D's in regards to social policies.

Ilovemyfins4eva
10-16-2012, 06:46 PM
What's the over/under on the number of "uh"s tonight by Obama?
8 and a half, or is that being too conservative?

Statler Waldorf
10-16-2012, 06:48 PM
Libertarians appeal to both R's and D's. R's when it comes to the fiscal policies and D's in regards to social policies.

I disagree Jack, libertarians are generally small government, against government health care, support the 2nd Amendment, and generally line up far more with Republicans, that’s why they are always in the Republican primary. If there was a 3rd party that actually split the other two parties evenly I’d be all for it, but there just isn’t one.

---------- Post added at 03:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:47 PM ----------


8 and a half, or is that being too conservative?

Haha, I bet he hits that in the 1st response.

JackFinfan
10-16-2012, 07:06 PM
I disagree Jack, libertarians are generally small government, against government health care, support the 2nd Amendment, and generally line up far more with Republicans, that’s why they are always in the Republican primary. If there was a 3rd party that actually split the other two parties evenly I’d be all for it, but there just isn’t one.



True, but like I said they lean left on social issues. They're pro gay marriage and pro legalization. Almost all of my left leaning friends would have voted for Ron Paul instead of Obama if he'd have won the primary. I agree that it won't split evenly, but the parties would adapt themselves. I don't think it would sway parties to the left or right, but we can agree to disagree on that.

Statler Waldorf
10-16-2012, 07:11 PM
True, but like I said they lean left on social issues. They're pro gay marriage and pro legalization. Almost all of my left leaning friends would have voted for Ron Paul instead of Obama if he'd have won the primary. I agree that it won't split evenly, but the parties would adapt themselves. I don't think it would sway parties to the left or right, but we can agree to disagree on that.

They’re pro-gay marriage? I didn’t know that, I figured most libertarians would just prefer the Government got out of the marriage business altogether. I’d probably support that position, I am sick of the whole marriage debate.

JackFinfan
10-17-2012, 11:35 AM
They’re pro-gay marriage? I didn’t know that, I figured most libertarians would just prefer the Government got out of the marriage business altogether. I’d probably support that position, I am sick of the whole marriage debate.

They're pro you can do what you want as long as it doesn't hurt other members of society. Gay marriage doesn't affect anyone but the individuals getting married, thus they are pro-gay marriage. Specifically, they would like all marriages to be managed by churches and other non gov't organizations and the goverments role would be to provide everyone with some type of union certficate (whether it's a straight or gay marriage). So, really we are both right.

Statler Waldorf
10-17-2012, 03:26 PM
They're pro you can do what you want as long as it doesn't hurt other members of society. Gay marriage doesn't affect anyone but the individuals getting married, thus they are pro-gay marriage. Specifically, they would like all marriages to be managed by churches and other non gov't organizations and the goverments role would be to provide everyone with some type of union certficate (whether it's a straight or gay marriage). So, really we are both right.

I can handle both of us being right :-)

TheWalrus
10-17-2012, 04:41 PM
Romney about to bust that ass again tonight!!! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!1

Yeah, not so much. :lol:

Statler Waldorf
10-17-2012, 05:18 PM
Yeah, not so much. :lol:

Huh? You don't think Romney did well last night? I thought he did quite well, and he'll still have the lead next week.

Ilovemyfins4eva
10-17-2012, 05:20 PM
Yeah, not so much. :lol:
obama obviously looked great lastnight because when you are comparing it to the previous debate, he had nowhere to go but up. if he did worse than the previous one, something would be incredibly wrong.

romney had the same demeanor i thought as the 1st debate, but obviously obama stood out more because of how pathetic he was the 1st time around.

Locke
10-17-2012, 05:24 PM
obama obviously looked great lastnight because when you are comparing it to the previous debate, he had nowhere to go but up. if he did worse than the previous one, something would be incredibly wrong.

romney had the same demeanor i thought as the 1st debate, but obviously obama stood out more because of how pathetic he was the 1st time around.

Damn man, you people are so partisan, you refuse to admit when the guy you don't like does a good job. Unbelievable...

Statler Waldorf
10-17-2012, 05:34 PM
Damn man, you people are so partisan, you refuse to admit when the guy you don't like does a good job. Unbelievable...

This coming from the guy who thought BIDEN won the last debate despite all the polls indicating Ryan won? Cute.

TheWalrus
10-17-2012, 05:35 PM
Huh? You don't think Romney did well last night? I thought he did quite well, and he'll still have the lead next week.

I'm awful at determining who "wins" these things. I tend to think the guy I agree with won, regardless of style points. But it certainly can't be argued that Romney "busted that ass" last night, as WV "predicted" would happen. The initial analysis, backed by snap polls and further analysis, is pretty unanimous that Obama won at least a marginal victory. It's also significant that the most talked about debate moment today is Romney making a mistake on Libya and being fact checked on air. However you want to parse the language, and I think conservatives have the right to claim the high moral ground on the issue, it made him look bad.

Stylistically I also thought Romney grating and petty, especially toward Crowley. But I don't like Romney, so my opinion on that kind of thing doesn't count for much.

As for the "lead," we'll see. I'm of the belief that the fundamentals of the election matter much more than debates or conventions. Romney did well last week, but his bounce was always likely to fade regardless of what came after. If Obama is considered to have won a follow up debate -- which is the case -- that bounce is likely to fade faster than it would have otherwise.

But like I said, overall I don't think these things matter very much when it comes down to it. A better (not "right," but better calibrated) overall message, better surrogates, a more organized ground game, more money, electoral history relative to whose been in power recently (in other words, the effectiveness of the blame game), and outside factors (the economy, wars, etc) are the determining factors in elections. Not body language or big bird or a good zinger or that crap.

On balance I think those factors favor Obama. That's why he was ahead in the run up to the debates, and it's why I think he'll ultimate claim victory.

Statler Waldorf
10-17-2012, 05:50 PM
I'm awful at determining who "wins" these things. I tend to think the guy I agree with won, regardless of style points. But it certainly can't be argued that Romney "busted that ass" last night, as WV "predicted" would happen. The initial analysis, backed by snap polls and further analysis, is pretty unanimous that Obama won at least a marginal victory. It's also significant that the most talked about debate moment today is Romney making a mistake on Libya and being fact checked on air. However you want to parse the language, and I think conservatives have the right to claim the high moral ground on the issue, it made him look bad.

Stylistically I also thought Romney grating and petty, especially toward Crowley. But I don't like Romney, so my opinion on that kind of thing doesn't count for much.

As for the "lead," we'll see. I'm of the belief that the fundamentals of the election matter much more than debates or conventions. Romney did well last week, but his bounce was always likely to fade regardless of what came after. If Obama is considered to have won a follow up debate -- which is the case -- that bounce is likely to fade faster than it would have otherwise.

But like I said, overall I don't think these things matter very much when it comes down to it. A better (not "right," but better calibrated) overall message, better surrogates, a more organized ground game, more money, electoral history relative to whose been in power recently (in other words, the effectiveness of the blame game), and outside factors (the economy, wars, etc) are the determining factors in elections. Not body language or big bird or a good zinger or that crap.

On balance I think those factors favor Obama. That's why he was ahead in the run up to the debates, and it's why I think he'll ultimate claim victory.

I guess I didn’t see it that way at all, CBS’s snap poll had Obama winning 37 to 30 percent (They had Romney winning the first debate something like 68-35 and had Ryan winning his debate 48-44), but Fox’s focus group had Romney winning by about the same margin so I figure it was pretty much a wash since CBS leans left and Fox leans right. As for Romney being wrong about Libya, I don’t think that is accurate at all, Crowley even released a statement saying her “fact check” of Romney was inaccurate and the President didn’t straight up call the event an act of terror but rather just used that phrasing at one point in his speech. I thought both men did fine, and therefore the debate will not change the polling any which is good news for Romney.

Ilovemyfins4eva
10-17-2012, 06:03 PM
Damn man, you people are so partisan, you refuse to admit when the guy you don't like does a good job. Unbelievable...
i didnt say he did a bad job, all i said was that of course he was going to stand out a lot more, because he had nowhere to go but up, as opposed to romney who basically was on his A game the 1st debate and did not have much more room for improvement.

as far as the debate last night went, i thought both candidates showed energy and were a lot more into it than the 1st one, especially obama, but i dont think that obama won by a landslide over romney even if he won, and the polls pretty much show that after lastnight? what was it like 46 percent thought obama, 39 romney, and 15 undecided?

it was practically even, and i thought romney didnt regress from the 1st one. next weeks one should be real interesting because its on foreign affairs, looking forward to it.

MoFinz
10-17-2012, 06:06 PM
I saw it as a draw. Admittedly, after the first debate it would have been disastrous for Obama to come out flat again. Both men showed passion and determination to get their views expressed.

That said, no matter who wins the election, we are ALL screwed

TheWalrus
10-17-2012, 11:06 PM
I guess I didn’t see it that way at all, CBS’s snap poll had Obama winning 37 to 30 percent (They had Romney winning the first debate something like 68-35 and had Ryan winning his debate 48-44), but Fox’s focus group had Romney winning by about the same margin so I figure it was pretty much a wash since CBS leans left and Fox leans right. As for Romney being wrong about Libya, I don’t think that is accurate at all, Crowley even released a statement saying her “fact check” of Romney was inaccurate and the President didn’t straight up call the event an act of terror but rather just used that phrasing at one point in his speech. I thought both men did fine, and therefore the debate will not change the polling any which is good news for Romney.

Snap polls and focus groups not equivalent measures. But you know that.

The point about what happened with Libya/Crowley is one of perception. It looked bad, which is what I said. This is not about you and I arguing about who should be President or who's right, because that's irrelevant. It's about how it looked. Crowley stated the thing basically the right way during the debate and clarified afterward, in that Obama said "act of terror" (applying the term generally, I know, but he did use those words, which means Romney was incorrect to claim he hadn't used them).

Like I said, I don't believe debates change these races (outside extreme examples, like Rick Perry's "oops" momen). In other words, they don't create new normals. They move things in the short term, after which the bounce fades. Regardless of what happened last night, Romney's bounce was due to fade. The fact that Obama won the debate just means the bounce will fade faster. Next week is a whole new debate, the result of which will move the polls for another week. After which things will settle down again to about where they were three weeks ago, imo.

Statler Waldorf
10-18-2012, 03:55 PM
Snap polls and focus groups not equivalent measures. But you know that.



No, they are equivilent if their sample sizes are similiar as they were.

Locke
10-18-2012, 04:21 PM
No, they are equivilent if their sample sizes are similiar as they were.

How could you possibly know that? Moreso, how could you possibly sit here and say a focus group and a snap poll are the same sample size? A focus group is where a researcher sits a small group of people down in a room and asks their opinion on a topic. In this case, the debate. A snap poll must take a large enough sample size in order to get an accurate determination of what the population as a whole thinks. That is going to be, at the very minimum, 1,000 responders.

Once again, you're lying Statler. This is an issue you need to work on...

jguig
02-19-2013, 11:04 PM
Same old nonsense posts. Listening to conspiracy stories again are we?

The first reduction that was published pre-election left off California. How convenient.

TheWalrus
02-19-2013, 11:45 PM
LOL @ this thread.

phins_4_ever
02-20-2013, 01:32 AM
WTF???:confused:

---------- Post added at 12:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:31 AM ----------


The first reduction that was published pre-election left off California. How convenient.

It took you 4 months to come up with this answer???? :confused:

Spesh
02-20-2013, 03:26 AM
WTF???:confused:

---------- Post added at 12:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:31 AM ----------

It took you 4 months to come up with this answer???? :confused:

Apparently that was his first post in 4 months. The Romney loss hit him hard :lol:

Locke
02-20-2013, 12:44 PM
:lol:

I like the 12 pages of gloating after Romney "won" the first debate, and the half page when Obama "won" the second one. Of course, the crickets after Obama was re-elected is the best part...

ohall
02-20-2013, 02:03 PM
:lol:

I like the 12 pages of gloating after Romney "won" the first debate, and the half page when Obama "won" the second one. Of course, the crickets after Obama was re-elected is the best part...

Maybe because everyone including a lot of Obama supporters thought he wasn't going to be re-elected?

Obama and his team did a wonderful job of depressing the vote. I think how successful he was at that task shocked everyone. Now if you feel that kind of result for a 2nd election/campaign is something to be proud of, more power to you man.

TheWalrus
02-20-2013, 02:09 PM
Maybe because everyone including a lot of Obama supporters thought he wasn't going to be re-elected?

Obama and his team did a wonderful job of depressing the vote. I think how successful he was at that task shocked everyone. Now if you feel that kind of result for a 2nd election/campaign is something to be proud of, more power to you man.

http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2013/02/emporerbutthurt-1.png

Buddy
02-20-2013, 02:24 PM
Although I truly hope that I am wrong, I have a sinking suspicion that the Democrats will be as disgusted with Obama in 2016 as a lot if Republicans were with Bush in 2008. They both are horrible and have pushed our country to the brink of disaster. Again, hopefully I am wrong.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

ohall
02-20-2013, 02:35 PM
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2013/02/emporerbutthurt-1.png

Does a President who received less votes his second election than his first really have a mandate? And should the ppl who supported him feel good/proud/confident about this fact? I believe Obama is the only President to receive less votes his second election than his first.

As far as the butt hurt, we are all feeling that in spades brother, even the Obama supporters. Really, Obama supporters are probably feeling it a lot worse than the ppl who actually didn't vote for him.

JamesBW43
02-20-2013, 03:32 PM
Maybe because everyone including a lot of Obama supporters thought he wasn't going to be re-elected?

Obama and his team did a wonderful job of depressing the vote. I think how successful he was at that task shocked everyone. Now if you feel that kind of result for a 2nd election/campaign is something to be proud of, more power to you man.

Everyone who actually followed the polls and looked at the electoral math knew that a Romney victory was a long shot.

Spesh
02-20-2013, 04:50 PM
Does a President who received less votes his second election than his first really have a mandate? And should the ppl who supported him feel good/proud/confident about this fact? I believe Obama is the only President to receive less votes his second election than his first.

As far as the butt hurt, we are all feeling that in spades brother, even the Obama supporters. Really, Obama supporters are probably feeling it a lot worse than the ppl who actually didn't vote for him.

Months later, i still laugh at this hypocrisy.

All the right wing pundits predicted landslide victories because Obama wouldnt be able to rally the support he got during his first election. "It was an aberration", "it was unprecedented and cant be repeated". Now that Obama easily, and some would say dismissively, defeated Romney, what do the "real world" party members have to say? "Ugh, well, he didnt get the votes he did the first time around!". :lol: :lol: :lol:

Whatever you have to tell yourself ohall. This thread just keeps on giving.

Oh, and by the way, 60% of Obama's ads were negative. Romney? 78%. Not counting the late entries he did immediately before the election. You know the ones im talking about, the Obama is shipping jobs to Italy so they can sell cars to China...or something. I wasnt quite sure, it was so convoluted and desperate that i couldnt keep it straight. Damned amusing though. So which candidate depressed voters again?

TheWalrus
02-20-2013, 05:17 PM
Does a President who received less votes his second election than his first really have a mandate? And should the ppl who supported him feel good/proud/confident about this fact? I believe Obama is the only President to receive less votes his second election than his first.

As far as the butt hurt, we are all feeling that in spades brother, even the Obama supporters. Really, Obama supporters are probably feeling it a lot worse than the ppl who actually didn't vote for him.

http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2013/02/n2hzJ-1.gif

ohall
02-20-2013, 05:29 PM
Months later, i still laugh at this hypocrisy.

All the right wing pundits predicted landslide victories because Obama wouldnt be able to rally the support he got during his first election. "It was an aberration", "it was unprecedented and cant be repeated". Now that Obama easily, and some would say dismissively, defeated Romney, what do the "real world" party members have to say? "Ugh, well, he didnt get the votes he did the first time around!". :lol: :lol: :lol:

Whatever you have to tell yourself ohall. This thread just keeps on giving.

Oh, and by the way, 60% of Obama's ads were negative. Romney? 78%. Not counting the late entries he did immediately before the election. You know the ones im talking about, the Obama is shipping jobs to Italy so they can sell cars to China...or something. I wasnt quite sure, it was so convoluted and desperate that i couldnt keep it straight. Damned amusing though. So which candidate depressed voters again?

OK... So a President that receives less votes the 2nd time around does in fact have a mandate. It really is a brave new world.

ohall
02-20-2013, 05:32 PM
Everyone who actually followed the polls and looked at the electoral math knew that a Romney victory was a long shot.

Pre-Hurricane I believe Romney was 3-5 points ahead of Obama, and basically all the so called experts and polls didn't know who was going to win the day(s) before, because the polls tightened up the week before the election. It's not like Obama won in a landslide the 2nd time around.

Locke
02-20-2013, 05:34 PM
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2013/02/n2hzJ-1.gif

Pretty much the creepiest thing I've ever seen. The image of this gif will haunt my dreams forever...

Locke
02-20-2013, 05:37 PM
Pre-Hurricane I believe Romney was 3-5 points ahead of Obama, and basically all the so called experts and polls didn't know who was going to win the day(s) before, because the polls tightened up the week before the election. It's not like Obama won in a landslide the 2nd time around.

Nope, completely untrue. Romney never led Obama in any objective poll. Nate Silver had Obama with a comfortable lead the entire campaign season. For whatever reason, this year all sorts of blatantly false polls started showing up. Rasmussen was the worst of them, being off by anywhere from 6-10% on every swing state. It's a sad state of affairs when basic things such as polls are manipulated these days. The days when people hungered for truth and knowledge are gone it seems...

JamesBW43
02-20-2013, 05:55 PM
Pre-Hurricane I believe Romney was 3-5 points ahead of Obama, and basically all the so called experts and polls didn't know who was going to win the day(s) before, because the polls tightened up the week before the election. It's not like Obama won in a landslide the 2nd time around.

The election isn't decided by the popular vote. And I'm not sure which "experts" you were listening to, but the math was overwhelmingly against Governor Romney. Romney never led in the EV count, in fact, the President was never projected below 280 EVs. And even when some of the battleground states were within the margin of error, Romney was behind in most of them. In every situation, Romney needed to take several states away from the President while also winning most, if not all, of the toss up states.

Iirc, the day before the election the math gave Romney a 15% chance to win. The only real chance Romney had was if somehow all the statewide polls were completely off base.

Spesh
02-20-2013, 06:15 PM
OK... So a President that receives less votes the 2nd time around does in fact have a mandate. It really is a brave new world.

If he received that little votes, does that say more about Obama or Romney?

Valandui
02-21-2013, 05:16 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=938oWfsIyIc