"Romnesia".

[Boo Radley]

then disprove what he has to say

you won't

because you can't

the facts are against you

Many have show the flaws with Romeny's "studies." I can't recall anyone actually trying to prove the studies correct.

 

[TurtleDude]

then disprove what he has to say

you won't

because you can't

the facts are against you

its funny watching people like you argue by proxy.

here is the funny part

explain why his analysis is correct and why his assumptions are the best take on available fact

 

[justabubba]

Many have show the flaws with Romeny's "studies." I can't recall anyone actually trying to prove the studies correct.

romney insists he knows how to create jobs
problem is he is unable to tell us how he will do so
krugman underscored that inability

 

[shiang]

Rezko, Dorin, Plager, Ayers, Rev Wright, Acorn, Farakan, Libya... 4 dead American, fake video tapes, Uncle Odinga, sharia for Kenya and Odinga, Frank Marshal Davis, books of fiction on his fake life, fake girlfriends... fake grades, Fake law review reviews...voted against everyhting as far as EIT that got us UBL. Van Jones, Eric Holder, fast and Furious, dead border agent... taxMoney to the Muslim Brotherhood, tax money sent to Odinga..

shallI go on?

I better make sure people here dont have "Omnesia..

You watched the 2nd debate, in the real world things get missed accidents happen get over it. Obama's not the one trying to score political points on day 1 of the accident before any information came in.

 

[TurtleDude]

romney insists he knows how to create jobs
problem is he is unable to tell us how he will do so
krugman underscored that inability

Well Obama has proven a total failure in that area. more government taking more wealth doesn't create jobs

 

[upsideguy]

Rezko, Dorin, Plager, Ayers, Rev Wright, Acorn, Farakan, Libya... 4 dead American, fake video tapes, Uncle Odinga, sharia for Kenya and Odinga, Frank Marshal Davis, books of fiction on his fake life, fake girlfriends... fake grades, Fake law review reviews...voted against everyhting as far as EIT that got us UBL. Van Jones, Eric Holder, fast and Furious, dead border agent... taxMoney to the Muslim Brotherhood, tax money sent to Odinga..

shallI go on?

I better make sure people here dont have "Omnesia..

...only if you are willing to share your hallucinogens, as it is much to hard for us rational thinkers to follow you.

 

[justabubba]

Well Obama has proven a total failure in that area. more government taking more wealth doesn't create jobs

unlike what we experienced under the republicans, the trend line for employment and economic growth is headed in a positive direction
only a fool would want to return to the same policies - the ones romney espouses - which stalled our nation's economy and threw millions out of work

 

[TurtleDude]

...only if you are willing to share your hallucinogens, as it is much to hard for us rational thinkers to follow you.

explain how supporting Obama after four years of constant screw ups is indicative of rational thinking unless you are planning on getting wealthier through government handouts

 

[TurtleDude]

unlike what we experienced under the republicans, the trend line for employment and economic growth is headed in a positive direction
only a fool would want to return to the same policies - the ones romney espouses - which stalled our nation's economy and threw millions out of work

we know obama's policies have failed=you engage in faith based beliefs that Romney's will because you think Romney won't give you as much of others' wealth as Obama will

 

[specklebang]

I think that Romney thinks that he knows how to create jobs.

He believes that a massive tax cut will generate investment. Investment will create jobs.

Personally, I don't agree with his logic. I think that all these tax reductions will add to the deficit and not cause further investment. The jobs problem is one of technological advances that have negated the use of large numbers of blue collar workers and has also reduced mid-level white collar jobs. There is a large demand right now, without a tax cut, for engineering workers. We have failed to educate enough graduates in the scientific fields and a substantial number of engineering type workers are imported.

I've tried to be fair to the 2 major candidates. I won't vote for either of them but I don't have to support lies and I give praise when it's due.

Both candidates talk big about millions of jobs they will create and they both push tax cuts as a solution. They are both wrong but they feel obligated to make these claims for election purposes.

I think one excellent example is Apple, now the most successful company in the world and with a huge stockpile of cash. They do all of their manufacturing and a majority of their engineering in other countries. Giving them a tax break would not create a single American job.

For any of you that are Sci-Fi addicts like myself and who are very interested in this topic, I suggest Beggars in Spain (Sleepless): Nancy Kress: Amazon.com: Kindle Store which gives a profound perspective on this.

If someone here has a deeper understanding of the Romney tax plan and would explain it to me, I'll appreciate it. I've done my best to find legitimacy in it but as of now, it just looks like a reward for the ultra-wealthy.

 

[upsideguy]

explain how supporting Obama after four years of constant screw ups is indicative of rational thinking unless you are planning on getting wealthier through government handouts

The title of this thread is "Romenisa".. my reasons for preferring Obama over Romney are a bit OT. However, I fundamentally believe his approach to our nation's problems is far superior to the alternative. The idea of returning to GWB policies of solving economic problems with tax cuts and addressing foreign policy challenges with the military (and wars); complaining about deficits but only paying lip service to this by wanting to reduce revenues (tax cuts) while increasing expenditures (the war budget)... The Romney foreign policy team got their West Wing experience with GWBush and this taxcut and spend economic plan was also tried (and failed) by GWBush. In his own words: "...ya fooled me once,...... you don't get fooled again..."

Sorry, going back to GWBush when we haven't fully untangled his mess just seems a bit on the absurd side to me. But, of course, if one really doesn't get an S about his country but would rather enjoy getting richer by paying less tax... I can understand how one might like Mitt.

 

[TurtleDude]

I think that Romney thinks that he knows how to create jobs.

He believes that a massive tax cut will generate investment. Investment will create jobs.

Personally, I don't agree with his logic. I think that all these tax reductions will add to the deficit and not cause further investment. The jobs problem is one of technological advances that have negated the use of large numbers of blue collar workers and has also reduced mid-level white collar jobs. There is a large demand right now, without a tax cut, for engineering workers. We have failed to educate enough graduates in the scientific fields and a substantial number of engineering type workers are imported.

I've tried to be fair to the 2 major candidates. I won't vote for either of them but I don't have to support lies and I give praise when it's due.

Both candidates talk big about millions of jobs they will create and they both push tax cuts as a solution. They are both wrong but they feel obligated to make these claims for election purposes.

I think one excellent example is Apple, now the most successful company in the world and with a huge stockpile of cash. They do all of their manufacturing and a majority of their engineering in other countries. Giving them a tax break would not create a single American job.

For any of you that are Sci-Fi addicts like myself and who are very interested in this topic, I suggest Beggars in Spain (Sleepless): Nancy Kress: Amazon.com: Kindle Store which gives a profound perspective on this.

If someone here has a deeper understanding of the Romney tax plan and would explain it to me, I'll appreciate it. I've done my best to find legitimacy in it but as of now, it just looks like a reward for the ultra-wealthy.

other than appeal to class warfare (ie gain votes deems) what "good" comes from raising taxes only on the people who

1) already pay a huge amount of the taxes-the only group that pays a higher percentage of the tax bill than their share of the income

2) who pay more taxes than they use in government services

3) and for the most part understand how expensive government is

 

[Jonsa]

Rezko, Dorin, Plager, Ayers, Rev Wright, Acorn, Farakan, Libya... 4 dead American, fake video tapes, Uncle Odinga, sharia for Kenya and Odinga, Frank Marshal Davis, books of fiction on his fake life, fake girlfriends... fake grades, Fake law review reviews...voted against everyhting as far as EIT that got us UBL. Van Jones, Eric Holder, fast and Furious, dead border agent... taxMoney to the Muslim Brotherhood, tax money sent to Odinga..


I better make sure people here dont have "Omnesia..

Brilliant response. Its not enough the your guy changes his positions like he changes his holy underware, your confirmation bias is such that seeing Romney for the snake oil salesman he is impossible for you. I see Obama as having many flaws - he is human, but he has done a pretty good job. Romney caters to whomever he is sitting across the table from.

I see that a presidential candidate the requires his campaign to walk back his statements on a regular basis (I count at least 16 such in the last 6 months) is reliable when he says "i'll do this or that". When he offers a plan that even his economic advisers have had to walk back since his puffed up claim of creating 12 million jobs stretchs far beyond 4 years and makes his tax plan, his deficit reduction plan and his debt reduction plan unworkable.

Which way does the wind blow for Romney? whatever way the guy across the table who he thinks can help him want it to. Great presidential material there. I'll take obama every time.


Cute, but misdirected. Whatever you want to make of Obamas influences or exposures,

 

[Jonsa]

we know obama's policies have failed=you engage in faith based beliefs that Romney's will because you think Romney won't give you as much of others' wealth as Obama will

They haven't failed and the proof is in the results so fare. He hasn't earned a A, but I'd give him a solid B-.

 

[TurtleDude]

ITs bad enough seeing foreigners whine about our elections but the religious bigotry is just the pits

 

[TurtleDude]

They haven't failed and the proof is in the results so fare. He hasn't earned a A, but I'd give him a solid B-.

I guess it comes down to whether you are a maker or a taker. and if you live in another country, Obama is certainly the best choice if you want American primacy to wane

 

[specklebang]

OK. Thanks. I already know your position on taxes. However, that was not my question.

Romney has claimed that this tax decrease would be revenue neutral and that the gross percentage would not be reduced for the very high income earners. This is to be accomplished by eliminating deductions.

So, what impact would you feel? Apparently you are going to get a rate cut but lose your deductions. Will you then have paid more, less or the same in taxes? My question is not about fairness, its about the mathematics of the proposal.

other than appeal to class warfare (ie gain votes deems) what "good" comes from raising taxes only on the people who

1) already pay a huge amount of the taxes-the only group that pays a higher percentage of the tax bill than their share of the income

2) who pay more taxes than they use in government services

3) and for the most part understand how expensive government is

 

[Jonsa]

I guess it comes down to whether you are a maker or a taker. and if you live in another country, Obama is certainly the best choice if you want American primacy to wane

nope. it doesnt come down to that completely ridiculous bumpersticker meme. Yet another in a long line of republican policy statements.

Make dumb unsubstantiated sweeping statements of no substance. Yet another in a long line of republican policy statements.


Hmmm, I think I am noticing a trend.

 

[TurtleDude]

nope. it doesnt come down to that completely ridiculous bumpersticker meme. Yet another in a long line of republican policy statements.

Make dumb unsubstantiated sweeping statements of no substance. Yet another in a long line of republican policy statements.


Hmmm, I think I am noticing a trend.

so tell us how you, as a non American and not living in the USA want Obama as president' Frankly I couldn't care less who is the head of your country

 

[head of joaquin]

OK. Thanks. I already know your position on taxes. However, that was not my question.

Romney has claimed that this tax decrease would be revenue neutral and that the gross percentage would not be reduced for the very high income earners. This is to be accomplished by eliminating deductions.

So, what impact would you feel? Apparently you are going to get a rate cut but lose your deductions. Will you then have paid more, less or the same in taxes? My question is not about fairness, its about the mathematics of the proposal.

The Romney proposal is of course a charade. The top brackets already have most of their deductions phased out by AMT. So Romney's plan to cut rates and get rid of deductions, means that the rich simply get lower rates. Deductions are not a factor in the taxes of the top bracket (except the charitable deduction and does he really plan to get rid of that?)

In contrast, the rate reduction for the lower brackets won't be very helpful since rates are already low. It's the mortgage interest deduction and the standard deduction (and a lot of other smaller ones) that reduce the amount of taxes for working people significant.

So it's a fake proposal, of course. Ridiculously, nobody in the debates (including Obama) has called him on this phoney plan.

 

[TurtleDude]

The Romney proposal is of course a charade. The top brackets already have most of their deductions phased out by AMT. So Romney's plan to cut rates and get rid of deductions, means that the rich simply get lower rates. Deductions are not a factor in the taxes of the top bracket (except the charitable deduction and does he really plan to get rid of that?)

In contrast, the rate reduction for the lower brackets won't be very helpful since rates are already low. It's the mortgage interest deduction and the standard deduction (and a lot of other smaller ones) that reduce the amount of taxes for working people significant.

So it's a fake proposal, of course. Ridiculously, nobody in the debates (including Obama) has called him on this phoney plan.

LOL tell us how taxing the top 2% more is going to make the middle class more productive in the face of foreign competition and cure the deficit.

 

[Travis007]

Brilliant response. Its not enough the your guy changes his positions like he changes his holy underware, your confirmation bias is such that seeing Romney for the snake oil salesman he is impossible for you. I see Obama as having many flaws - he is human, but he has done a pretty good job. Romney caters to whomever he is sitting across the table from.

I see that a presidential candidate the requires his campaign to walk back his statements on a regular basis (I count at least 16 such in the last 6 months) is reliable when he says "i'll do this or that". When he offers a plan that even his economic advisers have had to walk back since his puffed up claim of creating 12 million jobs stretchs far beyond 4 years and makes his tax plan, his deficit reduction plan and his debt reduction plan unworkable.

Which way does the wind blow for Romney? whatever way the guy across the table who he thinks can help him want it to. Great presidential material there. I'll take obama every time.


Cute, but misdirected. Whatever you want to make of Obamas influences or exposures,

Yea.. you dont see your post is criticaly flawed once you stated "Obama has done a pretty good job"... but you cant poke one hole in Mitts record...

 

[head of joaquin]

LOL tell us how taxing the top 2% more is going to make the middle class more productive in the face of foreign competition and cure the deficit.

Diversion. A known tea party tactic.

I'll take it as an admission that Romney's tax plan is bogus.

As to your question (which isn't relevant to the issue), its premise is false. Tax policy isn't intended to solve the deficit in a single year or deal with foreign competition. I'm afraid we'll have to do that the old fashion way -- spend on infrastructure and productivity (which taxing the rich and preventing their misallocation of capital will in fact help)

 

[Travis007]

LOL tell us how taxing the top 2% more is going to make the middle class more productive in the face of foreign competition and cure the deficit.

I cant wait to find out.... I too would like to know...: )

 

[Travis007]

Diversion. A known tea party tactic.

I'll take it as an admission that Romney's tax plan is bogus.

As to your question (which isn't relevant to the issue), its premise is false. Tax policy isn't intended to solve the deficit in a single year or deal with foreign competition. I'm afraid we'll have to do that the old fashion way -- spend on infrastructure and productivity (which taxing the rich and preventing their misallocation of capital will in fact help)

The problem is that didnt work... Thats why Obama is going to lose in a landslide..