ROMNEY 2012!

HtTmI.jpg
 
Romney is proposing a 20% across the board tax cut. If people vote in support of that, what does it matter what his personal financial stake is?
 
PoorDoggy said:
Right...maybe that isn't so different from the rich solution after all (put it on Uncle Sam's credit card) (e.g., farm subsidies, bank bailout, auto bailout).
Click to expand...

They are the boogeymen of each "side". Meanwhile the middle-class has nowhere to go to get a bailout or a SNAP card and we just continually take it up the ass paying for the other two.

45 million on food stamps birthing generations of future recipients while bankers strip away our children's futures. I think the latter group should get their snouts viciously booted out of the trough first but that's just me.
 
DrMeithos said:
Romney is proposing a 20% across the board tax cut. If people vote in support of that, what does it matter what his personal financial stake is?
Click to expand...

Because if you read the find print, Romney's plan is a tax hike on the working poor, while giving the average millionaire $250,000.

The Tax Policy Center found that under Romney’s proposal, people with $1 million or more in annual cash income will receive an average tax cut of $250,535. Those in the millionaire category will receive an 11.8 percent increase in after-tax income, easily the highest of any income group. Collectively, the tax savings for millionaires would amount to nearly one-third of all the tax benefits that result from Romney’s plan.
Click to expand...
 
Romney met with Cheney this week, Condi Rice is a potential veep pick, and 17 of his 24 foreign policy advisers are former Dumbya advisers.
 
I'm not sure how a tax hike on the working poor would help his personal finances. And I'm not sure I'd call cutting someone's taxes "giving" them money.

Either way, the time and money he has invested in campaigning for President instead of dedicating himself to business has cost him waaaaaaay more than whatever tiddly-winks tax cuts I plan on voting for.
 
Last edited:
Market Savior? Stocks Might Be 50% Lower Without Fed - Yahoo! Finance

Theoretically, the S&P 500 (^GSPC) would be more than 50 percent lower-at the 600 level-if the bullish price action preceding Fed announcements was excluded, the study showed.
Click to expand...

so in other words America is still 50% artificially overpriced, and whoever is locked into the stock market is going to hurt when they crash it. They can't crash it until a sufficient number of people and assets have bought into it though. Otherwise the bankruptcy would be incomplete.
 
Wanting to see a candidate's tax returns isn't a liberal issue. Wanting to see a hugely rich man's tax returns because he claims his main qualification is his business experience is just common sense.

Wanting to see them isn't a partisan issue, that's reasonable for anyone. Whereas defending his right to keep them secret isn't so much partisan as insipid.
 
DrMeithos said:
I'm not sure how a tax hike on the working poor would help his personal finances. And I'm not sure I'd call cutting someone's taxes "giving" them money.
Click to expand...

If you are running a deficit and then cut taxes, you are borrowing money to pay for the tax cut. Since the richest are getting the most of the benefit, we are borrowing to support their lifestyles. There, now you are slightly less stupid than when you made that post.

Why do you want to put the US further in debt to finance Romney's honest (and modest) debt to the country that made him so successful?
 
Wow just wow. AJ might be the dumbest and/or intellectually dishonest person on this forum and that is saying something.
 
If you cut taxes on the wealthy while running a deficit, you are borrowing money from future taxpayers to pay for it.

That isn't controversial, that isn't political, that is math.

Chris Christie said he should release his tax returns, I suppose that was his radical liberal partisanship showing? Or was it his disingenuous stupidity? DERP!

I talk about thread topics, other people talk about me. I suppose I should be flattered.
 
Golgac said:
Wow just wow. AJ might be the dumbest and/or intellectually dishonest person on this forum and that is saying something.
Click to expand...
No, he literally is. Even our worst right-wingers aren't that partisan/intellectually dishonest.
 
BlueSoxSWJ said:
I don't "hate" Mitt Romney; there's just no "there" there.

He makes a big deal out of "repeal and replace." But has he proposed anything at all? Nope, he just lied about Obamacare, lied about it again, and lied about it some more, then proposed "replacing" Obamacare with a legal provision ... that's been in place since 1996, and otherwise only made statements so vague as to be meaningless.


Somehow his record at Bain is supposed to prepare him to run an economy. But a company is not a country. When you trim your staff (or outsource a bunch of jobs) at a company, you're saving costs, and that's a good thing. When the "staff" gets trimmed in a country, you're causing a recession, and that's a bad thing. His solution for the economy is the same rightwing tax cuts for the rich and benefit cuts for the middle class that's failed for the last decade. Only this time, they're taken to such an extreme that focus groups literally don't believe any politician would be tone-deaf enough adopt his position.

As for the tax returns, think of it this way. When you read a stock analysis or watch one of those money-losing shows on CNBC, the analyst is required to disclose any financial stake they have in any of the companies analyzed. That doesn't necessarily invalidate their presentation, but the audience has the right to know if the presenter has a financial stake in convincing people to buy/sell/whatever a stock. Romney's personal finances are relevant, not because they reveal anything about his character or any of that silliness (unless, of course, careful scrutiny did reveal something fraudulent), but because they let voters know Romney's personal financial stake in pushing for giant tax cuts for millionaires.
Click to expand...

Ok now I await your critique of Obama. I agree that Romney (all politicians) should release his tax returns. They should be transparent. But here is what I don't like. People who attack Romney for not releasing his tax returns but then turning a blind eye to stuff like fast and furious. Or vice versa attacking Obama for that executive privledge but then saying Romney doesn't have to legally releases his returns blah blah blah. Leaders should always be questioned. Our presidents should always be questioned.
 
Golgac said:
People who attack Romney for not releasing his tax returns but then turning a blind eye to stuff like fast and furious.
Click to expand...

Who turned a blind eye? Did Rush tell you that? Fast and Furious got a Congressional investigation and a historic (and laughable) vote of contempt against a sitting AG.

I agree, let's give Romney's tax returns the same treatment.

My critique of Obama is that he played it way too cozy with bankers during the bailout, and he hasn't investigated Bush for war crimes, as our treaty obligations clearly demand, and has arguably committed more war crimes himself.

What's your critique of Romney?
 
Last edited:
BlueSoxSWJ said:
Because if you read the find print, Romney's plan is a tax hike on the working poor, while giving the average millionaire $250,000.
Click to expand...

:rofl: @ 'tax policy center', a left wing bastion of tax distortion.

As usual, liberals / progressives do not understand taxes. A "tax cut" on EIC (and the child credit) isnt a tax cut, it's reducing a CREDIT that someone else who has OVERPAID in taxes that is then redistributed to the working poor. In other words, they get money that they never paid into in the first place.

Politifact never explains how the working poor will pay more with an across the board 20% cut except say the rich get more and tax credits get cut. What a crock of shit.

The spin on the rich getting more is because they pay ALOT more -simple mathematics except for the poor, uneducated, and democrats in general. Check this out -the average tax rate for the bottom 50%.

But I do like the spin they call them the "Owebama tax cuts" even though they really belong to Bush. :lol: Dishonesty by Williams and politifact for parroting it. If Politifact had any credibility, they would use the NON-partisan Taxfoundation.org (Tax Foundation). Here is the historical data on taxes: U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1913-2011 (Nominal and Inflation-Adjusted Brackets) | Tax Foundation

As anyone who understands basic math, you can see that the poor dont pay shit in taxes in the first place and then they will receive an additional 20% cut to their marginal tax rate and still be eligible for tax credits.

I rate Politifact as FULL OF SHIT.
 
Automatic Jack said:
Wanting to see a candidate's tax returns isn't a liberal issue. Wanting to see a hugely rich man's tax returns because he claims his main qualification is his business experience is just common sense.

Wanting to see them isn't a partisan issue, that's reasonable for anyone. Whereas defending his right to keep them secret isn't so much partisan as insipid.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised you haven't demanded to see Owebama's university transcripts.

What about his medical records?

If transparency is the alleged issue, why the double standard?

Because you have claimed you are "Mr. Objective". :rofl:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top