Well, he actually wants to increase defense spending on top of that... Romney left the governor's house with a 33% approval rating... Though he claims to have been awesome! In Romney's view running a business is buying a company, loading it up with debt, and selling it for a profit. Profiteering isn't what we need. The country isn't a business, it's a country. Trickle down economics doesn't work, so giving the rich more money does nothing. Even Alan Greenspan (the guy who came up with the theory) testified before congress that he didn't account for the greed of the rich when constructing the idea. The strongest times(on average), economically, in this country saw the highest tax rates.
It's only condensending because you read it that way. It's the internet dude.. reread it again.. but this time without your hatred of me because I'm against the GOP.. and the Dems. Or.. you could just send me another pm pointing out something that didn't happen... then tell me I'm an idiot and to never post in my threads again.. only then to spend every waking hour following my posts around... even when I only post like every 2 weeks. It's cool though.. I expect that from someone having to eat "crow" as often as you do. Either way.. unlike you.. I won't loose sleep... or spend every waking hour cruising this thread waiting for the awesomeness of... "the final post" in rebuttal to dukemichaels. As your m.o. often displays.
Danno.. buddy of mine.. I love you. I just question anyone's loyalty to a political party. Always have.. always will. And I'm not beating around the bush.. or avoiding the question.. you never asked one. You stated why you like Romney and I asked why? Nothing more. I'll ask again... why? Why is a businessman what this country needs? Why? My assumption of naivity is just that.. an assumption.. as most voters are in fact naive. If you truly voted Dem at one time I aploogize.. if you truly did. If not.. then I don't. Too many voters follow a party until their death.. which is naive. If you have a question for me.. ask. But be straight with it.. don't beat around the bush.. out with it. What do you see through anyway... you're now assuming I'm floating around taking shots at you... I'm not.. and I'll put this in as plain english that I can. Anybody who continues to vote one way or another because they think that party represents them is dead wrong naive and foolish. And let's face facts... most everybody does. I'm simply trying to open minds (as in the case of my first post on debates) that both parties are the same.. the system (which we all know is broken) gets repeated every election.. why... because we allow it to. We're naive and foolish as a whole... putting our fates into the hands of dirty political parties who flat out lie and cheat in every way they can. What I like to point out.. is the GOP is not your savior.. it never has been (with the exception of 1860-70) and never will be.
And you Christine.. you just hate me because I make fun of the NRA and its often misguided use of propaganda to gain support. (Albeit I support the NRA's mission.. just not there ways of doing things sometimes). Which is ironic for you.. since you're voting for Romney even though just a few years ago the NRA didn't support the man.. but hey.. now they do right?. Let by gones be by gones for the first governor to ban weapons.
Saying 47% Americans are dependent on government is not concede either. All they did was take advantage of the tax code just like mitt did to pay a lower rate. It's just as concede - childish to demonize those who are successful IMO.
I hate politics as much as the next guy and I would agree that "dependent" was probably not the best word choice but the fact of the matter is the bottom 50% of earners don't pay squat in the big scheme of things. Something like 4% of total taxes with many in the bottom 40% paying next to nothing or getting money back due to tax breaks/credits. The bottom 20% pay .3 of 1%. Comparing Romneys taxes paid on investments to income taxes is apples to oranges at best but he still paid an effective income tax rate higher than most americans(since 80% pay less than 15%). Let's not lose sight of the fact that the man paid 2million in taxes last year...kinda makes my input look like peanuts. In the end most of us vote for selfish reasons and I'm no different I guess. I won't vote for Obama simply because I am going on a fourth year of cost of living freezes as well as more recent general scale pay freezes and an almost 20% bump in my health insurance premium starting next month(woo-hoo!).
The 47% includes many seniors, veterans, and active duty military....these are groups Romney needs a lot of support from in order to win
Why should investment tax and income tax rates be different? Regan thought they should be taxed same rate, which is why re raised capital gains to 28% to match income. I am not saying 28% should be the rate, income is income.
First, there's no need to blow smoke up my *** Mike. I know this is far from the truth. Its just very apparent anytime I try to have a discussion with you.....about anything. From wolves in WI to owning land vs traveling to hunt. This goes way beyond this thread or any political discussion I try to engage in with you. There's something deeper and I'd like to know what that is. For your information, that statement should be taken as a question. Just so you know there's no beating around the bush. So, lay it on me Mike, I'm all ears. Friends come and friends go, the only people I get attached to are my family. Again, just making that clear so you don't think I'm beating around the bush. Really Mike? I never asked one? Maybe I have to quote myself so you see again what I asked you about with my first post to you. Here you go!.... I asked you to clear up your original post, as that is what I got out of it. Instead of answering the question I obviously asked you start in with the assumptions of what I was asking. Lets review that.... So, I told you that was actually false. Lets review that again.... So, instead of admitting you made a mistake and admit you didn't answer my original question, you write some condescending manifesto full of assumptions about me. But, the end sealed the deal for me and showed your true colors Mike..... So, lets see another post filled with assumptions about myself from you Mike. I know its coming, you can't resist the urge to try and belittle me.
This shows your lack of class Mike. Someone sends PMs because they're supposed to be between you two. Its "throwing dirty laundry" because you have nothing of substance to say to counter his post.
While this is true, it's the low/middle income earners that actually spend their money, and there are far more of them. Paid $2mil on $14mil (15%) that he earned by doing nothing (other than being rich). I paid 20-ish% for money I worked for. I understand he paid more than me, but he also has $12mil in the bank from last year. He makes more than just about everyone on this board makes in a year, in a week of NOT working. So, would he be worse off if he only had, say, $7mil in the bank? OMG, then he'd only have $7mil from a year of not working. You're right, totally too much to ask. I bet he spent most of that money to stimulate the economy... He got a $1.4mil return, but instead of taking the return, he had it applied to his next year's taxes. Now, he's not using that $1.4mil for anything related to the economy. I spent my entire refund buying stuff, or paying some stuff off. Which stimulates the economy more? I know this is an unpopular viewpoint to some of you, but the fact of the matter is the rich keep their money, it's the middle that spend theirs, proportionately speaking.
I have plenty to say.. I just don't waste my valuable time on a guy who pals around looking to constantly point out how I'm low class with his constant attacks on me. Look 'em up. He should be a grown up... and just walk away. I respected his wishes.. never posted another thing in his thread.. but his constant attacking of me is okay and of high class? How does that work? Maybe you should look up class... clearly you have a distorted version of it.
I was referring to a particular post, yours. I know nothing about the history between you two, but if I saw Fletch doing the same thing, I would point it out as well. Anytime I see someone talk about PMs in a thread, I always point it out as throwing dirty laundry.
"So Mike, in a nutshell......if someone is elected they should automatically be reelected to a second term because they have "experience" and the challenger is nothing but a liar? (No matter the party)" This is not a question... it's an assumption. Just because you add a question mark to something a question isn't automatically born. You were assuming something that wasn't there. I didn't have to answer a question that wasn't there. I'll quote myself to save you... "So… what it ultimately comes down to for American voters still hovering on whom to choose. Do they go with the incumbent who already has the experience of president and ride on his wisdom he surely would have gained… or do they break away and put their faith on someone who is nothing more than a politician at this point. And since all politicians lie (a given) the biggest liars are often those with the least amount of experience. It’s just a natural part of running for office of the most powerful dude on the planet without actually knowing what you’re getting into. The point of my general rhetoric is this… boiling down to any debate…. In the presidential debate the politician running for office of president (and not already there) must lie through his teeth to get in… and the incumbent must simply defend his position of mistakes made. So… like I said before… debates are rather meaningless unless the two men entering were not already there. And even then they are just hearsay… but at least no one has already been burdened by the office of president and what it entails. So no one has to be in complete defense the whole time. I find it rather amusing when regular Americans think they actually know more than the president does. I liked some of the things Romney said in the first debate (which I watched most of because nothing better was on). The problem… I know they’re complete lies to get in and nothing more. Much like the same lies told 4 years earlier by the incumbent." Look... the point is about a repeated historical cycle... I even talk about how our current president did the same thing Romney is currently doing today. I even highlighted the sentence for you. My point was... a repeated cycle. You assumed from all of that.. that I was knocking you party affiliation.. and you don't have to play dumb about it.. you did. So you went on defense. I didn't answer a question about an assumption.. I attacked the assumption. The question didn't pertain to anything I was saying. Basically answering the assumption... because the question had nothing to do with my post. It doesn't even make any sense... I was commenting on the repeated cycle of history and you were stuck on "vote for Obama". How you got that.. I have no idea. But I'll assume... as I often do.. it was merely just words lost in translation over the internet.. nothing more. You just assumed I'm a richard-head because I don't share your view.
When actually you should be minding your own business. Fletch is a grown up.. he should act like one... he doesn't need you to fight his fights.
Actually, I am minding my business. Maybe you forgot that part of that is making sure this forum is run smoothly. With the title under your name, I would think you would do the same. But, its apparent your ego gets in the way and you can't bite your tongue.
So because he's rich he should support us all....I mean more than he and other rich folk already are? I'm not saying it's awesome because I'm in the same boat as you it sounds like but he already pays more in taxes percentage wise than most americans do. You seem to begrudge him for how he gets his income. My neighbor has nicer cars than me and almost certainly makes more money than me and probably has more money in the bank...he should pay double what I pay.
