If you have to rely on the internet to know what a Republican is like...stick yo'self.
Seriously, the only people you know are all Democrats?
Dude. I live in LA. Go stick yo own self!
Believe it or not there are people all around you, Republican & Democrat, and there is no way for you to tell who's who.
The stereotype of the far right nut is just as disturbing as the stereotype of the left wing nut.
There is no difference between some idiot calling the President a Muslim and the South Carolina Dem party chairman calling their Republican Governor Hitler's mistress.....all of it is ignorant and if you've convinced yourself one side does it more than the other your personal bias is showing.
The GREAT majority of our country do not participate in Tea Party or Occupy Wall St. shenanigans and if you stereotype a group based on either one of those factions you are out of touch.
Forty five percent of American voters will vote for Obama and forty five percent will vote for Romney...that's a given. It's that remaining 10 percent that will be the deciding factor. And that 10% is not at a Tea Party or Occupy event.
In 2008 that 10% got behind a campaign of hope and change and the bandwagon was strong. This time around I see none of that and I see some looming issues that could seriously hurt President Obama.
Romney is a perfect example of a candidate that will do absolutely anything to get elected. He stands for nothing but obtaining power. He's reversed on many of his original issues. His father created a moderate wing of the Republican Party to fight the growing conservatives. All that being said he is in a dead heat with Obama.
The polls are averaging a 4+ point lead for Obama. Gallup has him up by 7.
That's not a dead heat. It's a dead challenger. Which explains his desperate and demented press conference yesterday.
Aloha friends,
I have a question for you and it is related to candidate's policies on health care.
How many times have you had to visit the hospital in the past year?
No matter what happens. The fact that Republicans need to make it tough for people to vote and also to change voting district boundaries should speak volumes.
When is the first debate?
both parties actively attempt to shape boundaries to suit their needs through redistricting
Both parties don't actively make it tough for citizens to vote, Pat.
No matter what happens. The fact that Republicans need to make it tough for people to vote and also to change voting district boundaries should speak volumes.
When is the first debate?
both parties actively attempt to shape boundaries to suit their needs through redistricting
Both parties don't actively make it tough for citizens to vote, Pat.
If I can't drive to the polls then it IS more difficult to vote.
what is "exceedingly strange" (and that's a "nice" description for it) is that you have been banned a number of times from this site by the owner (i can't even remember how many times), yet you still keep coming back here with the same, tiresome schtick you always do.
i may not share brian or rock's point of view on many issues but at least they seem like decent, interesting human beings. they add alot more to this site than just their political views. i would love to sit down for a beer with either one of them.
Bon Vivant is like the MLJ minion, cosigning that motherfucker and trying to co-ordinate attacks on brian.
its not that brian/rock can't defend themselves, it's the level of acrimony and acidity that mlj/bv spew that is really off-putting and turns productive or interesting conversations into utter shit.
No matter what happens. The fact that Republicans need to make it tough for people to vote and also to change voting district boundaries should speak volumes.
When is the first debate?
both parties actively attempt to shape boundaries to suit their needs through redistricting
Redistricting has nothing to do with a Presidential election.
No matter what happens. The fact that Republicans need to make it tough for people to vote and also to change voting district boundaries should speak volumes.
When is the first debate?
both parties actively attempt to shape boundaries to suit their needs through redistricting
Both parties don't actively make it tough for citizens to vote, Pat.
one party asks for ids
the other one signs up whoever whether they're alive or not
what is "exceedingly strange" (and that's a "nice" description for it) is that you have been banned a number of times from this site by the owner (i can't even remember how many times), yet you still keep coming back here with the same, tiresome schtick you always do.
i may not share brian or rock's point of view on many issues but at least they seem like decent, interesting human beings. they add alot more to this site than just their political views. i would love to sit down for a beer with either one of them.
Bon Vivant is like the MLJ minion, cosigning that motherfucker and trying to co-ordinate attacks on brian.
its not that brian/rock can't defend themselves, it's the level of acrimony and acidity that mlj/bv spew that is really off-putting and turns productive or interesting conversations into utter shit.
Pal, what turns this discussions into shit is garbage like your post about me spewing acrimony and acidity. I am, by and large, respectful, and don't engage in your false claims. However, I can give back what I get.
Maybe you shouldn't participate in these threads? It seems that lately all you've been doing is complaining about specific posters instead of trying to have a discussion on the topic. Political discussion can get heated, in case you weren't aware.
And Brian (Pat?) can definitely handle himself. He doesn't seem to take disagreements personally, nor do I. You, on the other hand, are a different story.
I find it interesting to look at the likes/dislikes on relevant youtube vids (not to say there aren't ways of just buying likes and swaying things - but still..)
If they are anything to go by, Romney is waaay behind Obama.
"Imagine if Romney had called President Obama, asked how he could be of assistance in this time of crisis, offered to appear at his side at a press conference to demonstrate that, when American lives are at risk, politics stop at the water???s edge???and then had his staff put out the word that he???d done these things, which would have made him look noble and might have made Obama look like the petty one if he???d waved away these offers."
"No other prominent Republican, even those who have vigorously criticized Obama in the past, has spoken out against the president on this issue. Sens. John McCain and Mitch McConnell, as well as House Speaker John Boehner, have stepped before microphones to condemn the attacks, mourn the deaths, and assert American unity in seeking justice. These politicians know, as Romney apparently doesn???t, that in these sorts of crises, the proper thing to do is to rally around the flag."
How is it possible for him to be so ignorant about so many realities?
This is the type of political BS I hate....by the time the Huffington Post reported this they forgot to include the most important part of the quote....and in effect, they lied.
Mitt Romney said that ???middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less,??? in an interview with ???Good Morning America???s??? George Stephanopoulos.
President Obama has said in the past that he???ll cut taxes for middle-class families making $250,000 and less per year
Please explain the difference between these two statements...I'll save you the trouble....there is none.
This is the type of political BS I hate....by the time the Huffington Post reported this they forgot to include the most important part of the quote....and in effect, they lied.
??????No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less,?????? Romney responded."
Maybe he just doesn't know what "no" means. Or maybe your horse race pick is more important to you than an honest assessment of what the guy is saying here.
It's obvious HuffPo left out "and less" for a reason.
Irrespective of the Huffington Post coverage, Romney's tax plan does not cut taxes for middle income people by any reasonable definition, and by Romney's own explanation the "middle class tax cuts" he proposes are mostly achieved through cutting capital gains taxes.
You tell me how many middle class people you know who are heavy in the capital gains.
It is obvious, and quite disingenuous for HP to have done that.
It's equally obvious, from his reply to Stephanopoulos, that he doesn't see $100k as middle class, despite the fact that the median household income in this country is half that. Even in the highest-income states, $100k is the median.
I suppose one could interpret that comment to mean that he thought he was being asked what the upper limit of 'middle income' is, but that's a pretty big stretch, particularly given that he hasn't thus far demonstrated any understanding of how people with 'average' incomes go about their lives.
This business of defining middle-income as "income of $200,000 to $250,000 a year or less" is strange, especially when a HuffPo article from Sept. 5 states that:
"Martin Feldstein, a Romney campaign adviser, essentially confirmed this last week, writing in the Wall Street Journal that Romney would limit or eliminate tax breaks for "high-income taxpayers," who he defined as taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes of $100,000 or more".
First of all, its not clear from the above whether "he" refers to Martin Feldstein or Romney.
Still...the "this" which the Romney campaign adviser was said to be confirming in the above was that "Romney will undoubtedly have to increase the tax burden on middle- and upper-income earners."
.... he [Romney] hasn't thus far demonstrated any understanding of how people with 'average' incomes go about their lives.
Bait taken.
If people with 'average' incomes exercise and eat then how does higher cost (due to tax) of movement and food benefit the way they go about their lives?
.... he [Romney] hasn't thus far demonstrated any understanding of how people with 'average' incomes go about their lives.
Bait taken.
If the people with 'average' incomes exercise and eat then how does higher cost (due to tax) of movement and food benefit the way they go about their lives?
Not sure I understand what you're asking. It appears on the surface to be some kind of an attempt to link food costs and income tax, two things that have very little correlation to each other. Maybe you could explain further.
"Higher cost of movement" - you'll definitely need to explain that one.
.... he [Romney] hasn't thus far demonstrated any understanding of how people with 'average' incomes go about their lives.
Bait taken.
If the people with 'average' incomes exercise and eat then how does higher cost (due to tax) of movement and food benefit the way they go about their lives?
Not sure I understand what you're asking. It appears on the surface to be some kind of an attempt to link food costs and income tax, two things that have very little correlation to each other. Maybe you could explain further.
"Higher cost of movement" - you'll definitely need to explain that one.
Alright, lets try this again...
Taxes get passed along to the consumers. So if a farmer with a farm that employs 50 people makes $200,000 a year gets their taxes reduced then they can lower the price of their product and maintain the same level of income.
Taxes get passed along to the consumers. So if a farmer with a farm that employs 50 people makes $200,000 a year gets their taxes reduced then they can lower the price of their product and maintain the same level of income.
That is what I think.
The same applies to moving. Just with gasoline.
This is a great theory. However, in practice it doesn't work that way. Case in point, the two (that's 2) Bush tax cuts, that are STILL in effect and have been for over 10 years, were supposed to be a stimulus for jobs. The theory being, you lower taxes on the "job creators", then they will have more money to hire people.
How has that worked out? I'll tell you: They haven't hired at the clip that was expected, but they have filled their coffers.
As to your farmer analogy, why would the farmer lower prices on his crop when people will still pay the same price? Because he's a nice farmer? I don't think so. He, like most people, would keep the extra money.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Taxes have little to do with the current state of unemployment, taking an extreme backseat to the systematic exporting of our manufacturing base and wealth, which dries up the availability of capital for any job growth expansion.
Taxes get passed along to the consumers. So if a farmer with a farm that employs 50 people makes $200,000 a year gets their taxes reduced then they can lower the price of their product and maintain the same level of income.
That is what I think.
The same applies to moving. Just with gasoline.
This is a great theory. However, in practice it doesn't work that way. Case in point, the two (that's 2) Bush tax cuts, that are STILL in effect and have been for over 10 years, were supposed to be a stimulus for jobs. The theory being, you lower taxes on the "job creators", then they will have more money to hire people.
How has that worked out? I'll tell you: They haven't hired at the clip that was expected, but they have filled their coffers.
As to your farmer analogy, why would the farmer lower prices on his crop when people will still pay the same price? Because he's a nice farmer? I don't think so. He, like most people, would keep the extra money.
Plus, the farmer doesn't set the prices - the market does, so his theory makes no sense anyway.
As to your farmer analogy, why would the farmer lower prices on his crop when people will still pay the same price? Because he's a nice farmer? I don't think so. He, like most people, would keep the extra money.
Because if he doesn't then the farmer down right up the alley will.
Also, as a business owner myself, I find all the talk of "zomg my business makes $300k a year I will loose all my profit to taxes" kind of disingenuous. That's not really how it works.
As to your farmer analogy, why would the farmer lower prices on his crop when people will still pay the same price? Because he's a nice farmer? I don't think so. He, like most people, would keep the extra money.
Because if he doesn't then the farmer down right up the alley will.
China does that all the time..."low balling."
That assumes that the goods are the same in kind and quality.
It also assumes that the farmer "right up the alley" will automatically lower their prices to gain a competitive advantage.
This is a ridiculously oversimplified idea of how this all works.
If that is the case, why are so many companies making *more* expensive products to lure customers.... organic locally sourced handmade etc etc etc $4.95/lb instead of $1.99/lb for the regular stuff.
Comments
You're right man. There's gotta be at least one! I'm going to run out and try to find him!
Talk2ULaterBai!
Believe it or not there are people all around you, Republican & Democrat, and there is no way for you to tell who's who.
The stereotype of the far right nut is just as disturbing as the stereotype of the left wing nut.
There is no difference between some idiot calling the President a Muslim and the South Carolina Dem party chairman calling their Republican Governor Hitler's mistress.....all of it is ignorant and if you've convinced yourself one side does it more than the other your personal bias is showing.
The GREAT majority of our country do not participate in Tea Party or Occupy Wall St. shenanigans and if you stereotype a group based on either one of those factions you are out of touch.
Forty five percent of American voters will vote for Obama and forty five percent will vote for Romney...that's a given. It's that remaining 10 percent that will be the deciding factor. And that 10% is not at a Tea Party or Occupy event.
In 2008 that 10% got behind a campaign of hope and change and the bandwagon was strong. This time around I see none of that and I see some looming issues that could seriously hurt President Obama.
The hospital? Thankfully, zero.
Both parties don't actively make it tough for citizens to vote, Pat.
If I can't drive to the polls then it IS more difficult to vote.
what is "exceedingly strange" (and that's a "nice" description for it) is that you have been banned a number of times from this site by the owner (i can't even remember how many times), yet you still keep coming back here with the same, tiresome schtick you always do.
i may not share brian or rock's point of view on many issues but at least they seem like decent, interesting human beings. they add alot more to this site than just their political views. i would love to sit down for a beer with either one of them.
Bon Vivant is like the MLJ minion, cosigning that motherfucker and trying to co-ordinate attacks on brian.
its not that brian/rock can't defend themselves, it's the level of acrimony and acidity that mlj/bv spew that is really off-putting and turns productive or interesting conversations into utter shit.
the other one signs up whoever whether they're alive or not
Pal, what turns this discussions into shit is garbage like your post about me spewing acrimony and acidity. I am, by and large, respectful, and don't engage in your false claims. However, I can give back what I get.
Maybe you shouldn't participate in these threads? It seems that lately all you've been doing is complaining about specific posters instead of trying to have a discussion on the topic. Political discussion can get heated, in case you weren't aware.
And Brian (Pat?) can definitely handle himself. He doesn't seem to take disagreements personally, nor do I. You, on the other hand, are a different story.
And who is MLJ, anyway?
you have no idea what you are talking about
please stop
I find it interesting to look at the likes/dislikes on relevant youtube vids (not to say there aren't ways of just buying likes and swaying things - but still..)
If they are anything to go by, Romney is waaay behind Obama.
"Imagine if Romney had called President Obama, asked how he could be of assistance in this time of crisis, offered to appear at his side at a press conference to demonstrate that, when American lives are at risk, politics stop at the water???s edge???and then had his staff put out the word that he???d done these things, which would have made him look noble and might have made Obama look like the petty one if he???d waved away these offers."
"No other prominent Republican, even those who have vigorously criticized Obama in the past, has spoken out against the president on this issue. Sens. John McCain and Mitch McConnell, as well as House Speaker John Boehner, have stepped before microphones to condemn the attacks, mourn the deaths, and assert American unity in seeking justice. These politicians know, as Romney apparently doesn???t, that in these sorts of crises, the proper thing to do is to rally around the flag."
This is the type of political BS I hate....by the time the Huffington Post reported this they forgot to include the most important part of the quote....and in effect, they lied.
Mitt Romney said that ???middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less,??? in an interview with ???Good Morning America???s??? George Stephanopoulos.
President Obama has said in the past that he???ll cut taxes for middle-class families making $250,000 and less per year
Please explain the difference between these two statements...I'll save you the trouble....there is none.
Apart from Mitt Romney is a fart knocker.
It's obvious HuffPo left out "and less" for a reason.
Then you post it here, out of context.
Wanting honesty is not a partisan thing.
You tell me how many middle class people you know who are heavy in the capital gains.
It's equally obvious, from his reply to Stephanopoulos, that he doesn't see $100k as middle class, despite the fact that the median household income in this country is half that. Even in the highest-income states, $100k is the median.
I suppose one could interpret that comment to mean that he thought he was being asked what the upper limit of 'middle income' is, but that's a pretty big stretch, particularly given that he hasn't thus far demonstrated any understanding of how people with 'average' incomes go about their lives.
"Martin Feldstein, a Romney campaign adviser, essentially confirmed this last week, writing in the Wall Street Journal that Romney would limit or eliminate tax breaks for "high-income taxpayers," who he defined as taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes of $100,000 or more".
First of all, its not clear from the above whether "he" refers to Martin Feldstein or Romney.
Still...the "this" which the Romney campaign adviser was said to be confirming in the above was that "Romney will undoubtedly have to increase the tax burden on middle- and upper-income earners."
source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/05/mitt-romney-rich_n_1858291.html?utm_hp_ref=business
Bait taken.
If people with 'average' incomes exercise and eat then how does higher cost (due to tax) of movement and food benefit the way they go about their lives?
Not sure I understand what you're asking. It appears on the surface to be some kind of an attempt to link food costs and income tax, two things that have very little correlation to each other. Maybe you could explain further.
"Higher cost of movement" - you'll definitely need to explain that one.
Alright, lets try this again...
Taxes get passed along to the consumers. So if a farmer with a farm that employs 50 people makes $200,000 a year gets their taxes reduced then they can lower the price of their product and maintain the same level of income.
That is what I think.
The same applies to gasoline and moving.
This is a great theory. However, in practice it doesn't work that way. Case in point, the two (that's 2) Bush tax cuts, that are STILL in effect and have been for over 10 years, were supposed to be a stimulus for jobs. The theory being, you lower taxes on the "job creators", then they will have more money to hire people.
How has that worked out? I'll tell you: They haven't hired at the clip that was expected, but they have filled their coffers.
As to your farmer analogy, why would the farmer lower prices on his crop when people will still pay the same price? Because he's a nice farmer? I don't think so. He, like most people, would keep the extra money.
Plus, the farmer doesn't set the prices - the market does, so his theory makes no sense anyway.
Because if he doesn't then the farmer down right up the alley will.
China does that all the time..."low balling."
Also, as a business owner myself, I find all the talk of "zomg my business makes $300k a year I will loose all my profit to taxes" kind of disingenuous. That's not really how it works.
That assumes that the goods are the same in kind and quality.
It also assumes that the farmer "right up the alley" will automatically lower their prices to gain a competitive advantage.
This is a ridiculously oversimplified idea of how this all works.
If that is the case, why are so many companies making *more* expensive products to lure customers.... organic locally sourced handmade etc etc etc $4.95/lb instead of $1.99/lb for the regular stuff.