Jump to content

The Official Mitt Romney thread


Recommended Posts

Really? So the weak and snivling lower orders need to just keep quiet? So you and Mitt are both of the "quiet room" opinion? Interesting. Not only can Mitt and his ilk buy up the political process with their money, but they should be able to do it without anyone being able to complain... :rolleyes:

 

Says the dude supporting the guy who's going to be running the first billion-dollar presidential (re-election) campaign. Not including whatever PACs or SuperPACs surface for Obama.

 

You know... four times Romney's accumulated lifetime wealth from 40 years in business, Obama's going to spend in 6 months.

 

Not surprising given the givens of how this president has spent our money.

Edited by UConn James
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 864
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I genuinely can not grasp how a great country like ours has reached a point where being financially successful is something to be frowned upon. Where being a cook at Ruth's Chris, serving $45 steaks to rich people, is front page news because your fatass wife had a stroke. Where finding a way to keep as much as what you earn as possible is a bad thing.

 

Note to America: voting for a popular president is not the same as voting for a popular singer. Please get your priorities straight.

 

Nor is it like MLB All-Star game balloting.

 

You know... for guys who make the equivalent of Romney's lifetime accumulated wealth in a 6-year contract.

 

Then again, at the rate the Benbernank is printing, it's all going to be Monopoly money anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My take on it is that Romney pays 15% more than 45% of Americans do.

 

So what's next - the pitch-fork-weilding-torch-bearing-mob demands his entire fortune be confiscated and distributed equally to every American? Would that be "fair"?

 

Suppose for argument's sake he has a personal wealth of $330 million. Equally distributed to every American and illegal squatter in the country - he'd have nothing, and we'd all be one dollar "richer". Would that be fair? Hell no - because he has the means to make another multi million dollar fortune and would set about doing it. In a year he'd be right back in the 1% and no one in the 99% would have moved up a tax bracket from his largess of spreading his wealth around.

 

Clearly this man is a menace and must be executed or at the very least - put into prison so he cannot earn more money than most other people - including President BO's paltry $5.5 million.

Straw man! (whistle blowing as he throws the flag)...no one has suggested anything remotely similar to this. But it's easier to argue against this than fairer tax schemes. And I pay plenty of tax so I guess I have a right to complain,huh? But the unemployed, underemployed and below living wage workers who have benefitted so very much from the current low capital gains and overall low tax rates on the rich have no right? Some of you argue a modified trickle down theory argument to support this. I ask again, where is the current evidence to support this? We are seeing the largest income inequality pattern in recent memory and that seems to be ok with many of you because it's a natural consequence of capitalism. Did it ever occur to any of you that maybe that finding is evidence of the weakness of capitalism? Then we read that Kerry pays a similar rate to Romney. But hasn't Kerry actively tried to increase taxes on the wealthy? So it seems to distill down to this:is it acceptable or even desirable to have massive income and wealth inequality in a country? History shows many problems in such societies and I would see it's answer is "no". The thing I can't get is why so many of you who don't benefit from this system continue to support it..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Straw man! (whistle blowing as he throws the flag)...no one has suggested anything remotely similar to this. But it's easier to argue against this than fairer tax schemes. And I pay plenty of tax so I guess I have a right to complain,huh? But the unemployed, underemployed and below living wage workers who have benefitted so very much from the current low capital gains and overall low tax rates on the rich have no right? Some of you argue a modified trickle down theory argument to support this. I ask again, where is the current evidence to support this? We are seeing the largest income inequality pattern in recent memory and that seems to be ok with many of you because it's a natural consequence of capitalism. Did it ever occur to any of you that maybe that finding is evidence of the weakness of capitalism? Then we read that Kerry pays a similar rate to Romney. But hasn't Kerry actively tried to increase taxes on the wealthy? So it seems to distill down to this:is it acceptable or even desirable to have massive income and wealth inequality in a country? History shows many problems in such societies and I would see it's answer is "no". The thing I can't get is why so many of you who don't benefit from this system continue to support it..

 

Because it's not a matter of whether "we" benefit from soaking the rich. That's not what the framers had in mind. Jefferson had that little notion that people (let's not get into that era's definition of people at the time) should be allowed to keep what they earn. Because by and large when that's the case, people get off their asses and get productive as all hell.

 

The income inequality pattern was not unforseeable. That's kinda natural as "the rich" become afraid to spend their $ because they don't know what this president will introduce next. So, it sits in accounts and the middle class quietly disappears because there are fewer jobs that "the rich" want done thereby producing less income. Class-warfare-conscious administrations then persuade the Fed to start printing $ to encourage "the rich" to spend their money because inflation is eating away more than they're earning in the bank. Only, inflation affects the bottom-tier as well, and shortly only serves to move decimal places to the right.

 

Throttling up on the Laffer curve is not the answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Straw man! (whistle blowing as he throws the flag)...no one has suggested anything remotely similar to this. But it's easier to argue against this than fairer tax schemes. And I pay plenty of tax so I guess I have a right to complain,huh? But the unemployed, underemployed and below living wage workers who have benefitted so very much from the current low capital gains and overall low tax rates on the rich have no right? Some of you argue a modified trickle down theory argument to support this. I ask again, where is the current evidence to support this? We are seeing the largest income inequality pattern in recent memory and that seems to be ok with many of you because it's a natural consequence of capitalism. Did it ever occur to any of you that maybe that finding is evidence of the weakness of capitalism? Then we read that Kerry pays a similar rate to Romney. But hasn't Kerry actively tried to increase taxes on the wealthy? So it seems to distill down to this:is it acceptable or even desirable to have massive income and wealth inequality in a country? History shows many problems in such societies and I would see it's answer is "no". The thing I can't get is why so many of you who don't benefit from this system continue to support it..

 

I keep reading about this income inequality thing. Where's the supporting data and do you understand it? What's included in the calculations? What's excluded? Over what periods?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? So the weak and snivling lower orders need to just keep quiet? So you and Mitt are both of the "quiet room" opinion? Interesting. Not only can Mitt and his ilk buy up the political process with their money, but they should be able to do it without anyone being able to complain... :rolleyes:

That's right, those who don't pay income taxes don't have the right to call out anyone for not "paying their fair share".

 

Sorry Dave, you're banned from saying it. :nana:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dozens and dozens of Pac videos of teary eye witnesses all coming out against you:

 

"I posted on a forum that I like Bill Nye and he called me a retard"

 

Then he said he doesn't like abusing us. He does it because he has to! Wha-ha-ha...

My psyche is forever damaged... Wha-ha-ha...

 

So, does that make you irregular?

 

No the fact that he seems to not be able to take a **** on a regular basis would make him irregular. All though if he were able to he might start posting happy posts talking about how awesome we all are and where would be the DC Tom we all know and love?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because it's not a matter of whether "we" benefit from soaking the rich. That's not what the framers had in mind. Jefferson had that little notion that people (let's not get into that era's definition of people at the time) should be allowed to keep what they earn. Because by and large when that's the case, people get off their asses and get productive as all hell.

 

The income inequality pattern was not unforseeable. That's kinda natural as "the rich" become afraid to spend their $ because they don't know what this president will introduce next. So, it sits in accounts and the middle class quietly disappears because there are fewer jobs that "the rich" want done thereby producing less income. Class-warfare-conscious administrations then persuade the Fed to start printing $ to encourage "the rich" to spend their money because inflation is eating away more than they're earning in the bank. Only, inflation affects the bottom-tier as well, and shortly only serves to move decimal places to the right.

 

Throttling up on the Laffer curve is not the answer.

thanks for making my point. the system, as designed is failing and needs change. the interventions you describe can't overcome the fundamental flaws. the natural course is what we're seeing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, people who count other peoples money.... SUCK!

 

Second, and lets play with some fun facts....People who fall in the category of after deductions not paying any income taxes, (Which is close to half the American pubic ,in which overwhelmingy those who vote in this category, vote Democrat) NEVER can EVER say that the "Rich are not paying their fair share"

 

My answer to this is to slowly phase out earn income tax over the next 20 years. Or the credit you get for having kids (can't remember what it's called) The other thing is Everyone should have to pay a litle bit. Even if you are getting a welfare check from the government you still pay a tax on it. If you don't like it get a job or start working on getting a better job than the one you have. This will seem a lot more fair once we all have some skin in the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's right, those who don't pay income taxes don't have the right to call out anyone for not "paying their fair share".

 

Sorry Dave, you're banned from saying it. :nana:

wow; no counting others wealth, no poor people complaining about others taxes. i guess we just have to hope you're a benevolent dictator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wow; no counting others wealth, no poor people complaining about others taxes. i guess we just have to hope you're a benevolent dictator.

Yep, you got it. I call themz how I seez it , which means I will always call out hypocrites. So say somethin hyocritical again and lets see what happens. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would you propose to "fix" it? Specifically.

 

Along with my above post I think we do need to see a raise in the capital gains tax up to pre-Bush era. However not right now and not all at once otherwise we are going to shock the economy and end up in a double dip.

 

1) Raise capital gains 1% per year over the next 15 years.

2) Immediate drop in corporate tax by 3% This would make companies more likely to turn money back into the company to grow it rather than give CEOs mege-bonuses. In return for the drop in corporate tax they have to admit they are not "people"

3) Everyone pays a portion based on income. Even if you are on public assistance. If you don't like it move to France.

4) Extend Medicare to everyone along with a monthly premium based on income and require co-pays. Co-pays should make people think twice before going to the doctor just because they have a headache. If you want it totally for free, move to Canada.

5) Strict and sweeping regulation of Wall Street. Make sure we know whats going on behind the closed doors with OUR money. Are they making risky bets?

6) Term limits for our elected officials. 6 terms as a Rep. and 2 terms as a Sen. If you can't get done what you need to in 12 years you suck at your job and need to be replaced anyway.

7) Everyone in the nation pitches in and gets me a giant envelope full of money.

8) Refuse to do business with nations that do not provide basic human rights for their workers. See China. Tax any imports from things built in other nations through the roof and suddenly it doesn't look so great for a corporations pocket book to move over seas. The things we buy will be more expensive but people will have manufacturing jobs and more money to spend on products. The average raise in price would be 20-28%. A small price to pay for moving those jobs back to the US

9) Slowly move toward green energy over the next 25 years. Get us off of foreign oil and stop us from sending so much money over seas to people that really just don't like us that much.

10) once a day everyone must find a picture of my and stare at it for 5 minutes and think about how awesome I am.

 

J/K about 7 and 10 but I think the rest would help us get back on track. And GOP, we are not going to be able to pay off the national debt in just a few years. I think we should set a long term goal of getting it to a reasonable level within the next 75 years. Just get us moving in the right direction for now.

 

Small steps. The way it's been done for millions of years.

 

My take on it is that Romney pays 15% more than 45% of Americans do.

 

So what's next - the pitch-fork-weilding-torch-bearing-mob demands his entire fortune be confiscated and distributed equally to every American? Would that be "fair"?

 

Suppose for argument's sake he has a personal wealth of $330 million. Equally distributed to every American and illegal squatter in the country - he'd have nothing, and we'd all be one dollar "richer". Would that be fair? Hell no - because he has the means to make another multi million dollar fortune and would set about doing it. In a year he'd be right back in the 1% and no one in the 99% would have moved up a tax bracket from his largess of spreading his wealth around.

 

Clearly this man is a menace and must be executed or at the very least - put into prison so he cannot earn more money than most other people - including President BO's paltry $5.5 million.

 

I think this is a gross overreaction to what the left wants. You guys seem to have the idea that we all want to take away the money of the rich and give it to ourselves. What we want is to make sure that they can't stack the deck to take more of what we have left. That's it. People who work hard, take risk and grow their company should be able to make how ever much they want. And be rewarded with the money they make.

 

But when mega-corporations are able to bend the rest of us over and ass rape us we have a problem with that.

 

Because it's not a matter of whether "we" benefit from soaking the rich. That's not what the framers had in mind. Jefferson had that little notion that people (let's not get into that era's definition of people at the time) should be allowed to keep what they earn. Because by and large when that's the case, people get off their asses and get productive as all hell.

 

He also believed that "our moneyed corporations" should be crushed in their infancy to prevent exactly what we have going on right now.

Edited by Bigfatbillsfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the days following Presidential candidate Mitt Romney's admission that he pays around 15 percent in federal income taxes, the Obama-loving media have been in a full-court press claiming this is less than what most Americans pay.

 

According to last year's report from the Internal Revenue Service, as a percentage of Adjusted Gross Income,................... 97 percent ..............of 2009 filers paid less than 15 percent:

 

 

I guess he is a regular fella.

 

Link to Internal Revenue Report at the Newsbusters article link

 

Newsbusters

 

 

.

Edited by B-Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the days following Presidential candidate Mitt Romney's admission that he pays around 15 percent in federal income taxes, the Obama-loving media have been in a full-court press claiming this is less than what most Americans pay.

 

According to last year's report from the Internal Revenue Service, as a percentage of Adjusted Gross Income,................... 97 percent ..............of 2009 filers paid less than 15 percent:

 

 

I guess he is a regular fella.

 

Link to Internal Revenue Report at the Newsbusters article link

 

Newsbusters

 

 

.

 

 

GAME.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

SET.......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MATCH!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i haven't heard anyone asking for an apology. how about a simple acknowledgement of the problem with a system that allows folks making 1/10's to 1/1000's of the amounts made by romney to pay multiples of the tax he pays as a percentage? is that really too much to expect? is that really unamerican or just unrepublican? and a promise of fixing it?...don't see it in the cards, do you?

:lol:

 

It's far more "American" to take money that has already been taxed (and probably multiple times), invested into job creation and economic development, and tax the !@#$ing **** out of it at some unreasonable rate. Because there can't be any downside to that stupidity, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the days following Presidential candidate Mitt Romney's admission that he pays around 15 percent in federal income taxes, the Obama-loving media have been in a full-court press claiming this is less than what most Americans pay.

 

According to last year's report from the Internal Revenue Service, as a percentage of Adjusted Gross Income,................... 97 percent ..............of 2009 filers paid less than 15 percent:

 

 

I guess he is a regular fella.

 

Link to Internal Revenue Report at the Newsbusters article link

 

Newsbusters

 

 

.

 

I paid 30% Why should Mitt, who is making more in one year than I make in my lifetime pay half in percentage than what I pay? Sorry this just doesn't fly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I paid 30% Why should Mitt, who is making more in one year than I make in my lifetime pay half in percentage than what I pay? Sorry this just doesn't fly.

 

How 'bout in absolute dollars? Care to compare yourself against Mitt?

 

It's also highly unlikely that your effective federal income tax rate was 30%, unless you make over $300K, live in a no tax state, don't have kids and don't own any property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...