• 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!

Ann Romney Never Worked a Day In Her Life.

Josie said:
I never said it would solve the problem. He said he thought he should pay more. So.... do it.
Click to expand...

Spot on. I'm tired of hearing this W.H.I.N.E. about "others" paying more, but never the whiner. They've already found their station in life . . . . to do nothing but complain.
 
Josie said:
He was calling himself a libertarian. :shock:
Click to expand...

I originally had it as Liberal, but people kept telling me to change it. Oh well, Other it is until someone tells me otherwise and at that point I'm just changing it to undisclosed.

(FYI I re-responded to your post that I misinterpreted)
 
ThePlayDrive said:
No seriously, why would you respond with "send a check", if you didn't think it was a reasonable answer. This a common response to the "increase taxes on the wealthy" argument by those on the right and they usually think it's a reasonable and fair response. If you don't think it's reasonable, why did you say it? Or are you backtracking?
Click to expand...


I'll tell you why you should send an extra check. You believe taxes should be raised, thus you must be sending in a "little extra" to back up your belief, yes. If not then you don't believe everyone should pay their fair share, you just think "some" should pay higher taxes, just not you.
 
Jryan said:
I originally had it as Liberal, but people kept telling me to change it. Oh well, Other it is until someone tells me otherwise and at that point I'm just changing it to undisclosed.
Click to expand...

You shouldn't need someone to tell you what you are.

Jryan said:
(FYI I re-responded to your post that I misinterpreted)
Click to expand...

I see that. Thank you.
 
Billy the Kid said:
I'll tell you why you should send an extra check. You believe taxes should be raised, thus you must be sending in a "little extra" to back up your belief, yes. If not then you don't believe everyone should pay their fair share, you just think "some" should pay higher taxes, just not you.
Click to expand...

Total bull****.

People don't "send in a check", not because they don't think that they should; They know that if they "sent in their check" it would do nothing to a 14 trillion dollar deficit. It has to be a collective effort.
 
Josie said:
You shouldn't need someone to tell you what you are.



I see that. Thank you.
Click to expand...

Its just confusing when I'm debating politics and people start discussing my lean. I guess I just don't expect it so I go along with it.

Edit:
Problem solved :)
 
Wiggen said:
To be rich and run for President is acceptable. To be rich, run for President, and be utterly clueless as to how to relate to average people is not.
Click to expand...

I don't agree that the rich are utterly clueless.....but the poor? Anybody who expects to be taken care of just because they were born in the USA is clueless...
We can't expect to continue as a nation if the takers outnumber the providers.
I'll take an idiot savant any day if the savant part can improve the economy and increase employment.
But so far, most of the politicians savant part seems to be idiocy.
Romney is smart with a business background. Obama is smart with a legal/political background.
It doesn't matter if either or both knows the price of groceries, it matters what they know about getting off this death spiral our economy is in...
 
Jryan said:
Total bull****.

People don't "send in a check", not because they don't think that they should; They know that if they "sent in their check" it would do nothing to a 14 trillion dollar deficit. It has to be a collective effort.
Click to expand...

You do realize that the Buffett Rule would barely make a dent in the deficit either, right?
 
UtahBill said:
I don't agree that the rich are utterly clueless.....but the poor? Anybody who expects to be taken care of just because they were born in the USA is clueless...
We can't expect to continue as a nation if the takers outnumber the providers.
I'll take an idiot savant any day if the savant part can improve the economy and increase employment.
But so far, most of the politicians savant part seems to be idiocy.
Romney is smart with a business background. Obama is smart with a legal/political background.
It doesn't matter if either or both knows the price of groceries, it matters what they know about getting off this death spiral our economy is in...
Click to expand...

Now if only they could work together and stop calling the others economic terrorist we wouldn't have these problems...
 
Josie said:
You do realize that the Buffett Rule would barely make a dent in the deficit either, right?
Click to expand...

Right, but I think that their has to be common ground. We shouldn't cut our government while companies continue to make record profits (and that term is not even accurate to "record profits").

Hehe Edit:

Who would know that on page 89 of a Obama hate thread we would be discussing the economy lol.
 
Jryan said:
Right, but I think that their has to be common ground. We shouldn't cut our government while companies continue to make record profits (and that term is not even accurate to "record profits").
Click to expand...

I'm not seeing the correlation. Why can't private companies make as much money as they want?
 
UtahBill said:
what needs to be shared is a better job market....people who are gainfully employed are less likely to be obsessing about the rich..
But, I have always maintained that our economy works better if we have 1,000 millionaires instead of 1 billionaire.
The "playing field" could be made more level...
Click to expand...



I think we'd be better off if we cut every govt agency by 10%. Cut spending by 25% for starters and for crap sake pass a da*n budget.
 
Jryan said:
Now if only they could work together and stop calling the others economic terrorist we wouldn't have these problems...
Click to expand...


Maybe they could work that out as soon as Obama stops using language like "Flat Earthers" in his campaign rhetoric.

j-mac
 
Jryan said:
Same as, for lack of a better term, what I would like to hear what you say about us liberals in private TurtleDude. (I used for lack of a better term because I don't want to hear what you say about us liberals in private lol.)
Click to expand...


depends on which issue. I have almost as little use for bible thumping moral fascists on social issues as I do for reactionary parasitic statists (ie liberals) on economic issues
 
Josie said:
I'm not seeing the correlation. Why can't private companies make as much money as they want?
Click to expand...

They can, the problem is when they make record profits while the rest of the country suffers.
 
Billy the Kid said:
I think we'd be better off if we cut every govt agency by 10%. Cut spending by 25% for starters and for crap sake pass a da*n budget.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but it is so much easier to play games with the money when you don't have one...This is why Reid will never allow it up on vote.

j-mac
 
Josie said:
I'm not seeing the correlation. Why can't private companies make as much money as they want?
Click to expand...



good question, he deals from a zero sum attitude that if corporations make "too much" those who are failures will make even less
 
Jryan said:
Right, but I think that their has to be common ground. We shouldn't cut our government while companies continue to make record profits (and that term is not even accurate to "record profits").

Hehe Edit:

Who would know that on page 89 of a Obama hate thread we would be discussing the economy lol.
Click to expand...

I love the tradeoffs you see

its like your master Obama who claimed that for most people SACRIFICE is getting less government benefits or spending and for us top rate tax payers its paying MORE MONEY in taxes meaning we don't benefit from the government since less government is only a sacrifice for everyone but the rich

You labor under the idiotic delusion apparently that more government is always better and less government is always bad
 
TurtleDude said:
good question, he deals from a zero sum attitude that if corporations make "too much" those who are failures will make even less
Click to expand...

Oh right, so there is X amount of dollars on the planet. So if a person makes Y (A large sum of X money) how can a person Z make a large sum of this X money?
 
Jryan said:
If you are referring to the middle class having a higher tax, the liberals, at least to my knowledge, have always been for lower taxes on middle class. I could be wrong though.
Click to expand...


The current tax cuts in place were for liberals, Repubs, Demos, etc. Now when those go to the wayside, all those aforementioned groups taxes are gonna raise, yes? These are middle class people. That means their taxes are gonna go up, yes? So tell me who you are helping in this area?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom