dayman

http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/foreign-policy-hads-voice-disbelief-at-romney-cai Mixed responses regarding Romney responding about the same way LABillz does

I also like POTUS. Although it is clearly left leaning but not in an obnoxious way and not in a "trying to program people way"

This topic has some of the stupidest posts I've seen on PPP in a while. Pathetic responses from a few people in here.

European Obama! Ha! Not here! Not in America! If they like him he must be toxic! America!

Everywhere went Obama in '08....Loudoun was back to Red by '10. I'm not saying it's Richmond..flying confederate flags and whatnot...I'm saying it's very Republican....not very redneck...gay marriage probably less of an issue than say...cutting the military budget....

Nothing like a little anti-Europe, anti-rest of the world talk to get PPP going in the morning. America! !@#$ ya!

By the numbers, Loudoun is one of the most Republican counties in N. Virginia.

Ya gotta use those buzzwords, ya gotta say socialist - Bill O'Reilly

http://en.wikipedia....nt_and_politics Loudoun County, Virginia. The richest county in the nation measured by median income. Home to Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman the #1 and #2 military contractors in the country. Republican mecca http://en.wikipedia....irfax,_Virginia Neighboring Fairfax, a close second in terms of wealth...home to General Dynamics...another top military contractor

Honestly wtf is this? ...just do whatever you think will win Romney... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fx612rDA_q8&feature=player_embedded EDIT: Just finished the Factor...Chuck Norris (yes, literally Chuck Norris) came on at the end and talked about how the Dems have gone further to the right and the GOP has gone where the Dems were. I'll think that one over for a bit...

Virgil Goode factor!

If I pay you 1 million bitcoins will you leave the board forever and never come back?

Highly paid union employees? You mean highly paid military contractors and lobbyists?

I'm saying it happened at the Libya American embassy...the death...there were two separate embassy stormings today.... catch up

You sure it doesn't fund the trust? Also...is there a rule that says they can't hoard cash or was the Greenspans view...that it was somehow bad b/c it would then invest it and !@#$ up markets? http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/07/992184/-Greenspan-in-2001-We-re-paying-down-the-debt-too-fast-VIDEO This is what I was referring to w/ the Greenspan comment: TEXT: The most recent projections, granted their tentativeness, nonetheless make clear that the highly desirable goal of paying off the federal debt is in reach before the end of the decade. This is in marked contrast to the perspective of a year ago when the elimination of the debt did not appear likely until the next decade. TEXT: But continuing to run surpluses beyond the point at which we reach zero or near-zero federal debt brings to center stage the critical longer-term fiscal policy issue of whether the federal government should accumulate large quantities of private (more technically nonfederal) assets. At zero debt, the continuing unified budget surpluses currently projected imply a major accumulation of private assets by the federal government. This development should factor materially into the policies you and the Administration choose to pursue.

While that is necessary (by a lot it should jump closer to $200K), that all goes into trust funds to pay out SS benefits. It's not going to solve the deficit...although it will help the short term borrowing to fund SS now that it looks to run red for the first time either this year or next (and since the t-bonds it holds would effect the bottom line if it came time to dip into those more heavily).

My only point was that the blanket statement "half of Americans pay no taxes!" doesn't take into account "loopholes" for the rich, payroll taxes lower income people do pay into, state and local sales tax, etc...a person making $50K can easily "pay taxes" at the same rate as someone like Romney. But to say "federal income tax is the only way to look at it" in terms of Americans "paying taxes"...that's not an approach that makes very much sense unless you are hell bent on just reaching the conclusion that all things point to a group of moochers sucking the teet of the top 10% of Americans. And the entire debate is framed in an environment that is (as linked in posts on previous pages) subject to an unhealthy inequality level in this country.

Stop going off script his high point was the moment he was elected. DId you not watch the convention? Stop being a terrible surrogate you'll blow the party up if you drop the ball this year for them.

Another thing this guy pointed out...the GOP fascination with Reagan...a man who raised taxes a few times b/c he knew he had to...a man who had some political flexibility...and most of all a man who if you ask anyone "what was he" the answer is "the great communicator" as he sold himself in that friendly way w/ that trademark smile. Then you look at the modern GOP messaging...compromise is bad, no taxes raised period...and of course an angry, scare tactic approach to messaging. The GOP could learn a lot from Reagan if they cared to.

jackass

Libyan embassy I think

Money and some sense of party preservation among key insiders. Personally I'm not voting for Romney but I thank God (assuming that the GOP base would get out there and challenge Obama w/ whoever) he came out on top (considering the insane base made the Huntsman candidacy a joke...which is a shame I would have considered him more than anyone else in the general). Crazy as they are at least they ended up w/ the least damaging figure for President...the problem is the Congresscritters....too many toxic GOP congresscritters

It really is a religion. I mean...I've known about this whole thing just like everybody else for a long time...and I used to think it worked. Now I've looked at what is going on with debate about it, facts from the past, and have concluded...that in fact tax decreases do not simply pay for themselves. I still would entertain the idea that really oppressive tax tax regime that is clearly stifling growth could be lowered and revenues could go up under certain circumstances...but that's not the reality we're living in....and the simple truth that "cut taxes, and all will be well" is in fact a lie to cover what Lofgren claims is the GOP's main purpose...to protect the donor class no matter what...faux-populist movements angry about the debt? Great! What a way to sell more tax cuts!

I don't think they're full of **** and this isn't really full of ****. It's just tired and not a really an article we need to have today of all days.

Government revenue has historically gone up with the increased business that results from lower taxes. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/06/29/economists-agree-tax-cuts-cost-revenue--- When asked recently about the proposition, "A cut in federal income tax rates in the U.S. right now would raise taxable income enough so that the annual total tax revenue would be higher within five years than without the tax cut," none of the panel's 40 economists agreed. When responses were weighted by the confidence respondents expressed in their answers, 96 percent disagreed and 4 percent were uncertain. Of course since it's history you are concerned w/ you could just look at the graph above showing the Bush tax cuts over the past decade have substantially contributed to massive deficits I really don't know what it would take to beat this this out of the certain people's minds that if we simply cut taxes, all is well.