I believe that Obama got his message across last night. If you like what he has done over the last 4 years, re-elect him, and he will do more of the same.
If your life is not better off now than it was 4 years ago, I don't think that it means that you should blindly vote for Romney. Voters need to look closely to see what his policies will do at a national scale. State programs do not always scale to national level.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
I think a lot of you need to take a GOVT 101 class:
1) Neither candidate was specific about ANYTHING. Obama has NOT covered what he would specifically cut, nor has Romney. Huistory shows that CUTS in SPENDING NEVER HAPPEN. Its a talking point. Taxes will go up , but the politicians wont EVER responsibly cut spending.
2) Romney will not be specific, its not his job. That is the legislature. The PRESIDENTS job is to provide a basic vision, which Romney has done , and get congress to pass legislature in a bipartisan manner that supports that vision. Last time i checked the president cannot pass any laws by himself.
3) Obama has done the exact same thing Romney is doing, he provides NO SPECIFICS, its "HIRE 1 million more teachers, build roads and bridges" but none of that ACTUALLY happens. NO SPECIFICS on where that revenue comes from, and the tax increases he talks about on the wealthy he does not specifically mention how that money will be spent.
4) Romney made a great point about the energy subsidies. Obama complains about the 2.8 Billion in oil company subsidies while dumping 90 million down the drain on Green Energy or more (if you count solyndra).
Romney KNOWS he cannot balance the budget and unfortunately he wont say it. Its too bad , he should. Obama has made it so that NO ONE can responsibly balance the budget anytime soon, you cant with 1 trillion+ deficits. The spendign cuts it would take to balance the budget would piss off too many voters.
Obama cant tax his was to balancing the budget because the CBO says even letting the Bush Tax Cuts end for the wealthy amounts to less than 100 billion dollars.
you realize 100 billion is 1/10th his DEFICITS. Its like paying $100 on a $1000 credit card (with interest that amounts to $70 a month).
The only way to get us fiscally responsible is to get the economy growing and adding jobs from the private sector, you can choose who to believe will do that better, but it wont happen overnight.
Romney should just come out an say "i cant balance the budget, not in my first 4 years, but i promise to spend less than XXXX"
I dont see how people can bitch about not having a job but then back subsidies for left organizations like PBS.
Its time the govt stops spending OUR MONEY on shit WE DONT NEED.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Originally Posted by Vteckidd
#mypresidentisblack is not even close to a representative sample of black Obama voters. Sorry.
I personally don't care who win's we are screwed either way.
It's not the speed that kill's its the sudden stop at the end.
exactly how i see it. it's like yall are saying...i'd rather a rattlesnake bite me, than a copperhead
Well, when you know the starting QB sucks, you put in the backup QB. Unfair for you to predict the stat line of the backup QB before he steps on the field.
If either of you honestly feel this way, you should vote for Romney. Sticking with failure is never the solution. This is what annoys me... most people are willing to admit Obama is doing a poor job, but still seem to refuse change.
If you admit Obama sucks, but you think Romney will suck too, the correct action is to start with removing Obama. The American way is not to accept mediocrity. Maybe Romney wont do any better than Obama, maybe he will.... but we know what we have with Obama and i dont want any more of it.
WHOEVER is in office shit will be fukd up, period. This has nothing to do w/ football statistics, we (at least i know i am in this aspect) are talking plain 1-2-3 english, this shit will be fukd up. I'm not voting for anyone, nor will i ever. when i see you post what you posted, this is what i see you saying
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2mCMF222IQ
So you pay 100% of your marginal tax rate every year.
Based only on that fact I conclude you are too stupid for this forum.
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
Lol I'm a full time student so I don't have any to pay. Who's the stupid one now? You might want to stop making assumptions, it's not a good look.
Even better. Someone with zero experience in the work force telling how much someone should be paying in taxes.
You are right I assumed you were just too stupid. Now I know you are dumb AND ignorant.
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
I'm gonna have to jump in and vouch for his experience in the work force. Actually, it's exactly the kind of experience Romney is trying so hard to champion, yet failing so hard to go into detail about. Work experience aside, full time students represent a significant portion of the population
Lol I must have pushed a button the way you try to take cheap shots, big man. Resorting to that is pretty pathetic and I won't waste any more time responding to you.
Echo, you make a valid point. However my "judgement" was only a response to him judging that 47% he spoke about. I just don't see how it's ok for him to do so while avoiding paying the most tax as possible.
Im a fellow college person as well so i will not hold that against you. Congrats for continuing your education.
EVERYONE avoids paying the most amount of tax as possible. Are you serious? Think about that statement.I just don't see how it's ok for him to do so while avoiding paying the most tax as possible.
Do you buy a car from a private seller or dealership? Most people would rather do private because IT AVOIDS SALES TAX.
H+R Block, Liberty Tax Services, all that stuff EXISTS TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE A) PAY THE LOWEST AMOUNT OF TAX B) GET THE MOST REFUND BACK.
The problem is our Tax code is so complicated that when you have 100+ million in investments you need an army of accountants to do your taxes.
your argument holds no water because you are holding Romney to a standard that you refuse to hold Obama too. You also realize that capital gains tax is not congruent to Income tax.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
What experience is that? An investor? He has already said he pays no taxes.
Why should he not judge the fact that Obama supporters think high income earner should pay more taxes while they themselves pay little no taxes federal income taxes?
To say anyone should be paying as many taxes as possible is absolutely stupid. Why should any sane person give this govt 1 penny more than they legally have to? More to the point, what good would it do to do it?
Check out this chart.
http://www.financialsamurai.com/2011...-make-percent/
The top 50% of income earners are paying far more than their fair share. Time for the lower end to pick up their end.
To be fair, Obama, and multiple other millionaires, has said multiple times that he himself doesn't need tax breaks and and that tax increases wouldn't hurt people like him
Did Obama take a standard deduction or did he itemize his last tax return? He does the same thing as everyone else, pays as little as possible even though he says the increase wouldn't hurt him. Go ahead, lead by example and take the standard deduction and pay more in taxes if you truly feel that's the way to make things more "fair", otherwise you're just blowing smoke up everyones ass just like the next guy.
taht is not the argument though, so lets stick with the original incorrect statement.
Until those laws are passed or changed, the current law is the law of the land. Romney can talk all they want about repealing obamacare, but its the law of the land so sayeth the supreme court.
Tax increases wont hurt in terms of bankrupting them, correct
Tax increases WILL HURT THE MIDDLE CLASS (if they are put on the wealthy) , well i believe that to be true.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
None of these people are trying to be president either. And Immelt is not the greatest example. Lol.
KERRy WASNT TRYING TO BE PRESIDENT???
Warren Buffet is ok to write big donor checks to Obama but hey, who the fuck cares?
Bad behavior is bad behavior, you cant selectively pick your outrage.
That is my biggest problem with partisan politics, hold the same standard to EVERYONE. Like the UE numbers out today, I KNOW they are skewed, i KNOW they are fudging the numbers, but we werent quoting UE6 when Bush and Clinton were in office, why are we doing it now?
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
So, even though Romney's tax practices are legal, we're digging into this issue for the sole purpose of saying Romney is a bad guy, but Obama spending half of his life listening to Jeramiah Wright says nothing about his character?
LOUD NOISES!!!!
None of them are CURRENTLY trying to be president, and if you look again, you'll see I removed Kerry from your quote. ;-)
I referenced exactly how they came to the UE numbers they posted, in the other thread.That is my biggest problem with partisan politics, hold the same standard to EVERYONE. Like the UE numbers out today, I KNOW they are skewed, i KNOW they are fudging the numbers, but we werent quoting UE6 when Bush and Clinton were in office, why are we doing it now?
http://m.yahoo.com/w/legobpengine/ne...US&.lang=en-US
This says they ran a poll of Americans pretty much asking them if they had a job or not, with a pretty significant sample size. As long as they are consistent with their data collection method and data comparisons (I.e. they used the same method throughout the term) then I see no problem in using that figure as a reference.
That is a very small amount of people to sample compared to the number of people in the US. Its a much smaller percentage than the economist poll that IA Obama supporters wanted to ignore. Seems that Obama supporters have a lot of difficulty holding everyone to the same standards yet they want to claim that they are looking for fairness all the time.
As to the numbers I suspect that they are correct. Plenty of people that used to have high paying full time jobs have been forced to take part time low pay jobs to survive and the reports have noted that for quite a while.
If you understand anything about the numbers all it shows is that
A) people are leaving the work force and not being counted
B) people are taking part time work instead of full time
C) the UE number reported is correct, but only because the way to lower the number is to eliminate the size of the people looking for jobs
114000 jobs is anemic, you have to have 250k to keep up with population growth. ALl sectors are DOWN, manufacturing, consumer spending, confidence, etc
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Some people in this thread need to read Stanley/Dunlops "Millionaire Next Door" you might get a better understanding of why rich people are rich. It will explain why people who make millions a year only pay 10-15% in Tax, yet people who make $50k a year pay 23%.
The people paying 23% are idiots. As I have said many times, I pay about 8% on over 110k in income.
I guess I am another of the evil people depriving the govt of their hard earned money.
I get what you're saying, but having had years where I earned median income levels (or less), there is no point to itemizing taxes when you make that little. 1040ez form and you were done. Didn't make enough to justify an accountant, didn't have investments or anything other than the paycheck I lived week to week on. Which is all part of the grand scheme, make it hard and complicated (tax code is only 78,000 pages) and the sheeple will do what is easy and not question it. I cringe every time I hear people talk about how much money they are "getting back" come tax time. The "middle class" are societies worker bees, and yes we live in a country where anything is possible... Doesn't mean everybody can, will or (to a lesser extent) need to move up.
However, I have yet to hear a persuasive argument on how taxing the "rich" more helps anyone in the middle/lower class. Does it make the poor guy "feel" better knowing that "evil rich guy is getting screwed"? Did that make the poor guy's life any better? As it's been said ad nauseam... Our government has a spending problem, doesn't matter if a Democrat or Republican is in charge.
I have a budget for my household, why doesn't my government?
You understand non-taxable income. lol
To help with one key phrase that sums everything up.... "Non-Taxable Income."
To the OP, the non-verbal cues throughout the debate was owned by Romney. Pres. Obama was intimidated like crazy.
Afterwards, I asked myself, "If I were black, would I be so overwhelmingly sold out to the POTUS that I could not vote for anyone else?" That's when I found this video on YouTube. Interesting point of view.
This is how I see Romney's lower taxes less loopholes gimmick actually working.
The people that are making millions wont be affected either way. Most are making a large portion of that income from investments anyways.
If I am paying 40% of my income in taxes, I am going to spend the time and money to get every deduction and slip through every loophole I can. Drop the rate to something I believe is more fair, I am going to spend a lot less time and money shielding my cash.
In the end, I may pay a higher taxes because of less planning simply because of the lower rate.
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
I understand making as much of my money non-taxable as possible.
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
