But we have to focus on the important issue: Would Romney draft Matt Ryan first overall?
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!!!!
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.
Bill Belichick on "putting the tape on"
But we have to focus on the important issue: Would Romney draft Matt Ryan first overall?
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.
"Politics is the Art of Looking for Trouble, Finding it Everywhere, Diagnosing it Incorrectly, and Applying the Wrong Remedies"
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.
Not every human is a manipulative, opportunistic, letch... or at least that's what I'm told.
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.”Romney's top campaign contributors:
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.
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).
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.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.
BOTH the candidates endorse the NDAA, & the fact that no one's talking about it blows my mind.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.”
Romney is just as much George Bush as Bush ever was.
What probably rubs me the wrong way the most though is this clip; I won't ever vote for a soulless robot like that.
In conclusion, Obama’s a c*nt, & Romney’s a special kind of c*nt forged in the fires of Mount Doom.
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. (sarcasm) Piles, of course, that will get bigger with Romney's tax cuts.