• 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.

Romney runs on most vague platform in modern history

Fiddytree said:
It's not a good idea to say "Most in history". Andrew Jackson didn't have much of a platform in 1824. John Kerry wasn't so clear...

I mean, I get it. It's great red meat for liberals reading the Huffington Post, but it's just ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I said in modern history, meaning starting with the 20th Century. I believe Kerry was a lot more clear than Romney. Let the Bush tax cuts lapse; get out of Iraq. Improve clean energy.
 
zimmer said:
It is a far sight deeper than:

Yes We Can.
Change You Can Believe In.
We are the ones we have been waiting for.
Hope. Change.
Fundamentally change America.

All hollow vessels.

Interesting too, that Obama revealed a "plan" after three debates and with 2 weeks left in the election... and after not even trying to defend his miserable economic record in the debates.
That's beyond vague.

But hey... Leftists will believe anything. That's why socialists get votes. But there are far fewer suckers the second time around.
Click to expand...

Nice try, but Obama used both specifics and generalities. All you've done is taken his generalities and listed them while ignoring the specifics he said. Fail. And, btw, no socialist candidate has gotten a significant number of votes in a presidential election since Eugene V. Debs ran against Woodrow Wilson in the early 20th Century.

Now I suppose you're going to repeat the lie that Obama's a socialist. It doesn't become true by being repeated over and over. We actually do have a socialist party in the US. They never win anything. They're known as the Democratic Socialists of America, and they say Obama's not a socialist. No right winger has ever provided any rational argument that proves Obama's a socialist. All they've ever proven is they don't understand what socialism is. It's a very specific political philosophy that advocates putting ownership of the means of production into the hands of the proletariat. Obama has never advocated that. Until you can come up with an argument shows that he did, all the claims of his being socialist are just hot air.
 
Luna Tick said:
I said in modern history, meaning starting with the 20th Century. I believe Kerry was a lot more clear than Romney. Let the Bush tax cuts lapse; get out of Iraq. Improve clean energy.
Click to expand...

YOU realize this will result in a 50% tax increase (10% to 15%) if they lapse...right? Is that what you want?
 
Dickieboy said:
YOU realize this will result in a 50% tax increase (10% to 15%) if they lapse...right? Is that what you want?
Click to expand...

Maybe it will convince the electorate at last how nihilistic the GOP is for holding tax relief for working people hostage to their commitment to keep Paris Hilton in diamonds.
 
head of joaquin said:
Maybe it will convince the electorate at last how nihilistic the GOP is for holding tax relief for working people hostage to their commitment to keep Paris Hilton in diamonds.
Click to expand...

Obamacare = largest tax increase on the poor and middle class in history

You are pathetically flailing and projecting all over these forums like a clown
 
head of joaquin said:
Maybe it will convince the electorate at last how nihilistic the GOP is for holding tax relief for working people hostage to their commitment to keep Paris Hilton in diamonds.
Click to expand...

So you DO what to see the lowest bracket rate increased 50% to make a point...thanks for that ;)
 
Luna Tick said:
I said in modern history, meaning starting with the 20th Century. I believe Kerry was a lot more clear than Romney. Let the Bush tax cuts lapse; get out of Iraq. Improve clean energy.
Click to expand...

Modern history is pretty much United States history from start to finish. Furthermore, these rags perpetuate rank presentism.
 
Luna Tick said:
I'm quoting a post made by someone by the handle of "outlandish" at the Huffington Post. It's written by a regular reader, not by a staff writer:



I found this well written and insightful. In short, a Romney presidency is a wild gamble with America's future.
Click to expand...



You think that Romney has a less defined platform than the Big 0 had in 08 and that the Big is still running on today?

Interesting bit of myopia there.
 
head of joaquin said:
What isn't vague is that he will cut taxes on Paris Hilton and raise taxes on working people (the irreponsible 47%). He said he would and I believe him
Click to expand...



This should be on DNC stationary.

Maybe it was before he copied it.
 
Luna Tick said:
You're right about that. What's vague is he says he'll make up the shortfall by closing tax loopholes, but he won't say which ones. It's essentially miracle math because the numbers don't add up. Math is a rational subject. It's not a creative anything goes thing. If you spend more than is in your checking account, you can't do some creative writing that will make the numbers magically work.
Click to expand...



Nobody knows more about deficit spending than a Democrat, so if you are saying it...
 
head of joaquin said:
Because of AMT, the top brackets already only have a few deductions, and the biggest is the charitable deduction, which I can't believe he would eliminate (there would be a rebellion by churches!)

So his entire plan is a fake. He is proposing to lower taxes on the rich and cut deductions -- i.e., to raise taxes on working people. Helluvaplan.
Click to expand...




He said he is proposing to set the goals and listen to options and form compromises.

I know, I know... Democrats don't compromise because they won.
 
Bronson said:
Obamacare = largest tax increase on the poor and middle class in history

You are pathetically flailing and projecting all over these forums like a clown
Click to expand...

Hey, that meme! It has a tax on those making over $250K in some limited situations. Yeah, what's the problem?
 
code1211 said:
He said he is proposing to set the goals and listen to options and form compromises.

I know, I know... Democrats don't compromise because they won.
Click to expand...

Tell us the options for eliminating deductions on the top bracket in light of AMT.

Do you even know what you're talking about.

By the way talking about the GOP compromising is absolutely hilarious! Thanks for the laugh.
 
Luna Tick said:
I'm quoting a post made by someone by the handle of "outlandish" at the Huffington Post. It's written by a regular reader, not by a staff writer:



I found this well written and insightful. In short, a Romney presidency is a wild gamble with America's future.
Click to expand...

Yeah Hope and Change and "I'm black and not Bush" were really intellectually profound arguments for voting for Obunny in 08
 
code1211 said:
This should be on DNC stationary.

Maybe it was before he copied it.
Click to expand...

Translated: you can't rebut the facts and are reduced to this.

Happens a lot with conservatives.

Now, tell is in your own words which deductions Romney can eliminate from the top bracket in light of AMT. Make a list so we can considerate it.

You're stumped aren't you?
 
Dickieboy said:
So you DO what to see the lowest bracket rate increased 50% to make a point...thanks for that ;)
Click to expand...

I want to get rid of the hostage takers, lower rates for working people even more, and raise rates on the top bracket to about 70%.

Is that clear enough for ya.
 
head of joaquin said:
I want to get rid of the hostage takers, lower rates for working people even more, and raise rates on the top bracket to about 70%.

Is that clear enough for ya.
Click to expand...

that will really help the deficit. we who are rich will off shore lots of our investments and the lower classes will demand even more government. Other than serious envy of the rich, there is no rational argument for confiscatory tax rates. I'd hope anyone who passes such things would be prevented from holding office again
 
head of joaquin said:
I want to get rid of the hostage takers, lower rates for working people even more, and raise rates on the top bracket to about 70%.

Is that clear enough for ya.
Click to expand...

Clear? Above you say ‘lower rates for working people even more’ and below:
head of joaquin said:
Dickieboy said:
YOU realize this will result in a 50% tax increase (10% to 15%) if they lapse...right? Is that what you want?
Click to expand...
Maybe it will convince the electorate at last how nihilistic the GOP is for holding tax relief for working people hostage to their commitment to keep Paris Hilton in diamonds.
Click to expand...

You proclaim across the board tax increase (by the lapse of Bush tax cuts)…looks like a flip-flop to me…am I wrong?
 
Dickieboy said:
Clear? Above you say ‘lower rates for working people even more’ and below:


You proclaim across the board tax increase (by the lapse of Bush tax cuts)…looks like a flip-flop to me…am I wrong?
Click to expand...


It appears to be a rage against the successful
 
Luna Tick said:
You're right about that. What's vague is he says he'll make up the shortfall by closing tax loopholes, but he won't say which ones. It's essentially miracle math because the numbers don't add up. Math is a rational subject. It's not a creative anything goes thing. If you spend more than is in your checking account, you can't do some creative writing that will make the numbers magically work.
Click to expand...

If you value math at all, you would delve into the only "specific" item in Obama's 'plan.' He is trying to make you think that taxing the rich more (back to Clinton rates) will fix the deficit problem. Now you have to chase down what he means by 'rich' because sometimes it is "wall street millionaires" and sometimes it is 'above 250k.'

If you believe the millionaire part, you should really apply your 'math' skills to the problem and do a little reverse engineering - try to compute how many 'millionaires' would be required to reduce a trillion dollar deficit by taxing their marginal rates at 10 percent more.

I will wait while you try to adjust your calculator to provide more digits.

Obama himself said that he is not really interested in 'debt reduction' = he would be for the increased tax rates EVEN IF IT DID NOTHING TO REDUCE THE DEFICIT - he wants it because it would be more "fair."

THAT is the nexus of this 'tax the rich' mantra - it is all in the warped sense of 'fairness.' In other words it is to stoke the fires of ENVY and GREED. = "hey, the rich white guy got more money than he need - let's get some of it."
 
TurtleDude said:
It appears to be a rage against the successful
Click to expand...

"Rage against the successful" is romney's strategy; tax future generations heavily to pay for corporate welfare for his buddies.
 
solletica said:
"Rage against the successful" is romney's strategy; tax future generations heavily to pay for corporate welfare for his buddies.
Click to expand...

Another silly comment. Its Obunny who wants to tax our children for his buy the votes of the needy nonsense
 
TurtleDude said:
that will really help the deficit. we who are rich will off shore lots of our investments and the lower classes will demand even more government. Other than serious envy of the rich, there is no rational argument for confiscatory tax rates. I'd hope anyone who passes such things would be prevented from holding office again
Click to expand...

FYI, eliminating corporate welfare is not a confiscatory tax increase.
 
TurtleDude said:
Another silly comment. Its Obunny who wants to tax our children for his buy the votes of the needy nonsense
Click to expand...

Cite evidence that Obama's stated plan results in higher debt than romney's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom