68
   

The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jan, 2012 01:29 pm
@JPB,
Here's proof that money has influence in congress. Newt wants to starve the US government which in turn will mean more cuts in social services to its citizens and country.

They have lost complete touch with middle class Americans; they are the ones who have made the US strong both economically and militarily. Without the necessary infrastructure upkeep and support of our education, we might as well give it (economic and military power) away to China.
H2O MAN
 
  -4  
Reply Tue 24 Jan, 2012 01:32 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Here's proof that money has influence in congress.


You should look at the money behind Obama stopping the Keystone pipeline...

Obama is trading this countries soul to China because it makes him feel better about himself.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Tue 24 Jan, 2012 01:37 pm
@roger,
roger wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:



'In accordance with the law' is not the equivalent of 'morally and ethically sound.'
Cycloptichorn


So you're saying that yes, he should be paying more that the law requires. Again, I ask if you are also paying more than required. You have yet to answer.


I do indeed give more than the law requires - every single year. I do not take steps to maximize my tax returns; I hire no lawyers or accountants to ensure that I am paying 'only what the law requires.' What more, I intentionally pay extra each and every month in deductions from my taxes, specifically to give the gov't that money as an interest-free loan each year.

I can see that the bar for you guys is pretty much always set at the lowest level possible - is the guy using accounting tricks and gimmicks to avoid taxation? Yes, but so what, because it's in accordance with the law?

Never mind the fact that the laws ARE what they ARE because rich guys have paid a lot of money for them to be that way. Questions of fairness, ethics, and equality with fellow citizens don't even seem to be a consideration. I can't respect such a viewpoint, and I assure you that voters in this country will not either. This is why you see Mitt's numbers plummeting nationwide right now, in favor of a basically unelectable fool like Gingirch: he cannot defend his basic actions and life without looking like a wealthy plutocrat, which is exactly what he happens to be.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jan, 2012 01:38 pm
@H2O MAN,
That's correct all money should be taken out of influencing laws whether it be democrats or republicans bribing the system.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jan, 2012 01:38 pm
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic wrote:

That is a silly question after he already gave you an explanation of his views. Did you even take just a minute to consider his views?


Engaging in an in-depth conversation about the reality of such things isn't really his style.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Tue 24 Jan, 2012 01:38 pm
@roger,
roger wrote:
So you're saying that yes, he should be paying more that the law requires.

He's saying that Romney and others like him should be required to pay more taxes. (i.e., that the law should be changed; he's not asking for voluntary contributions)
sozobe
 
  2  
Reply Tue 24 Jan, 2012 01:44 pm
@DrewDad,
Yep. Just read this from Andrew Sullivan, puts it well I think:

Quote:
To put it more bluntly: The president and the Democrats should not be piling on Romney because he's rich. They should be piling on the tax code because it is so insane. This issue is populist and good economics.
reasoning logic
 
  0  
Reply Tue 24 Jan, 2012 01:45 pm
@H2O MAN,
Quote:
Obama is trading this countries soul to China because it makes him feel better about himself.


Shouldn't that read H20 man and others who think like him are trading this countries soul to China because it makes them feel better about themselves?
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jan, 2012 02:02 pm
Confirmation that Newt really prefers to play to a rowdy audience:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/24/10226097-gingrich-missing-applause-demands-audience-participation-at-debates

Quote:
Gingrich vowed to "serve notice" on future debate appearances, insisting that audiences be allowed to express support or opposition to candidates' answers. (A spokesman said Tuesday afternoon that Gingrich intended to attend all the debates, but would certainly protest rules barring audience participation.)
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Tue 24 Jan, 2012 02:08 pm
@sozobe,
WTF does he plan on doing in the Presidential debates, then? Audience participation is strictly forbidden in those.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jan, 2012 02:08 pm
@DrewDad,
Thank you. I had given up on a straight answer.

By the way, the 9-9-9 which would have put Buffett in about a tax free bracket put me off Cain long before I knew he even had a love life.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -4  
Reply Tue 24 Jan, 2012 02:09 pm
@sozobe,


Well who doesn't?

What will Obama do if his audience for tonight's campaign is silent?
Below viewing threshold (view)
sozobe
 
  5  
Reply Tue 24 Jan, 2012 02:11 pm
@H2O MAN,
As Cycloptichorn indicated above, the debates between Obama and the Republican presidential nominee will be silent. Thems the rules.

Quote:
The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD)is a nonprofit organization that has set the debate sites, moderators and rules for the general election in each cycle since 1988. They have already set the parameters for this fall's debates between Obama and his eventual GOP challenger. There will be three debates, held in October in Denver, Hempstead, NY, and Boca Raton, FL. The second debate will be in a town meeting format.

Gingrich probably won't be able to skip these debates if he's the nominee. But he might be reduced to protesting since, per the rules established by the CPD in every previous debate, the audience has been required to hold its applause through the duration of the meetings.


(From the same article I linked to above.)
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jan, 2012 02:16 pm
@sozobe,
Makes for an interesting change in dynamics; no audience reactions.

What happens if they do? Do they empty out the halls?
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jan, 2012 02:19 pm
@H2O MAN,
Are you absolutely certain of yourself? It seems that all of the policies that you support are the same policies that sent all of our jobs over seas.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 24 Jan, 2012 02:24 pm
@sozobe,

Thanks, but as indicated above, I was talking about making tonight's campaign speech by Obama being silent except for laughter that is.

You should be able to laugh at the ass hat in office today, Obama deserves to be ridiculed.


A silent debate between Obama and the republican nominee will help expose Obama's lack of skills when he is without his teleprompter.
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jan, 2012 02:28 pm
@H2O MAN,
Riight.

I know I've already mentioned my love of the teleprompter trope, but I remain really entertained by it.

Ah well, the debates will here soon enough.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  7  
Reply Tue 24 Jan, 2012 02:39 pm
@sozobe,
I think all the discussion about Romney's 13-15% tax burden misses a lot of the point about taxes. For most of us working stiffs, we paid (in addition to our federal taxes) 4.2% SS tax. Romney paid 0%. We pay 6-12% sales tax (depending on where we live). Of course we don't spend every cent on things in stores, but it probably works out to 3-4% depending on how much we have to spend just to keep things going. (I pulled up my budget and it looks like I pay sales tax on about half of my spending in an average month.) Even if Romney spent a cool $1 million at venues where he would have to pay sales tax, he would still only pay 0.1 to 0.2% in sales taxes. Likewise miscellaneous taxes like gasoline taxes, property taxes, utility surcharges are all completely insignificant to his income while they take a significant nibble from the pocketbook of the typical Joe. (For those who wonder about property taxes, I live in a house that is worth about 3x my yearly income and pay aound 1% of its appraised value in property taxes so around a 3% hit to my income. If Romney lived in a $9,000,000 home, he would pay a tenth the percentage I do under the same rate. For all you renters out there you are paying property taxes as part of your rent so don't go feeling smug.)

The giant reality is that just about every tax except the federal and state income taxes is regressive. Romney's entire tax burden is less than 20% while the middle class sees numbers closer to 40%. I don't fault Romney for paying what is required, but the tax code is pretty messed up when someone who could pay an extra $3 million without noticing it is paying a lower rate than someone who would really appreciate a couple of hundred extra dollars a month.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jan, 2012 02:44 pm
@engineer,
quich your betching; the conservatives wants to give the wealthy more tax cuts to create jobs; or didn't you know?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 06/06/2023 at 11:48:19