• 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!

Paul Ryan, Help Or Hurt Romney

Will Ryan as VP help or hurt Romney win election?


  • Total voters
    120
Yep. I imagine he still supported it at 9 am.... But by 1 pm he decided he was against the signature legislative act of the person he just picked as VP... Apparently he realized his mistake... The Romney campaign is a complete disaster.

It's just another reason why Romney is the epitome of every cliche, negative characteristic the word "politician" evokes.
 
Makes me wonder if Romney would be better at selling used cars than becoming POTUS.
 
Yeah, like the time you told me you knew more about taxes and then went on to prove that you don't understand taxes and how tax credits and refunds work. Your misunderstanding of basic tax law should have been an embarrassment to you. There are high school drop outs that know better than to say "you only get a refund based on the taxes you overpaid," and you're always bragging about your education and even tax law classes you have taken.

I am sure you think you know more about global economics than you actually do. That's my bet.

your dishonest and mistaken interpretation was obvious.

I am sure I am better educated, smarter and far more successful than you are.

and that is what bothers you
 
Makes me wonder if Romney would be better at selling used cars than becoming POTUS.

that is funny coming from someone who supported a guy who had no real accomplishments

(being black and leftwing really don't cut it when it comes to a resume)
 
your dishonest and mistaken interpretation was obvious.

I am sure I am better educated, smarter and far more successful than you are.

and that is what bothers you

I am a tax accountant, so I am sure I know more than you, better educated, and far more successful in every area of tax and tax law. If I was dishonest or was mistaken in any interpretation than point it out and hand my ass to me on a plate, otherwise, you just don't know how to admit you don't know as much as you think you do.
 
Last edited:
that is funny coming from someone who supported a guy who had no real accomplishments

(being black and leftwing really don't cut it when it comes to a resume)

Who said I supported a black guy. I supported an old white guy, and it wasn't McCain. I don't like Romney. It's too bad somebody better than Obama isn't running against Obama, because I'd like a better president.
 
I am a tax accountant, so I am sure I know more than you, better educated, and far more successful in every area of tax and tax law. If I made a dishonest or was mistaken in any interpretation than point it out, otherwise, you just don't know how to admit you don't know as much as you think you do.

what you confuse is pretending that because you are a tax accountant you somehow have a superior take on what tax policy should be. Your alleged expertise does not make you right when you claim that the leftwing tax policy is better than a policy I advocate which would remove extra constitutional power from the congress. You might be able to argue that a flat tax would have X impact on revenues or a higher progressive tax would have Y impact on tax revenues and you might well have expertise in that area.

where you fail is pretending that a progressive tax is "proper" or a flat tax is "unfair"

so you have a CPA-tax accountant means many things. In the IRS it can be as low as a GS 5 level employee
 
Who said I supported a black guy. I supported an old white guy, and it wasn't McCain. I don't like Romney. It's too bad somebody better than Obama isn't running against Obama, because I'd like a better president.


Nader? LOL.....
 
what you confuse is pretending that because you are a tax accountant you somehow have a superior take on what tax policy should be. Your alleged expertise does not make you right when you claim that the leftwing tax policy is better than a policy I advocate which would remove extra constitutional power from the congress. You might be able to argue that a flat tax would have X impact on revenues or a higher progressive tax would have Y impact on tax revenues and you might well have expertise in that area.

where you fail is pretending that a progressive tax is "proper" or a flat tax is "unfair"

so you have a CPA-tax accountant means many things. In the IRS it can be as low as a GS 5 level employee

I don't work for the IRS TurdDude
 
No... probably somebody you hate more :mrgreen:

I don't hate people I don't know. I don't even know who the communist candidate was in 08
 
the only discrimination is that wealthy people pay higher rates on earned income than others

and that the wealthy face the surcharge known as the death tax

known by you and the other followers of the marching orders of Faris and Luntz.

Nice attempt to dodge the reality of the tax preferences for the rich with this nonsense about "earned income" - what ever the hell that is. News bulletin: its all income if it goes in your pocket.
 
I figured that.

that is an interesting attempt to answer the points I made

I have never argued tax policy.... I simply told you that you were wrong in assuming people on get tax refunds based on the amount of money overpaid. Again, you were wrong and still are. You argued with me for pages, and kept insisting you knew more about taxes because you once took some tax law classes. Now your calling me dishonest and mistaken... lol.
 
known by you and the other followers of the marching orders of Faris and Luntz.

Nice attempt to dodge the reality of the tax preferences for the rich with this nonsense about "earned income" - what ever the hell that is. News bulletin: its all income if it goes in your pocket.

I cannot recall any other poster bringing those two up. You seem to have a fixation on them-I had never heard of the former until you starting constantly spewing claims about him.

you seem to think its wrong for capital gains to be taxed at different schedules than earned income but the earned income schedule was created by the same laws that create investment income rates

in other words, your argument is stupid

if the progressive rates are proper then so are the rates on investment income
 
I voted for Ron Paul in the primary

in 2008? the general election

Ron Paul has some good ideas He is a bit nutty personally and his foreign policy is a bit too naive for my taste but he's far far far better than Obama

so tell me what would Mr Paul's position on taxes be
 
I cannot recall any other poster bringing those two up. You seem to have a fixation on them-I had never heard of the former until you starting constantly spewing claims about him.

So now its my fault that you and some others here are not as educated and informed as you could be?

if the progressive rates are proper then so are the rates on investment income

Do you know the difference between an apple and a banana?

Do you know the difference between a volleyball and a baseball?

Do you know the difference between an elm and an oak?

Just because things may fall into a category does not mean they are the same. Progressive tax rates are one distinct and separate thing. Preferential tax rates designed to screw the progressive rates to benefit the wealthy are an entirely different thing.

You have made this fundamental mistake many times before and each time you have been schooled on it. So why you continue to make it over and over and over again can only be chalked up to willful belief over reality.
 
Last edited:
I have never argued tax policy.... I simply told you that you were wrong in assuming people on get tax refunds based on the amount of money overpaid. Again, you were wrong and still are. You argued with me for pages, and kept insisting you knew more about taxes because you once took some tax law classes. Now your calling me dishonest and mistaken... lol.


that doesn't make sense
 
So now its my fault that you and some others here are not as educated and informed as you could be?

you seem to assume that if some person has a position ANYONE ELSE who advocates something similar must be pawns parrots or clones of the person you mention

that is beyond moronic
 
you seem to assume that if some person has a position ANYONE ELSE who advocates something similar must be pawns parrots or clones of the person you mention

In your case it fits like a glove and is perfectly apt. Faris & Luntz would be proud of you and give you a warm pat on the head and a "good boy".
 
In your case it fits like a glove and is perfectly apt. Faris & Luntz would be proud of you and give you a warm pat on the head and a "good boy".

That is a silly comment. I am older than Luntz and most likely had my views before he did. So your claims are idiotic. maybe I influenced him. I was calling the estate tax a death tax about the time my grandfather died in 1969

but you seem to think that those who oppose welfare socialism and the death tax are some small little group

that is laughable
 
I guess that's because you're still confused by basic tax concepts... addition of taxes paid and credits allowed

read what you wrote again-it doesn't make sense

and so what part of Paul's tax policy did you like?
 
Back
Top Bottom