Romney just lost the election......
Options
Comments
-
The Prodigalson wrote: »Listen up folks
I believe in the KISS theory - keep it simple stupid. If you believe/think that transforming into Obamas vision of what HE wants it to be - THEN vote for him - I don't! right along with millions of others who feel the same way & won't be voting for him - real simple! que sera sera (whatever will be,will be) I would have more respect for folks that just came out and said what was on there mind - instead of playing mind games.
you wouldn't not have an issue or compliant if President Obama had refused to ever show his tax returns???
yes or no
How come they want his tax records for the last 10 years & he's already show those from the last few years - Y does he have to go back to the last 10 years and others don't? Y don't you et al just fess-up to the bottom-line IE you're trying to prove that hes SO RICH he doesn't/couldn't really care /bout the average American & never could. BS! now lets be honest. BTW I can't answer your ? his personal taxes mean nothing to me - I despise the direction this man is taking the country in & have disdain for his misleading articulate rhetoric..that he somehow can't seem to get his true point across the first time around WHENEVER he speaks. (aka) playing both sides of the issue.
You're all over the place. You can't simply stick to a single point without deflecting.
How come to you have to answer for someone else? My reply was avoided and you jumped into the frey - I said I don't care about President obamas tax returns one way or the other - If you and others believe in his agenda then vote for him & stop with all the malarkey - I'll guarantee YOU this much - the middle class are gonna pay for all of these new programs & Thomas Sowell has spoken about it in one of his videos I posted within the social lounge.
I don't mind, I just don t want the burden solely on the middle class. Everyone should sacrifice. -
Now here's the video I mentioned above - this man has got President Obama pegged.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3vZ8_XCMfA&feature=player_embedded -
FOX sure buddy.
-
Hearsay huh?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/13/romney-asked-vp-shortlisters-for-ten-years-of-tax-returns.html
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/14/sources-romney-requested-ten-years-of-tax-returns-during-v-p-vetting-process/
Washington (CNN) - Mitt Romney requested at least ten years of tax returns from several of his potential running mates during the vice presidential vetting process, three Republicans familiar with the requests confirmed to CNN.
One GOP source said that while Romney officials asked for a decade's worth of tax documents, they were "were willing to settle for less" as they scrutinized the financial backgrounds of several Republicans before Romney ultimately decided to tap Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan as his ticket mate.
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=romney+asks+ryan+for+10+years+of+tax+returns&oq=romney+asks+ryan+for+10+years+of+tax+returns&gs_l=hp.3..33i21.1234.16435.1.16576.44.43.0.1.1.0.375.7685.0j30j11j1.42.0.les;..0.0...1c.1.2AhHr2xxDWQ&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=718c92b1a1c30f3d&biw=1280&bih=852
word your right? i didnt just pull up all these articles after 3 second google search. -
oh an just an fyi... in one of the articles its says Romney released 23 years of returns to McCain for his Vp selection process... McCain instead chose Sarah ? Palin over your boy Mitt.
good Day. -
I suddenly feel this need to listen to Ether.
"Obama across the belly, Mitt Romney lost already" -
BK Product wrote: »oh an just an fyi... in one of the articles its says Romney released 23 years of returns to McCain for his Vp selection process... McCain instead chose Sarah ? Palin over your boy Mitt.
good Day.
If I like the candidates policies etc., the color of his skin means nothing - but I wouldn't expect you and others to understand that simple kind of logic - it's way easier to accuse others of being things they aren't. BTW when all of these NEW policies kick-in GET READY!! middle class folks are goin to be paying dearly.....doesn't all that fairness make you feel so much better? LMAO!! -
point out where i mentioned color or race... you saw the word boy, and automatically assumed it meant what exactly?
side note: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-belkin/romneys-greatest-deceptio_b_1895669.html
Mitt Romney has been widely panned for blaming 47 percent of the public for its sense of entitlement, its demand that government redistribute wealth downward, away from rich people who earn their money honestly and down to poor and middle-income Americans who just want handouts.
While observers have rightly pointed out that most Americans work hard and take responsibility for their circumstances, less attention has been devoted to the deceptive premise behind Romney's remarks, namely that government redistributes wealth downward from the rich to the poor. In fact, our taxation system funnels money from the bottom up to the top. It's the rich who get the handouts. Either Romney doesn't understand that, or he's not telling the truth about it.
-
from the same article... i dont expect you to read it, but someone might.
...Consider housing. Romney would probably prefer that the Department of Housing and Urban Development not spend its budget of about $50 billion per year, much of which subsidizes low-income housing. From Romney's point of view, the federal government provides housing handouts by redistributing money downward and subsidizing residences for the poor.
But when we step back and look at overall federal spending on housing, it becomes clear that the federal government spends a lot more money subsidizing housing for the rich than for the poor. In fact, the federal government collects taxes from the poor and then re-allocates those funds as housing subsidies for the rich. How does this work?
To understand how this particular mechanism as well as the tax system more broadly funnels money from the poor to the rich, it's first necessary to point out that when the federal government decides to spend $1 dollar, that is exactly the same as a decision not to collect $1 dollar in taxes. From the point of view of the federal budget, both decisions cost $1 dollar. The first is a direct expenditure and the second is a tax expenditure. But aside from having different names, they are the same.
Now consider the home mortgage interest deduction, a tax expenditure that costs the federal treasury approximately $130 billion per year. According to the Atlantic, 75 percent of this tax expenditure is given to the top 20 percent of income earners. What this means is that the federal government spends almost $100 billion per year subsidizing large homes for upper middle class and wealthy people. Middle-class people get a tiny piece of this pie. Poor people get nothing.
But where does the government get $100 billion to pay for this tax expenditure for the rich? From mostly-poor renters of course, in other words tax payers who receive zero mortgage interest deduction. The home mortgage interest deduction is simply a transfer of wealth from mostly poor renters to mostly well-off home-owners.
And that isn't an isolated program, as Republicans have been gaming the tax system for years to enable just such maneuvers. One of Ronald Reagan's great successes entailed cutting marginal tax rates on the rich, and then using social security taxes, which are paid disproportionately by low and middle-income earners, to subsidize the budget hole caused by his tax breaks for the wealthy.
So when Governor Romney said that 47 percent of Americans are irresponsible and simply want handouts, he was tapping into and in fact reinforcing the public's ignorance of the federal tax system as a cash cow that transfers a lot more money from the poor to the rich than the other way around. To frame poor people who require health care as free-riders while giving a free pass to rich people who demand tax cuts (tax expenditures) is a sleight of hand. I wonder if Romney understands the deception or not.
-
Learn about how your taxes are going up - Thanks to Mister Obama - the oh so transparent President. I trust the direction Romney wants the country to go in -- & I don't like the current direction that Obama wants America to go toward
or as he calls it - forward. NOPE! he deceives so many and lies with that big smile of his....I DON'T BUY IT!
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-s-middle-class-tax-cut-would-raise-taxes-13-trillion-over-eight-years -
I'M DONE with this debate - I'm gonna go and exercise & get all of this BS political talk OUT of my head - Have a nice day
-
Im a social lounge OG.. and ill tell you heyslick has never answered a question directly and has a penchant for answering questions in inchorent babble.. the forum of some article.. or music.. oh and i forgot the outdated slang or words..
Who's Zoomin who....
heres a picture of heyslick
-
Romeny just rolled the dice and his crapped out
-
yea i know he tapped danced all over this thread....
-
Listen up folks
I believe in the KISS theory - keep it simple stupid. If you believe/think that transforming into Obamas vision of what HE wants it to be - THEN vote for him - I don't! right along with millions of others who feel the same way & won't be voting for him - real simple! que sera sera (whatever will be,will be) I would have more respect for folks that just came out and said what was on there mind - instead of playing mind games.
you wouldn't not have an issue or compliant if President Obama had refused to ever show his tax returns???
yes or no
How come they want his tax records for the last 10 years & he's already show those from the last few years - Y does he have to go back to the last 10 years and others don't? Y don't you et al just fess-up to the bottom-line IE you're trying to prove that hes SO RICH he doesn't/couldn't really care /bout the average American & never could. BS! now lets be honest. BTW I can't answer your ? his personal taxes mean nothing to me - I despise the direction this man is taking the country in & have disdain for his misleading articulate rhetoric..that he somehow can't seem to get his true point across the first time around WHENEVER he speaks. (aka) playing both sides of the issue.
so you feel seeing college transcripts is more significance then seeing tax returns?
yes or no -
BK Product wrote: »from the same article... i dont expect you to read it, but someone might.
...Consider housing. Romney would probably prefer that the Department of Housing and Urban Development not spend its budget of about $50 billion per year, much of which subsidizes low-income housing. From Romney's point of view, the federal government provides housing handouts by redistributing money downward and subsidizing residences for the poor.
But when we step back and look at overall federal spending on housing, it becomes clear that the federal government spends a lot more money subsidizing housing for the rich than for the poor. In fact, the federal government collects taxes from the poor and then re-allocates those funds as housing subsidies for the rich. How does this work?
To understand how this particular mechanism as well as the tax system more broadly funnels money from the poor to the rich, it's first necessary to point out that when the federal government decides to spend $1 dollar, that is exactly the same as a decision not to collect $1 dollar in taxes. From the point of view of the federal budget, both decisions cost $1 dollar. The first is a direct expenditure and the second is a tax expenditure. But aside from having different names, they are the same.
Now consider the home mortgage interest deduction, a tax expenditure that costs the federal treasury approximately $130 billion per year. According to the Atlantic, 75 percent of this tax expenditure is given to the top 20 percent of income earners. What this means is that the federal government spends almost $100 billion per year subsidizing large homes for upper middle class and wealthy people. Middle-class people get a tiny piece of this pie. Poor people get nothing.
But where does the government get $100 billion to pay for this tax expenditure for the rich? From mostly-poor renters of course, in other words tax payers who receive zero mortgage interest deduction. The home mortgage interest deduction is simply a transfer of wealth from mostly poor renters to mostly well-off home-owners.
And that isn't an isolated program, as Republicans have been gaming the tax system for years to enable just such maneuvers. One of Ronald Reagan's great successes entailed cutting marginal tax rates on the rich, and then using social security taxes, which are paid disproportionately by low and middle-income earners, to subsidize the budget hole caused by his tax breaks for the wealthy.
So when Governor Romney said that 47 percent of Americans are irresponsible and simply want handouts, he was tapping into and in fact reinforcing the public's ignorance of the federal tax system as a cash cow that transfers a lot more money from the poor to the rich than the other way around. To frame poor people who require health care as free-riders while giving a free pass to rich people who demand tax cuts (tax expenditures) is a sleight of hand. I wonder if Romney understands the deception or not.
I don't really like this argument to be honest. It all rests on the idea that you equate giving a dollar to someone with choosing not to take a dollar from someone else. Those aren't even close to being the same thing though. When you give a dollar, you are essentially spending a dollar. When you choose not to take a dollar, you're not using any of your money, you're just providing any income. The difference between the two is that the dollar you're refusing was never actually yours to begin with. It's something given to you, but until you have it in pocket you can't claim it.
The money that the government spends on things is exactly that, money spent. Tax money that government chooses not to collect is money that the government never had to begin with, so it's not exactly the same thing as money spent. No responsible person bases their budget on money they could get but choose not too. When I'm planning my household budget I do take into account all my expenditures. I don't take into account the time an older relative offered me $100 for my Bday and I politely declined because I knew they didn't really have it to be giving like that. -
Yea ? could have been explained better...
-
BK Product wrote: »oh an just an fyi... in one of the articles its says Romney released 23 years of returns to McCain for his Vp selection process... McCain instead chose Sarah ? Palin over your boy Mitt.
good Day.
it's been long said that McCain saw...."something" in those tax returns that made him go with Palin over Romney. And whatever it was,his camp decided to stay 100 feet away from Mitt.
Speaking of John McCain,who's been known every now & then to show a level of integrity missing from the GOP,clashing with Hanninty, who gets ? when he doesn't follow the Fox script with the usual Obama Bashing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoAm2znFExM -
BK Product wrote: »oh an just an fyi... in one of the articles its says Romney released 23 years of returns to McCain for his Vp selection process... McCain instead chose Sarah ? Palin over your boy Mitt.
good Day.
it's been long said that McCain saw...."something" in those tax returns that made him go with Palin over Romney. And whatever it was,his camp decided to stay 100 feet away from Mitt.
Speaking of John McCain,who's been known every now & then to show a level of integrity missing from the GOP,clashing with Hanninty, who gets ? when he doesn't follow the Fox script with the usual Obama Bashinghttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoAm2znFExM
I don't think McCain was that bad. But he was a bit of a hypocrite when he ran against Obama. He tried to employ the same type of tactics that he spoke out against for a long time. I'd say he was definitely a better candidate that Romney is now. -
Agreed on McCain, it seems he caved from whatever pressure he was getting from within the party which cost him alot of vote IMO ( i dont think he would have won regardless)
-
McCain won a margin of my respect when that old white lady was calling Obama a Muslim Arab and she was scared.....which he then took the mic from her and said No he was not, he's an American and he was good man, decent family man..........
on more than one occasion Romney had his chance to beat back ? like that but instead took the opportunity to make cheap jokes about it. It wouldn't be so bad, but we got alot people(whites of course) that til this day wholeheartly believe Obama is not American, "not one of us", with his "foreign" ideology.....
-
Really need the ? reaction button for heyslick.
-
I wouldve gave Huntsman a look
-
desertrain10 wrote: »@High Revolutionary
glad you have faith in your fellow man, but i don't.... history tells me that mankind is inherently violent and competitive to a fault....
so again no government would just lead to the same hierarchy as there is in nature. the biggest and strongest rule with unregulated, unlimited force. HOWEVER it would be one different of that of a democracy, in theory and in practice. at least we as a people get to elect into office policy and law makers who best represents our self interest. with no centralized form of government literally the man with the most resources will always win...
and as a woman i wouldn't know what to do if i lived in a world without any real semblance of law and order... i probably would be living in constant fear
i do understand your frustration though. like most i am disheartened with the state of american politics but the alternative is not a real option and we can always turn things around. look at how well things are in far more progressive social-democratic nations such as sweden and scandinavia
we just need better people in office and the money out of politics...
I wouldn't even make it a moral issue of violence.
Man has an inherent need to survive. Resources are scarce, so if violence is how I can get the resources, then so be it. Resources are the key here. It's why we fight wars. It's why we give up rights to government, to protect our resources and have a predictable and (hopefully) fair way to ration resources. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »This is just more Repbulican rhetoric. I've never heard Obama say the government is supposed to do anything. Whenever he speaks, he talks about "we" as in the citizens of the U.S. not the federal government. And acknowledging that there are people who helped you succeed is not the same thing as saying you didn't do anything to ensure your success. Only arrogant people would get upset by someone pointing that out. And what class warfare? It's hilarious to me how often I hear Middle Class or lower people complaining about this supposed class warfare Obama is starting. If that really was the case, it's your side he'd be on, so why are you so up in arms about the battle. Meanwhile, he's got tons of people who are rich and in the class he's supposedly attacking, supporting him. Does that make any sense to you?
But all that aside, I really wish you people would cut this ? . If you don't like Obama's policies and think Romney would be a president, that's fine. Argue for Romney, campaign for Romney, vote for Romney, do whatever. But stop misrepresenting Obama's point. He was saying that we are all a community that depends on each other. Even those who found great success had help along the way and depended on others. That is his point. His stance is meant to get everyone to look towards being more helpful to each other. It's you that are being divisive by trying to turn his words around and make it seem like he and everyone with him wants to split the country.
you made some hell of points in this post
but lets focus on the bold, because that always been the Republicans/Conservatives biggest obstacle.
How the HELL do they make a guy like Mitt Romney appear electable to the American people?
Answer:
They can't. They know he is not one of them. They know he is a chronic flip flopper
So they focus all their time,energy,and resources on denouncing Obama oppose to elevating Romney.
Homie kills me. This ? was pro-choice in '94 running for senate, then became pro-life after being Governor. This ? had the nerve to say he became pro-life after a doctor explained the process of abortion to him.
Now, you mean to tell me that this smart, well-learned, well-prepared man. This same man who crosses all his I's and dots all his t's ran for office in '94 and '02 without knowing the process of abortion? This grown ass man had an OPINION on abortion without knowing the process of abortion?
C'mon, dude! Now you're just telling me you make decisions without thorough research and knowledge.
