Its pretty much locked in, Obama Vs romney. What do you think about this, whos going to win, who do you want to win, and why?
Next presidential election: Obama VS. Romney
Its pretty much locked in, Obama Vs romney. What do you think about this, whos going to win, who do you want to win, and why?
No Ron Paul. No care
The Answer to 1984 is 1776
-Alex Jones
AgreedOriginally Posted by Relentless
CHASE ->>> WHAT MATTERS
Four more years
The Answer to 1984 is 1776
-Alex Jones
Time to leave.
I vote we take both of them out.....
I never saw any other GOP candidate as a serious competitor so no surprise here. I think Obama will take it but it will be a much closer election than 2008. I'm fairly apathetic about both candidates. Both will do some things I like but probably more things that I don't. Same as it ever was.
I'm sure Obama will win. Part of me says it won't be that close, but the other part of me says the people that don't like him will be louder than the people that do.
The economy is going to be a huge factor. High gas prices with a continued weak economy will be a massive drag on Obama.
Healthcare is off the table unless it is overturned.
Obama is going to run on wealth envy and money. He cannot run on issues.
Romney is going to run on the I'm not Obama platform. This will unite the right behind him.
Independents are the key as usual. Dems are going to hammer this GOP hates women BS so GOP need to find a response to it. GOP is going to hammer the weak economy and Dems need a response to it.
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
Pretty much sums it up right there. There's still a lot that can happen between now and Nov.
The fact that Obama still has the ability to sit in the position he is in our country is going in down the drain. The man should be impeached and jailed.
You are an idiot. He has done absolutely nothing impeachable.
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
I think Obama wins for the simple fact that Romney just won't be able to hang with him in any discussion, whether he's right or wrong.
Obama in a debate with no teleprompter vs Romney, hmmm I'll take Romney for $1000 Alex. Obama will stammer, stutter an "uh" his way up to his talking points and then just blurt out the same tired old rhetoric, even if it's completely irrelevant to the question.
lmao what do you expect out of romney exactly? Better to be repetitive than have a different response to the same topic every 30 seconds while still squeezing in the standard GOP talking points. Both parties repeat the same BS rhetoric over and over again. You clearly haven't been paying attention if you think Romney has any kind of upper hand speaking wise. I like how Obama will say "uh" a couple times and everyone makes him out to have downs syndrome.
What's Obama running on this time? Tax the rich to be "fair"? His itemized deductions were almost $300k. Why is he taking itemized deductions if he feels the rich need to pay more in taxes, why not take the standard deduction and pay his "fair share"? He's a hypocrite like the rest of them, he just has the bleeding heart rhetoric on his side.
Hey, I don't like the guy either man. I'm just saying the GOP has yet to offer any good competition for him. There HAS to be someone out there who's more qualified. Seriously....who the fuck likes Mitt Romney? It's too bad Newt has been such a raging prick his whole life, because as far as political knowledge is concerned he was the only one that could've pulled it off.
Obama vs. Romney with no teleprompters, Obama will win. Obama is a better speaker than Romney will ever be. Lol. Hell, give Romney the teleprompter to make it fair.
Thanks, I needed a good laugh tonight.
If you wanna laugh some more, go watch Romney default to "O Beautiful For Spacious Skies" when he doesn't have anything else to talk about.
I wanna hear Romney tell me more about how failed policies will work to bring America back to its roots. His campaign is about as solid as Twinkie filling.
and Obamas track record is about as solid as chicken broth.
and Obama's has as much substance as the wrapper it came in.
And what's also hilarious is I remember everyone bitching about Obama being an "elitist" during the 08 election......now he's the guy who hates the rich, and the GOP nominates a true elitist. Politics=ducking hilarious.
Even though I am not going to be voting this coming election, I would rather have Obama in office than Mitt
AFA HOLLYWOOD PREMIER LEAGUE EST. 1998
If by bleeding heart rhetoric you mean facts and history, then you would be correct. The GOP doesn't want to admit it, but taxes need to go up. Simple as that. It's just too bad the people that have anything to do about it signed a stupid agreement not to raise taxes. Even the GOP savior Reagan knew when to raise taxes.
And don't play the "Obamas evil because he took advantage of his deductions". Romney does the same exact thing and he's just paying what he owes legally. Pot, meet kettle. Hey! You're both black. What a surprise.
You could say the president should set an example as far as paying taxes is concerned. But no matter what the tax law is, and no matter how much taxes get raised or lowered, people will take advantage of tax breaks. So his fair share is whatever the lowest he's legally allowed to pay. His gripe is rich peoples fair share ends up being less than poorer peoples fair share. And we're not just talking about dollars, but about purchasing power, because a 20% effective tax rate to someone making $20k is A LOT more than a 20% effective tax rate to someone making $2mil.
So maybe he could set a better example, but it doesn't mean he's wrong.
So you believe in equity in outcome no matter the effort put in? By the time taxes are paid everyone should have the same disposable income?
A very simple question. How does raising taxes on the rich have a positive effect on the poor and middle class?
Instead of going crazy and raising taxes, lets make things far simpler. Lets dump a lot of those deductions and leave the rate alone. In exchange for the added tax revenue the GOP should demand actual cuts in govt spending. Also as part of the deal both parties should agree to make the changes permanent. This would give both business and individuals the stability they need to make long term plans.
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying lower Income people feel tax burdens more than upper income people based on the impact it makes on their spending habits. That's a fact. The value of a dollar is shit these days. If you take an extra $1000 from a guy that makes 20k/yr, he's gonna have to make some serious cutbacks, if you take an extra $100,000 from someone who makes $2mil, he's not going to feel it nearly as much, but the right is making it seem like if rich peoples taxes go up, that these people will stop investing or end up broke on the street, not gonna happen unless you personally are a financial idiot, but if you have $2mil, you're probably not.
Psychological. Which is exactly what's needed. So it looks like the govt is actively doing something to better the state of affairs in the US. And as a result, the deficit comes down, and ultimately the value of a dollar climbs.
Whichever way you want to get it, the revenue needs to increase, yes. They've made deal after deal on cutting spending, they're taking it from the wrong places, so now it's time to go the other way.
So you want to punish people that make more money by requiring them to subsidize the tax burden of those that dont make much money?
This really has nothing to do with taking more money from the lower and middle class though. Only the left has threatened to raise their taxes. GOP is 100% on board with leaving tax rates as they are.
The purpose of taxes isnt to play mind games on the idiots that vote, its to fund the govt. This is exactly what is wrong with our tax system. Politicians always want to use it as a political football and they have completely forgotten what taxes are for. Like Obama said, taxes arent to fund the govt, they are a way of forcing fairness. The way he uses the word though, I seriously doubt he knows the definition of the word. That, or he is a liar.
Why does revenue need to increase? Why not cut spending instead? How about cutting spending back to 2006 levels, which would leave the US with a couple hundred billion in surplus right now? The govt has more than enough revenue to do what it was designed to do. Their problem is they want to do everything else.
Please dont try to tell me there isnt anywhere to cut spending either. Any layman could want into DC tomorrow and within a week find 1T in spending that could be cut out next week and 99% of the US population would never even know it happened.
And I retract my statement about the president setting a good example. I saw his charitable donations (of companies he doesn't control) vs. his income this morning. I think he's setting a pretty good example already.
I agree. He donates a lot of his cash to charity. You might want to ask the VP about his whopping 5k in charity though. Me and my wife have 1/3 of his income, 1/3 of his expenses, and donated more than that this past year.
Funny how I didnt see this statement from you about Romney's more than 7mil in donations though.
Only vote that will be worth casting....Ron Paul FTW...
His domestic policy I am all for. Too bad his foreign policy is stick you head in the sand and hope for the best.
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
First of all, Romney isn't a bad guy for following the tax code and getting all the deductions allowed. He merely exemplifies the result of a bad tax code. Also Obama isn't a hypocrit just because he also follows the tax code but says it should be reformed. You play by the rules as they are, not as you want them to be.Secondly, you can't completely remove the concept of fairness from the tax code. The only issue is what is fair? Jimmy seems to think of it in terms of how many dollars you give while blank.cd is talking in terms of the burden it places on your lifestyle. There isn't a right answer because fairness is a subjective concept. If you can't accept that other people have a different but valid idea of fairness than you, then there is no point in even having a conversation about it.Finally in regards to spending cuts vs revenue increases. Even if you feel your side is 100% right and all the data unequivically supports you, you live in a country where everyone gets a say and they don't all agree with you. Therefore, we have to compromise which means some spending cuts and some tax increases. This whole my way or the high way mentality is why we have gridlock in congress. It may make you feel righteous but it isn't helping the country.
I can agree with this, our tax code is garbage.
Do as I say, not as I do. You can't preach that rich people aren't paying enough taxes and then yourself pay as little taxes as possible when you fall into that very category. Either man up and pay what you feel to be your "fair share" per your own rhetoric or shut up. If he thinks the rich pay too little in taxes why didn't he take the standard deduction of $11,500 instead of his itemized deduction of $278,498? His itemized deductions of $278,498 less the std deduction of $11,500 is $266,898 taxed at the marginal rate of 35% is $93,414 in taxes saved.
You want to make the tax code fair for everyone? Take away the politicians power to use the tax code for class warfare and wealth redistribution. Institute the fair tax, flat tax or something of that nature. Everyone pays the same percent of taxes across the board, period end of story. That's a completely level playing field. Those on the lower end will pay less taxes since they have less disposable income for discretionary spending than those on the higher end who will inherently pay more in taxes since their discretionary spending is higher.
The entire spending cuts/revenue increase debate would be much easier to have if the gov't were actually making CUTS, not reductions in projected increases. DC math makes that entire debate nearly impossible because no one has or is willing to make an actual cut i.e. reducing spending to a level that is actually LOWER than the previous year. That is a cut, a reduction in projected increase is not a cut.
So realistically what would you have him do? Write up a new tax code and file according to his made up tax code? Write a check for some arbitrary amount to the IRS? What would be the point? It's not like all the other millionaires would suddenly get out their check books just because Obama did. Would you all of a sudden agree with him if he did pay extra? Our revenue should be generated based on the tax code, not by each citizen's opinion on what they should pay.I actually like the fair tax model but some people don't think its fair. I'm not going to disregard others opinions just because I don't agree with them, especially on a subjective topic like "fairness".Totally agree but make no mistake, making cuts is hard.
Put his money where his mouth is and take the standard deduction, pay the extra $90 some-odd thousand dollars he saved. That is, after all, part of the current tax code. I wouldn't expect him to write a check for some arbitrary amount to the IRS, or write a new tax code for himself, or for millionaires to follow his lead but if he is a man of his word, step up and take action. He can pay more taxes without having to change anything at all about the current tax code. Would I suddenly agree with him? No. Would I have a tick more respect for the man if he actually backed up his words? Yes, a little. My point is, it's nothing more than a talking point, rhetoric driving the wedge deeper into an already divided country.
Nor should it based on one Presidents campaign talking points.
I agree on all accounts.
I have said on many occasions that simplifing the tax code is the answer, not a change in rates. Remove deductions and tax shelters and at the same time start making meaningful cuts in spending.
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
