• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Mitt Romney's mysterious tax returns

1) Yale Law is far harder to get into

I have never met someone who got into Yale law (with 175 seats or so) who did not also get into Harvard (550 Seats)

BFD. Yale is the most selective and Harvard is tied with NYU for second most selective. :roll:

2) it has been posted numerous times how one gets on the HLR

Again, so what? You're arguing against yourself.

He was a lousy college student-didn't even make basic honors at Columbia

You have no idea what kind of student he was at Columbia. He probably could not earn honors no matter how good his grades were because he was a transfer student.

he is an affirmative action poster child

Sure, he is, and George Bush, and Mitt Romney ... all affirmative action poster children. FWIW, I don't think that Obama has ever denied benefitting from affirmative action. In fact, it's quite accurate to say that he is the poster child for the success of affirmative action, as it gave him a chance to prove himself, which he did spectacularly by graduating at the top of his class, becoming president of the law review, a state legislator, a US senator, and president of the United States. I guess the next best poster child would be Clarence Thomas.
 
Last edited:
1) Yale Law is far harder to get into

I have never met someone who got into Yale law (with 175 seats or so) who did not also get into Harvard (550 Seats)

2) it has been posted numerous times how one gets on the HLR

He was a lousy college student-didn't even make basic honors at Columbia


he is an affirmative action poster child

Obama, and his educational experience may very well be endemic of the success that can result if those who are disadvantaged are only provided an equal opportunity

thank you for illustrating this, turtledude
 
Why the consistent denial that our tax code benefits the super wealthy and the largest corporations the most? Anyone else think that by pushing the top up you're you're making it harder and harder for small business to compete? Can agree that the competition is not fair, and the last two decades have made it increasingly unfair by decreasing the burden on the super wealthy and largest corporations. If it's about competition shouldn't we be trying to even the burdens instead of reducing top end burdens to facilitate artificial economic gains?

How about just looking at income gains since the 70's as proof? Top moves up - rest of country remains stagnant. Very telling!

That said, I agree everyone should have a tax burden. I don't believe someone of Mtt's stature should have the same burden as someone of my stature. He obviously benefits much more from our society and therefore should be more responsible for it. He's got a freedom that I cannot afford, and really don't aspire for. I'm happy with my life. I'm not happy with that our government cannot afford to keep facilitating my way of life. I get no government monies, but I benefit in many ways, as we all do.

This is not envy... this is common sense logical thinking. Taxes don't discourage entrepreneurship. They facilitate it. To say someone is not going to make more money because it'll be taxed is like saying I'm not going to keep having sex if I have to physically work for the orgasm. People just don't think that way. We chase the reward and deal with the burdens along the way. We don't get scared of intermediate hurdles and turn tail and run the other way. If I'm going to vote for Romney, I need to hear a new argument. The republican argument has failed the reality test. Now instead of trying a new approach, they find ways to pin the outfall on the other side. I'm not buying it, and I'm not ready to double down on those failures.

The real problem is that with a top down approach where the top gets to decide how much goes down. According to the numbers, they just don't share their successes.
 
why hasn't this thread been moved to the conspiracy forum?
 
Back
Top Bottom