Posted by Kacey (+3159) 9 years ago
Anyone hear HOW Mitt is going to do any of the things he promised? How is he going to create these millions of new jobs?

And did he basically say he would throw a lot of the responsibility back to the states to take care of their own health care needs?
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14950) 9 years ago
It's over. You can't in one breath say you like big bird and in the next say you're going to cut his funding and have any hope of winning.
Top
Posted by MotoMike (+20) 9 years ago
As per the constitution, the federal goverment does not have the right to take over health care. That is a state right made clear by comments from Romney.

How are you going to do this?. From the begging Romney point is jobs. Enegergy independence, 4 million jobs to start. Lower tax rate will result in more jobs. Small businesses will hire. More tax paying workers resulting in more revenue for the federal government.

[This message has been edited by MotoMike (10/3/2012)]
Top
Posted by Kacey (+3159) 9 years ago
ok. Now I know who believed Romney. But I agree with Richard. You can't like Big Bird and then cut his funding with your next breath. Too many things on Romney's chopping block and nothing to replace the necessities. Lots of vague thoughts.
Top
Posted by MotoMike (+20) 9 years ago
I like red lobster! But should I use my credit card every day to eat lobster. Why should the federal government borrow money every day to fund PBS?
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14950) 9 years ago
From the begging Romney point is jobs. Enegergy independence 4 million jobs to start. Also Lower tax rate will result in more jobs. That means more revenue for the federal government.


Demand for goods and services is what creates jobs. The tax rate could be 0.00% and if there is no demand, there will not be any job growth. So no, lower tax rates do not automatically generate jobs. I don't hire people until there is a need. The tax rate is irrelevant to that decision.
Top
Posted by MotoMike (+20) 9 years ago
As per the constitution, the federal goverment does not have the right to take over health care. That is a state right made clear by comments from Romney.

How are you going to do this?. From the beginning Romney point was creating jobs. Energy independence, 4 million jobs to start. Lower tax rate will result in more jobs. Small businesses will hire. More tax paying workers resulting in more revenue for the federal government.
Top
Posted by MotoMike (+20) 9 years ago
Imagine how much demand for products and services would increase with just 4 million more jobs. Imagine 12 million jobs. Lower food cost, cost of living etc. demand for products will go up.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14950) 9 years ago
No, small business will only hire if there is demand for additional services or goods. Changing tax rates does not create demand. The tax rate is largely irrelevant to the decision to hire additional people.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4943) 9 years ago
We have the highest costing health care in the civilized world and yet our health care is rated almost at the bottom of other countries that have national health care...the constitution has nothing to do with it...Americans shouldn't be dying cause they cannot afford to live...that is just plain stupid...he also wants to cut medicare from seniors and medicaid from the poor...hell just throw the old and poor out in the street...who cares about them anyway...Romney sure as hell doesn't and the only jobs he has ever created as a rich man with many tax breaks, are all overseas...ask the former employees of all the companies he purchased and stripped and dumped..I would love to pay into a fund managed by the feds like medicare is, and have a national system that is cheaper for all...right now my hubby and I pay 800 bucks a month for medicare plus supplement...plus medicines have to be on top of all that...I would dearly love to pay into a fund instead of a stupid greedy insurance company and let the government manage a one payer system...if you eliminate insurance companies and their profits, you got it done a lot cheaper...
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4943) 9 years ago
Fact checking the debate

http://www.politifact.com/
Top
Posted by Elizabeth Emilsson (+797) 9 years ago
Romney did a good job of debating. He sounded like he made a drastic move to the center where he was as Governor of Massachusettes. But who can believe him? He made just as far move to the right when to nail the Republican nomination. I'm waiting to see what the fact checkers find.
Top
Posted by MotoMike (+20) 9 years ago
Fact is lowering tax rate does create jobs. Learn from history, it worked in the 80's. A small business that grosses $1 million a year with 5% lowered tax rate would generate $50,000. In extra revenue. That could mean investing in another employee, equipment, etc. Smaller business that grosses $500,000, Extra $25,000. Maybe that's a part time employee. Many small businesses gross much higher and the results mutiplied. This is only part of the equation so it is not simply supply and demand. If you use the argument lower tax rates don't create jobs then higher taxes on business will not result in more unemployed. But we all know that is not the case.
Top
newbie
Posted by NS (+3) 9 years ago
If you lower the tax rate that means more take home money in your pay check which leads to more money in your pocket you can spend on things (whether you need them or not). If people are buying more things that means the demand will increase which also means, believe it or not, that companys will have to supply more. And to supply more a company will more then likely have to hire more people which would mean more jobs................. And while it may sound selfish I would rather have more money in my pocket to spend on things (whether I need them or not) then paying a tax to the gov. to pay for "free health care."

[This message has been edited by NS (10/4/2012)]
Top
Posted by ABE (+421) 9 years ago



Whaaaaaaaa.
Obama will win the next one though.
I thought both did pretty well given what they had to work with.
Neither one could really defend themselves nor explain previous comments given time constraints.
It would be nice to have a no limit no question debate and just let them go at each other.

[This message has been edited by ABE (10/4/2012)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14950) 9 years ago
Fact is lowering tax rate does create jobs. Learn from history, it worked in the 80's.


In the 80's, the tax rate was 70 some percent and was lowered to the mid 30s%. Tax rates as a percent of GDP are at an all-time low. Lowering them even further, when you are purposing to increase military spending, means you are going to make the deficit bigger.



"How to Read a Republican Tax Proposal."

Step 1: Assume revenue neutrality.

Step 2: Look at what income is no longer taxed.

In the Romney plan, according to conservative economist Josh Barro, there is a $1 trillion reduction in corporate income tax, $3 trillion from the 20% reduction in tax rates (again, not 20 percentage points: the top rate falls from 35% to 28%), and $1 trillion from miscellaneous tax reductions, notably abolishing the Alternative Minimum Tax.

Step 3: Determine how much of that income you have.

Step 4: Ask what taxes have to be raised to get to revenue neutrality.

Step 5: Look in the mirror to see who pays them.

That would be the end of the story, except that the Romney budget is also raising military spending by $2 trillion, as the President pointed out in the debate. So that has to be offset, too.

Again, the bottom line is that if we cut taxes for the wealthy and corporations, it will impact the budget elsewhere, in some combination of tax increases on the middle class, program cuts, and deficit increases. Regardless of the spin surrounding it, if a proposal reduces some taxes but doesn't reduce your taxes, you will lose out via these three methods of compensating for the lost revenue.
http://www.angrybearblog....veral.html


If you use the argument lower tax rates don't create jobs then higher taxes on business will not result in more unemployed. But we all know that is not the case.


The increase in unemployment has little to do with tax rate and everything to do with demand.

~~~~
RMoney stated that his test for determining what to cut is "is it worth borrowing money from China for the program". That frankly should scare the hell out of everyone in Miles City, MT. Think about it this way: are the services provided by the BLM, NRCS, FSA, VA, ETC worth borrowing from China? If half of the BLM employees are RIF'ed and thus unemployed, what impact will that have the local economy. I say it would be devastating. All of this is completely avoidable by cutting military spend even 10%. If we went from 56% of the budget to 30% we would have more than enough to fund everything else and reduce the deficit.
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3712) 9 years ago
Neither Obama or Romney are going to "create" any good jobs. We shipped our manufacturing sector to China and it's not coming back, nor is there an equivalent job base to replace it with. Any jobs created by government are going to be "McJobs" or just the Federal Government hiring people using borrowed money. Welcome to the new normal.

BTW, Ross Perot told us this would happen in 1992. Skip to 3 minutes in if you don't want some 90's TV nostalgia from the intro.



[This message has been edited by Levi Forman (10/4/2012)]
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4943) 9 years ago
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 9 years ago
When the economy was booming in the sixties, the top tax rate was in excess of 90%. There are charts and graphs all over the place showing that tax rates and job creation are not related. At all. Even a little bit. Jobs tend to go up under Democratic presidents and down under Republicans. Also available all over the place.

Stop listening to the rhetoric and look up the facts.


Sorry. Sorry. I know facts really bother anti-science, anti-logic folks. Sorry.

As for healthcare, not mentioned in the Constitution. At all. What is mentioned is that fed trumps states laws. Right in there. Give it a read some time.

If you want the economy to boom, make healthcare government paid and let the citizens have all that loot to spend.

[This message has been edited by Amorette Allison (10/4/2012)]
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4943) 9 years ago
+1000 Amorette and Richard...
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 9 years ago
dumb procreate wrote:
Fact is lowering tax rate does create jobs. Learn from history, it worked in the 80's. A small business that grosses $1 million a year with 5% lowered tax rate would generate $50,000. In extra revenue. That could mean investing in another employee, equipment, etc. Smaller business that grosses $500,000, Extra $25,000. Maybe that's a part time employee. Many small businesses gross much higher and the results mutiplied. This is only part of the equation so it is not simply supply and demand. If you use the argument lower tax rates don't create jobs then higher taxes on business will not result in more unemployed. But we all know that is not the case.


Jesus Christ. Who are you, Joe the Procreateing Plumber?

Business aren't taxed on their gross revenues, you stupid poop!

They are taxed on their NET INCOME.

Shut up and talk about something you understand. Whatever that would possibly be.

Idiot.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4943) 9 years ago
+1000 Bob L...
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 9 years ago
So back to Big Bird. The percentage of the federal budgete allocated to the Public Broadcasting Corp is .00014. .00014 percent! In terms of the federal budget this amount is miniscule, but in term of the PBC budget this amount is significant. Public radio and television is a great place to view truly fair and balanced news from all over the world. It has great kids' programming and other shows that would never see the light of day on a commercial channel. Romney's mention of it is purely an emotional ploy to folks who view public broadcasting as somehow elitist. Weird.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14950) 9 years ago
And to further Wendy's point, 85% of the money for PBS comes from private donation. Only 15% come from the federal government. We can easily cover that expense by dropping one less bomb on a mud hut someplace in the middle east.
Top
Posted by boxdmc (+89) 9 years ago
Good one Richard! LMAO I have to agree on that point at least.
Top
Posted by MotoMike (+20) 9 years ago
The rate was high in the 60's. JFK lowered taxes knowing it would create jobs. Lower tax rates did result in more jobs and a stronger economy. Once again a lesson learned from history. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to make the same mistakes. We need that fiscal knowledge and experience. That is clearly Romney.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/legislation/1960.cfm#1969
Top
Posted by MotoMike (+20) 9 years ago
Bob L. i must be striking a cord with you. I will take the high ground and remain civil. We learn more from good discussions and debates.

so to further expand on tax rates. Yes as a corporation the net income is taxed at very high rates. Tax rates for employees are based off of gross pay. Sole Proprietorships are taxed based off of gross sales.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 9 years ago
If only we had some tax professionals who could tell us the truth of these claims...
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4943) 9 years ago
I think Bob L is a tax professional...not sure tho...
Top
Posted by MotoMike (+20) 9 years ago
I owned and operated my own business for 10 years. Both under Clinton and Bush. I know a thing or two about paying taxes. I have been a sole proprietor and had my company incorporated as a s-corp. Romney's experience as a business owner is exactly what this country needs. Fiscal responsibility! Balanced budgets. No more borrowing. Morality. None of which have happened in the last 4 years under Obama. Romney brilliantly made that clear last night.
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17321) 9 years ago
Romney doesn't have a plan. He just showered you with a lot of magic pixie dust.
Top
banned
Posted by SD (+1525) 9 years ago
I do not remember who it was , it was in the news , but a bigtime left leaning pundit tweeted , I believe during the debate , that maybe obama needs his teleprompter.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 9 years ago
Government is not the same business. Government is not the same as business. Government is not the same as business.

Repeat until this basic fact sinks in.
Top
Posted by MotoMike (+20) 9 years ago
Is government our Nanny? It needs to be run like a business. Government is not supposed to rule us. Imagine if the government had to adhere to the same business ethics that are required for every small and large business.

In fact our government has illegally taken over businesses. It is running businesses. It is trying to pick winners and losers.

The government needs to have the same accounting practices as business.

The idea that it shouldn't be run like a business is irresponsible.

Do what Romney said: A litmus test. Do we need to borrow money from China for this department/program to exist? that includes the 15% for PBS and countless other programs.

You can't tax yourself into debt, you can only spend yourself into debt.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4943) 9 years ago
Ya got it backwards buddy....Big business now owns government...there is a name for that...It is called Fascism...BEWARE
Top
Posted by pc (+123) 9 years ago
"....Big business now owns government...there is a name for that...It is called Fascism..."

Huh?
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4943) 9 years ago
Look it up and do your reseach...It does wonders for your understanding instead of listening to the talking points on antiObama sites...Just read all about Citizens United recently passed by our now very conservative supreme court...that will do it all by itself..
Top
Posted by Cody Miller (+17) 9 years ago
No matter who won the debate, the important thing is who has a better plan for our great country for the next 4 years. I have yet to see figures from Romney on his budget plans and how he plans to cut taxes and not increase the deficit. His running mate Ryan has put a budget plan out that is not supported by his party. Obama has put his plans out there and had lots of criticism over them. I think unless Romney makes his plans for budget, health care, tax cuts and the deficit known before the election that I will vote for the known and not the unknown.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 9 years ago
Okay. A business is designed to make money. Period. That is it's job. A profit for shareholders. A government is designed to provide services that are not profitable, like roads and armies and (in a sane world) medical care.

If government ran "like a business," we would use the military strictly to take over countries with resources we wanted. We would abandon rural areas like Montana because they cost too much. We would increase income streams by taxing the wealthy.

Government is NOT business. That is what government is. It is NOT FOR PROFIT. It is TO PROVIDE SERVICES.

How can people not understand that basic concept?

Business = profit.

Government = services.

Lather, rinse and repeat.
Top
Posted by mckee (+389) 9 years ago
Boy you can sure tell the Democrats,
Top
Posted by Cody Miller (+17) 9 years ago
Good point Amorette...more people need to realize the difference between business and government.
Top
Posted by Cody Miller (+17) 9 years ago
If Romney and the GOP had had their way with Social Security a few years back and were able to privatize it, where would the money for SS be after the stock market and economic crash of 2008 when the Bushes were finishing 16 years of the Presidency? The funds in SS would be GONE!!!!
Top
Posted by ABE (+421) 9 years ago
SS funds are gone, you really think they have a little separate account set aside just for you when you get old?
No it's wrapped up in everything else and we owe more than we bring in.

Yeah, governments not a business, tell that to the people we owe money to.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 9 years ago
So, Mitt says he's going to create 12 million jobs in four years, keep tax rates the same and all of these new jobs will pay down the 1 Trillion dollar deficit?

How much would each of those jobs have to pay to make this a reality?

http://www.nationalmemo.c...bate-math/
Top
Posted by Cody Miller (+17) 9 years ago
Social Security funds are not gone, I know dozens of people that get their SS checks every month. Romney and the GOP know there is money in the SS trust fund, they want to get it out of the trust fund so they can manipulate the stock market further. By all estimates; whether is it GOP, Dem, OMB or other govt office, the SS trust fund will be solvent until 2032 even if there are no changes made to the program. That is assuming Romney and the GOP leave it alone.
Top
Posted by Cody Miller (+17) 9 years ago
Romney said during the debate that he wanted a 20% across the board tax cut and then not 3 minutes later said he would not support a tax cut if it added to the deficit. How can you cut taxes and not increase revenue without adding to the deficit?
How do people not see the folly that comes out of this guys mouth?
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by souix (+301) 9 years ago
I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.


Thomas Jefferson
Top
Posted by ABE (+421) 9 years ago
Q:  Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A:   It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.


Q:   Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A:   The Democratic Party.



Q:   Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A:   The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US


AND MY FAVORITE:

Q:   Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

A:   You guessed it right!

Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.

Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4943) 9 years ago
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 9 years ago
Don't you be using those FACTS! They just confuzles folks like us.
Top
Posted by ABE (+421) 9 years ago
Facts we don't need no stinkin facts!?!




Insert sombrero wearing guy here
Top
Posted by Mary B. (+201) 9 years ago
So, Abe, how does it feel to base your beliefs on complete crap? Or is it irrelevant that you pass on lies to support your opinions?
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4943) 9 years ago
Abe, that is a social security web site...those are facts from the horses mouth...
Top
Posted by ABE (+421) 9 years ago
Yup, I was wrong.

My TelePrompTer was off.

Sue me....
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 9 years ago
If Motomike's been paying taxes based on his gross sales he's been overpaying for years. Sole proprietors include their net profits in their total income. Net Profits = Gross income (or sales) - expenses (which can include the cost of goods sold). I hope he had a tax professional doing his returns and he's just speaking out of his a**.
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17321) 9 years ago
The FACTS from the Social Security Administration and the GOVERNMENT are NOT FACTS anymore than if they came from THE LAMESTREAM MEDIA!!!!

IF IT ISN'T VOMITED LIKE REGURGITATED FOOD FROM ALEX JONES'S MOUTH INTO OUR MOUTHS LIKE MAMA BIRDS TO BABY BIRDS, THEY AREN'T QUOTE FACTS UNQUOTE!!!!!!
Top
Posted by Cody Miller (+17) 9 years ago
I guess Abe is taking lessons from Romney...spout what you consider facts and then when you get caught with the real facts...change your story.
Is that kinda like not putting any proposals out there so that no one can criticize them?
Top
Posted by MotoMike (+20) 9 years ago
Very good ABE! Facts are facts. There is no trust fund for SS. That means NO MONEY. In the private sector that is called a ponzi scheme. That is exactly my point about standard business accounting practices. Unfunded liabilities are not calculated in our debt.

I have retirement funds. They are investments in the free market(stocks) and my money is still their. Where is the money that you paid into Social Security? Show me! It doesn't exist. It's a bunch of IOU's. My stocks still out perform the earnings of SS. Which is a broke system and will fail if no changes are made.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4943) 9 years ago
Hey Abe, my husband said that my web site is the horses mouth and your facts are from the other end of the horse...LOL...but seriouely Abe just do more research before posting positive facts as there is a lot of crap on the internet...not really anything most of us haven't done in the past before we check Snopes or other myth breaking websites...
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4943) 9 years ago
OMG, Motomike, you clearly don't have any form of understanding what the SS website said...it is all accounting and SS has been in the same fund as it always has since its inception...GEEZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Top
Posted by MotoMike (+20) 9 years ago
"If Motomike's been paying taxes based on his gross sales he's been overpaying for years. Sole proprietors include their net profits in their total income. Net Profits = Gross income (or sales) - expenses (which can include the cost of goods sold). I hope he had a tax professional doing his returns and he's just speaking out of his a**. roll eyes (sarcastic)"

That sure is civil!
Those expenses are sometimes called deductions. Or as the dems like to call it, "loop holes"! Get rid of those loop holes and every business will be affected in a very negative way.
General practice for sole proprietors was to save 20% of your earning. I don't like paying taxes at the end of the year. It's called planning, maybe even called a budget. This president couldn't even get one single vote for his proposed budgets. Not a single vote from his party. In fact when was the last time congress passed a budget? Don't blame Republicans. Dems have control of senate and will not allow proposed budgets go to the floor.
Top
Posted by MotoMike (+20) 9 years ago
"OMG, Motomike, you clearly don't have any form of understanding what the SS website said...it is all accounting and SS has been in the same fund as it always has since its inception...GEEZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ"


Research how ponzi schemes work.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4943) 9 years ago
ponzi schemes have nothing to do with the SS fund that has been there since 1934...wow you are dumb...sorry but just had to say it...nothing worse than a "know it all" that thinks he is smart and armed with dubious facts...

The SS web site is saying the SS funds have never been touched except in their accounting principle... it is a rose by any other name would smell as sweet and I bet you never heard that either....

[This message has been edited by howdy (10/4/2012)]
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4943) 9 years ago
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 9 years ago
I keep telling you. Conservatives do not like facts. Facts confuse and baffle them. They prefer the comforting lies they are told by Faux News.

I had stocks to retire on. Bunch of Montana Power. The widow and orphan stock. Thank you, Rick Hill and Marc Racicot.

The whole purpose behind social security is it won't be subject to the vagaries of the stock market. If you owned Lehmann Brothers or Montana Power or Pan Am and planned to retire on them. . .good luck.

As I said, facts are scary and make people think so FACTS ARE BAD.
Top
Posted by ABE (+421) 9 years ago



Sad thing is that no matter who wins, nothing will really change,and people will still bitch moan and groan about the same old stuff. It's getting to the point where it really doesn't matter who wins, they will still raise taxes,spend it on what "they" think "we" need, be it war or welfare. No matter who wins, we are not going to have a balanced budget or come close to having world peace. The sooner we all realize that all the stuff we argue about, either doesnt matter, will never happen, or is impossible to attchieve, then the easier it will be to just wipe the slate and start over.
Ofcourse this will involve nukes ,and or , Honey BooBoo.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4943) 9 years ago
War is a great deal more expensive than Welfare and Welfare is more humane as well to our poor and sick...
Top
Posted by Cody Miller (+17) 9 years ago
Did anyone notice that Romney now says that he was just plain wrong with his 47% comment at a fundraiser? Initially he just did not state it elequently...now he was just plain wrong.
Flip flopping again...Romney and the GOP/Teabaggers will say anything to get elected. They are all about getting the GOP back in power and to the Presidency and not about what is good for our country.
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17321) 9 years ago
Well stated Cody.

What offended me most about Romney was his little diatribe about government spending and "if its worth borrowing money from China to pay for it." That really pissed me off.

When our forefathers fought to save the planet from fascist dictators, did they ask China for money to pay for WWII???? NO!!!! They made sacrifices! Taxes were raised! Rationing was implemented!

What did we do to pay for the War on Terror after 9/11? WE ALL GOT TAX CUTS!!! And we borrowed from China.

That is just fundamentally wrong. We should have had our taxes increased, to pay for the war!

Republicans just don't get it.
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hannah Nash (+2495) 9 years ago
Ok, MotoMike, you want the litmus test??

Do what Romney said: A litmus test. Do we need to borrow money from China for this department/program to exist?


Do we need to borrow money from China to bomb countries in the Middle East? NO

War is expensive and DEADLY to American citizens (as well as other humans in this world). I cannot imagine being a mother, daughter, wife or friend in a country where American tax dollars are being spent to blow up people I love... I CAN imagine being a mother, daughter, wife or friend in a country where MY tax dollars (collected at a higher rate than Romney paid) are spent and ones I love are dying overseas. I CAN imagine this, because it is a reality.

At some point, people will realize that PRO-LIFE really means standing up for those who are less fortunate than you, by believing that all humans have a right to decency and respect; that everyone around the GLOBE deserves life.

Violence is not the answer.
War is not the answer.
This is NOT where our budget should be focused.

That giant 56% chunk of spending would be better put to use on:
VA benefits for veterans, families, and caring for said soldiers AT HOME.
Infrastructure and engineering (see Bridgier's fabulous article under the "Rubes" thread)
Education and Social Programs (yes, there's that dirty word: SOCIALISM! Schools, libraries, roads, water departments, parks and recreation, city governments, law enforcement, fire, universities, etc. ALL SOCIALIST. Get over it).
Healthcare for a fundamentally unhealthy population

A strong beginning and base is economically PROVEN to result in a better, stronger fiscal future: less crime, better paid workforce, thriving communities. An educated and productive workforce pays taxes, contributes on the local and national level, and builds a strong community. (Cite: Nobel Prize winning economist James Heckman on the economic return of investing in families, education, and communities)

So MotoMike (and anyone else who seems to think that cutting education and social programs will somehow improve this country), there's your Litmus Test.

[This message has been edited by Hannah Nash (10/5/2012)]
Top
Posted by Cody Miller (+17) 9 years ago
Very eloquently stated Hannah
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14950) 9 years ago
"The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all."

I think this articulates the diference between the RMoney's of the world and the rest of us. This election is about the secession of the 1%er's from the rest of us. What is so frustrating is how the religious literalist crowd hasn't figured out how badly they are being used by the RMoney's and Ryan's of the world. The religious literalist of the world need to be shown the fallacies of their way and encouraged to embrace a more gnostic approach to life.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4943) 9 years ago
+10000000000 Richard
Top
Posted by Cody Miller (+17) 9 years ago
A link to an excellent article http//www.theamericanconsertative..../revolt-of-the-rich/
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4943) 9 years ago
http//www.theamericancons...-the-rich/

also on the thread of For the Rubes...same link as it is fabulous article to read...

[This message has been edited by howdy (10/5/2012)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14950) 9 years ago
Interesting.

The rules of the presidential debates are clear about not bringing outside notes and presidents and aspirants have followed the rule for decades.

Video of the first eleven seconds of the debate available on YouTube shows Mitt Romney reaching into his pocket at the moment he is out of view of those in front of him, he used the lectern as a shield, and removing what appears to be folded papers from his pocket.




http://washington.cbsloca...4RA.reddit
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4943) 9 years ago



So a few folks showed up to see Obama today in Wisconsin.....

http://www.htrnews.com/ar...ech-photos

[This message has been edited by howdy (10/5/2012)]
Top
Posted by tax payer (+344) 9 years ago
Richard it was interesting that he brought a handkerchief not notes to the debate. But you are not for fact checking either!

[This message has been edited by tax payer (10/5/2012)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14950) 9 years ago
Pictures usually don't lie. He went back to the podium after the debate and collected what he is pictured with here. Doesn't look like a handkerchief to me, unless Ann uses a hell of a lot of starch.



From the link I posted:
But not so for Romney. The Presidential challenger goes back to his lectern to retrieve his items. It is clear that the only thing that Romney takes is paper. Not a handkerchief. Not a white flag. Nothing but paper.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 9 years ago
I very much doubt Ann does the laundry. I am sure one of the servants in the laundry starched that bugger so thoroughly that it looked like a piece of paper.
Top
Posted by tax payer (+344) 9 years ago
They were given paper to take notes on at the start, he picked his up. You guys are getting nervous to gave to spread all the lies you can
Top
Posted by tax payer (+344) 9 years ago
Ann Romney does not have a maid.
Top
Posted by tax payer (+344) 9 years ago
http://mobile.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/10/05/no-mitt-romney-did-not-bring-cheat-notes-to-the-debate
Top
Posted by tax payer (+344) 9 years ago
She might have a maid now with her health problems.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4943) 9 years ago
Top
Posted by Mary B. (+201) 9 years ago
tax, do you mean lies that are actually of some substance, like those about Social Security, shared by ABE? "You guys" are quite adept at spreading lies as well.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14950) 9 years ago
The link I posted has been updated:

Update:

The evidence seems to indicate it was a handkerchief. So there you have it folks. The mystery seems to have been solved.

But ye olde Mitt Romney saying, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, doesn't seem to hold true for news aggregator that just this week promoted a five year old story that was covered five years ago - and was not a story.

I have no desire to be part of the peddlers of conspiracy and falsehoods like the birthers or the truthers.

I did write an essay pointing out that there were questions that should be asked and that there was suspicious behavior on the part of Mitt Romney.

Those questions have been put to rest. Honestly, I do not know a person that carries a cloth rag in their pocket when they have a runny nose - it is a little gross.

It doesn't change the fact that it is incredibly stupid to walk into a Presidential debate and sneak something from your pocket. There is advance staff to take care of tissues.

It also doesn't change the fact that Romney distorted his campaign proposals and presented a very different version of Mitt Romney than the one that has been running for President for more than half a decade.

So it seems that Mitt Romney did indeed memorize his lies rather than bring a laundry list of them with him. And he carries a hanky.


http://washington.cbsloca...4RA.reddit
Top
Posted by tax payer (+344) 9 years ago
From fact check....Vice President Joe Biden told seniors in Florida that Romney's tax plan "would raise taxes on your Social Security." But that's not part of Romney's tax plan. It's the Obama-Biden campaign's latest misrepresentation of a nonpartisan study. The group that did the analysis disputes the campaign's interpretation of its work.
Top
Posted by ABE (+421) 9 years ago
Thought he was banned from being around people in wheelchairs.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14950) 9 years ago
Here is the fact check TP refers to IN CONTEXT


Seniors beware: The Obama and Romney campaigns are making false claims about taxing Social Security benefits:

Vice President Joe Biden told seniors in Florida that Romney's tax plan "would raise taxes on your Social Security." But that's not part of Romney's tax plan. It's the Obama-Biden campaign's latest misrepresentation of a nonpartisan study. The group that did the analysis disputes the campaign's interpretation of its work.
The Romney campaign and the National Republican Committee falsely claim that Biden "repeatedly voted for higher taxes on Social Security benefits." Obama and Biden repeatedly opposed attempts to cut the tax on Social Security benefits for higher-income seniors, but that's not a vote for raising taxes higher than they are now.
Scaring Senior Citizens

This back-and-forth with the campaigns started with President Obama's speech to the AARP on Sept. 21. Obama said Romney's tax plan "could mean higher taxes for seniors on Social Security, including taxing benefits for seniors who make less than $32,000 a year for the first time ever. Nearly 30 million seniors could see their taxes go up by hundreds of dollars."

The campaign, a week later, raised the stakes.

In Florida, a battleground state that has the highest share of seniors among all states, Biden told elderly voters at a retirement community in Boca Raton that the Romney-Ryan "plan on Social Security -- the one they have now -- would raise taxes on your Social Security."

Biden, Sept. 28: And, as the president pointed out, their plan on Social Security -- the one they have now -- would raise taxes on your Social Security. . Well, Governor Romney's plan goes into effect, it could mean that everyone, every one of you, could be paying more taxes on your Social Security. The average senior would have to pay $460 a year more in taxes for their Social Security.

That same day, the Obama "truth team" posted a Web video that provides an accounting of how seniors could spend $460 - including $20 on "a birthday present for your grandson" - if seniors didn't have to pay higher taxes.

The campaign also posted a chart with the headline, "The Romney-Ryan plan: Raise Taxes on Middle-Class Seniors." The chart purports to show how much more in taxes seniors, depending on their income, could pay under the Romney plan.

One problem: It's all fiction.

The Obama campaign told us that the tax hike figures in the chart - including the $460 average used by Biden - are based on the assumption that Romney would reduce the partial tax exclusion for Social Security benefits by 58 percent. That comes from an analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center of "a revenue-neutral individual income tax change that incorporates the features Governor Romney has proposed." Romney has proposed cutting income tax rates across the board by 20 percent and reducing or eliminating tax deductions, credits and exclusions in order to make up for the lost revenue.

TPC, Aug. 1: In practice, revenue-neutrality requires a net tax increase on taxpayers with income below $200,000, which we assume is implemented so that those taxpayers all experience an equal reduction in after-tax income. "Average percent change in after-tax income in revenue-neutral case" assumes equal across-the-board reductions in tax expenditures for taxpayers below $200,000 of 58 percent, the reduction required to achieve revenue neutrality.

Romney, however, hasn't said which tax exclusions he would eliminate or reduce. So, the Tax Policy Center made some assumptions. Its analysis listed the partial exclusion for Social Security benefits among the "tax expenditures we are assuming are `on the table.' "

That assumption may be wrong and TPC knows it. That's why the center's director has said it would be wrong to "interpret this [study] as evidence that Governor Romney wants to increase taxes on the middle class in order to cut taxes for the rich." Romney could pursue other options, such as breaking his promise to make the tax plan revenue neutral.

The Obama campaign repeatedly ignores the TPC's warning, and continues to mislead different voting blocs - such as in a recent ad targeting young mothers that claimed Romney "could take away middle-class deductions for child care, home mortgages and college tuition."

Romney Response

The Romney campaign responded by correctly noting that Biden voted in 1993 as a senator to raise the taxable portion of Social Security benefits for individuals earning above $34,000 and married couples making more than $44,000. The Romney campaign fails to mention, however, that the additional tax revenue goes into the Medicare hospital insurance trust fund - which is rapidly depleting and could be exhausted by 2024.

Also, the Romney campaign goes too far when it says that "as senators, President Obama and Vice President Biden repeatedly voted for higher taxes on Social Security benefits."

The Romney campaign notes that Biden and Obama voted against Republican-backed amendments in 2005 and 2007 that would have returned the tax on Social Security benefits to the 1983 level, as established by President Ronald Reagan. But that would have cut taxes for higher-income seniors; it would not have resulted in "higher taxes" for anyone.

The Republican National Committee has spread the misinformation. The RNC tweeted to its 147,000-plus followers on the day of the vice president's speech in Florida: "Biden Has Repeatedly Voted For Higher Taxes On Social Security Benefits," with a link to the RNC website that lists six times when Biden voted against repealing the 1993 tax hike.

- Eugene Kiely

http://factcheck.org/2012...ity-scare/
Top
Posted by tax payer (+344) 9 years ago
Here is a site showing both sides stretched the truth. but can you koolAde drinkers admit Obama did?
http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1174495
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14950) 9 years ago
Absolutely. But I reject the premise that Obama supporters are "koolAde" drinkers.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 9 years ago
I do know Obama supporters know how to add tags so URLs work correctly.
Top
Posted by tax payer (+344) 9 years ago
Please tell me again how to do it correctly . Thanks
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4943) 9 years ago
It is explained in the notes at the bottom of this page...Just scroll down and figure it out...really TP if you are this dense with this, no wonder you buy into all the crap from the GOP

[This message has been edited by howdy (10/5/2012)]
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+17053) 9 years ago
"tax payer", like this:

[url]http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1174495[/url]

Here:

http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1174495
Top
Posted by tax payer (+344) 9 years ago
Thanks David
Top
Posted by tax payer (+344) 9 years ago
I have tried this before but don't have the right brackets on my mobile

[This message has been edited by tax payer (10/5/2012)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 9 years ago
Are you trying to learn? That seems totally out of character.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 9 years ago
Buck Showalter wrote:
Are you trying to learn? That seems totally out of character.


And I swear to God it's really procreateing simple, but even I think it's a load of bullpoop when the usual bunch of trolls holds it against you. If my granny said "lol" or "imho" one more procreateing time, I'd push her straight of a cliff, scooter and all.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 9 years ago
...and sooner or later I'll manage to reproduce whatever mess this bug really is.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 9 years ago
Motor Mouth wrote:
Bob L. i must be striking a cord chord with you. I will take the high ground and remain civil. We learn more from good discussions and debates.

so to further expand on tax rates. Yes as a corporation the net income is taxed at very high rates. Tax rates for employees are based off of gross pay. Sole Proprietorships are taxed based off of gross sales.



No they are not. Sole proprietorships are also taxed on their NET INCOME

You don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Hope that was civil enough for you. Did I take the high ground?
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Frank Hardy (+1606) 9 years ago
Once upon a time I was telling Bob L about the time I visited the hell. It was a really groovy place with palm trees and a talking fish on the wall. There was a fountain and if you asked you could get it to spray you with cherry soda. It was really boss. Bob L got all angry and told me I was a silly pelican beaked procreating mouth breather. I asked him what he was getting so upset about and he told me that there were more than one the hell. As the dawn arose within my slow awareness of reality, I quietly uttered "I don't know what the hell I'm talking about."

F.inding H.ell in all the wrong places...
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 9 years ago
Top