Who would vote for Romney? - DPChallenge Forums

06/01/2012 02:53:23 PM · #26

+10000

06/01/2012 03:18:41 PM · #27

Originally posted by yanko:

the next move would be for cowboy221977 to counter this with a rebuttal that is both rational and supported by evidence or simiply admit his error or ignorance on the subject and move on.

Or, incredibly, post the very figures I pointed out as misleading:

Originally posted by scalvert:

What you see on blogs and tabloid news are very often misleading numbers like how much the deficit increased under each president (not the specific policies that caused those increases)...

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

...the national debt has increased more under Obamas 3 years than under bush's 8 years..

*sigh* Yes, Cowboy, the national debt has increased more under Obama's 3 years than under Bush's 8 years... and the overwhelming majority of that increase is the result of tax cuts for the wealthy (Bush), two unfunded wars (Bush), non-defense discretionary spending (overwhelmingly Bush) and bailouts/stimulus (mostly Bush). The Obama "handouts" that you seem to think are responsible for the deficit barely account for 2% of it (less than Bush spent on Hurricane Katrina). If you accelerate an aircraft carrier to flank speed in the wrong direction, change the captain, and then cut the engine with a new crew intent on thwarting changes, it will be accurate to note that the carrier moved a greater distance under the new captain, but absolutely insane to blame him for being so far off course. It's the policies!

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

06/01/2012 03:27:48 PM · #28

Originally posted by LydiaToo:

Yes, he did enrich himself. Why do YOU work? To get paid, I assume.

You might want to re-read Shannon's post. I don't think you understood the context in which the phrase was used. He didn't say that enriching one's self was wrong. What he said was he'd prefer the leader of this country to be someone who is devoted to the interest of others. The charge being Romney is weak in this department.

Originally posted by LydiaToo:

Then, he invested that money that he earned (did not take from the government for doing nothing) and invested it. If he's smart enough to do that and live off the earnings of that investment that also pays the salaries of other people who are earning it (not taking it for free from the government) before it pays his capital earnings, then I'm totally fine with that.

What employees are you referring to?

Originally posted by LydiaToo:

What if he and the rest of the 10% that pay 70% of the taxes decided that THEY didn't want to work while everyone else wasn't and they went on the government handout list too? WHO do you think would pay then? Someone has to. Everybody can't think like you do, if we want the USA to survive. Wealthy people are not the bad guys here.

eta:syntax

Except that this doesn't explain Romney. His effective tax rate is around 15%, which is less than what I pay. Perhaps the country wouldn't be as broke if people like him didn't try to avoid taxes. He does every trick in the book to avoid taxes. He makes money here and then transfers it to tax haven places like the Cayman Island, Luxenberg, etc. As far as wealth management goes he has more in common with drug overlords then he does with working Americans.

Message edited by author 2012-06-01 15:29:39.

06/01/2012 03:51:35 PM · #29

Originally posted by LydiaToo:

The fact that he works hard is what bothers you about him?

Nope. People making a tiny fraction of Romney's income may work even harder. It's the misguided notion that effective company management = effective economic management that bothers me. "economic policy requires a very different kind of thinking from that appropriate for company strategy. Companies are very much open systems, selling the vast bulk of what they produce to other people, able to draw in resources from outside mostly at will; countries â�� even small countries â�� mainly sell to themselves and have to make the most of the labor, land, and to some extent capital they have.

Beyond that, companies â�� even if they have relatively decentralized management â�� are top-down organizations in which people do what theyâ��re told. Market economies are free-for-alls, in which the job of policy is largely to provide incentives to do things (and yes, thatâ��s true even if weâ��re talking about monetary policy and fiscal stimulus).

No doubt a really smart CEO could master enough economics to do the job; so could a really smart engineer, or a really smart singer-songwriter. But experience as a business executive has far less to do than people think with managing the economy."

Originally posted by LydiaToo:

What if he and the rest of the 10% that pay 70% of the taxes decided that THEY didn't want to work while everyone else wasn't and they went on the government handout list too?

A kid down the street mowing lawns all summer works MUCH harder than any hedge fund manager, so assuming that low earners equal low effort or laziness is simply not true. If everyone outside of that 10% is on the "government handout list," then you assume 90% unemployment. The 70% of taxes bit is another misleading talking point (and pet peeve) similar to noting how much the deficit has increased in a given year. If I buy a $6 million yacht and pay 1% tax on it, that's $60,000. If you work just as hard, but can only afford a $40,000 sailboat and pay 50% tax on it, that's $20000. The fact that I worked hard for my money and paid 75% of the taxes is absolutely true. It's also just as unfair in the context of distribution of wealth.

06/01/2012 03:52:01 PM · #30

I am a firm believer that we need to go to a flat tax rate. I will use %15 as an example...not the rule.

Take away the tax breaks....Have no deductions....if you make $20,000 a year you pay %15...And then if you make $ 2,000,000 a year you also pay %15....also I think a value added sales tax would be fine. If you buy a loaf of bread you pay a flat fed sales tax...but if you buy a Ferrari you pay that same rate (and I know there is already a luxury tax in place)

There would end up being more revenue from people like illegal immigrants, or people travelling to this country.

That would simplify things and would be a fair tax rate. I am not rich but I don't believe punishing the rich for being successful is right.

06/01/2012 04:01:21 PM · #31

Originally posted by yanko:

Et viola.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

06/01/2012 04:04:59 PM · #32

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

There would end up being more revenue from people like illegal immigrants, or people travelling to this country.

Illegal immigrants often have income withheld for Social Security, unemployment and other programs that they can't collect, so they are effectively paying more in taxes already. Ironic, huh?

blindjustice

Canon EOS-7D

06/01/2012 04:25:20 PM · #33

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by cowboy221977:
There would end up being more revenue from people like illegal immigrants, or people travelling to this country.

Illegal immigrants often have income withheld for Social Security, unemployment and other programs that they can't collect, so they are effectively paying more in taxes already. Ironic, huh?

Undocumented worker contributions
who would have known?

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

06/01/2012 04:29:57 PM · #34

Originally posted by jagar:

U. S. supremacy, I wonder why that statement has never sat well with the rest of the world?

That's the amazing irony of George W. Bush. He may have saved the world.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

06/01/2012 04:31:43 PM · #35

I'll be voting Obama, but Romney is less scary than the other R candidates. Bottom line, in my view, the country will not be much different in four more years whomever gets elected between the two.

Whoever compared Romney to Bush Jr. isn't looking very hard. Romney is far more moderate (despite his conservative posturing during primaries). You do not get elected to be governor of Massachusetts if you are a hard core conservative. No way. No how.

Still. Doesn't matter. We are going to hell in a handbasket either way. Obama will not save us either. We need the charisma and forceful leadership of either Roosevelt and we haven't seen that in a politician in many, many years...

06/01/2012 04:37:24 PM · #36

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Romney is less scary than the other R candidates.

Jon Huntsman seemed sane (his primary weakness).

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

06/01/2012 04:41:03 PM · #37

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Romney is less scary than the other R candidates.

Jon Huntsman seemed sane (his primary weakness).

The good ones always get weeded out early. That's the way the process works. Makes for better television.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

06/01/2012 05:33:33 PM · #38

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Romney is less scary than the other R candidates.

Jon Huntsman seemed sane (his primary weakness).

The good ones always get weeded out early. That's the way the process works. Makes for better television.

Yeah same thing happened with Obama...All the good ones got weeded out early and look who we wound up with

Kelli

Canon EOS-D60

06/01/2012 05:36:24 PM · #39

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Romney is less scary than the other R candidates.

Jon Huntsman seemed sane (his primary weakness).

The good ones always get weeded out early. That's the way the process works. Makes for better television.

Yeah same thing happened with Obama...All the good ones got weeded out early and look who we wound up with

I wanted Hilary. I still think at the very least if Biden switched jobs with her they could run away with the election. She already ran the country for 8 years, and things were good then.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

06/01/2012 05:44:24 PM · #40

I've come up with the test where a candidate has to show me at least one point or area where they disagree with their party. If they don't, what good are they? I'm not sure Hillary would pass that test (even though I get lulled into thinking she'd be pretty good). Romney passes (health care). Obama probably passes (though I'm blanking on any obvious examples).

06/01/2012 06:09:37 PM · #41

Originally posted by mike_311:

Originally posted by cowboy221977:
.Who would vote on Obama????

how many people need a handout?

Other than the rich folks you mean? Seriously,look at the state of your economy and then sit back and wonder why.

Everyone should hope that the situation in Europe gets a whole lot better, otherwise we are all screwed.

Ray

Message edited by author 2012-06-01 18:21:19.

06/01/2012 06:20:05 PM · #42

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

on debt bush vs obama....the national debt has increased more under Obamas 3 years than under bush's 8 years..

Check this out

and no this is not from fox...
This administration can't even pass a budget

For the first part, when one inherits a massive debt, has to pay for a few wars that were not justified in the first place and then had to cope with financial melt down caused by unregulated, financial institutions, plus a very shaky world econonomy, it is no wonder that the finances are not all that good.

Regarding the second point....and the fault for that would rest with whom?

Ray

Message edited by author 2012-06-01 18:21:05.

06/01/2012 06:20:51 PM · #43

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by jagar:
U. S. supremacy, I wonder why that statement has never sat well with the rest of the world?

That's the amazing irony of George W. Bush. He may have saved the world.

...and just exactly did he do that?

Ray

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

06/01/2012 09:31:24 PM · #44

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by jagar:
U. S. supremacy, I wonder why that statement has never sat well with the rest of the world?

That's the amazing irony of George W. Bush. He may have saved the world.

...and just exactly did he do that?

Ray

by bringing America to its knees.

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

06/01/2012 09:32:03 PM · #45

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The Democrats no longer have a coherent set of policies to disagree with.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

06/01/2012 10:57:01 PM · #46

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I've come up with the test where a candidate has to show me at least one point or area where they disagree with their party. If they don't, what good are they? I'm not sure Hillary would pass that test (even though I get lulled into thinking she'd be pretty good). Romney passes (health care). Obama probably passes (though I'm blanking on any obvious examples).

The Democrats no longer have a coherent set of policies to disagree with.

Did the dems ever have a coherent set of policies

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

06/01/2012 11:41:00 PM · #47

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

Did the dems ever have a coherent set of policies

Yeah. It was called the "New Deal", then later there was the "New Frontier" and the "Great Society".

06/01/2012 11:43:33 PM · #48

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Yeah. It was called the "New Deal", then later there was the "New Frontier" and the "Great Society".

Bah... bank regulation, bigger government, socialist programs and deficit spending. What was wrong with the Old Deal where banks had free reign, government support was limited, the rich got richer and budgets were always balanced? Oh, right.

Message edited by author 2012-06-02 00:16:39.