Barack Obama vs Mitt Romney round 1

less politics

more of keeping his job.:smt081

 

But if theyre laying people off and Americans have less money to buy shit who are the consumers helping them get to record peofits. Something is missing hete

 

Awesome they are laying off Americans and hiring foreigners.


Helping America get back to work!

 

Awesome they are laying off Americans and hiring foreigners.


Helping America get back to work!

Oh don't worry with the low tax rates they'll be able hold all their money and never put an ounce of it into paying the American debt.

 

The math is NOT there. He can not lower all these taxes AND get us out of deficit. If he made zero then he would be pay no taxes on it but clearly he had alot more than 0. I completely and totally disagree.

 

Your kidding right? The middle class IS paying their fair share. The poor are slaving their ass off and not making even enough money to purchase the basic necessitates. Those at the top are making millions off hard working low income people. This whole system in America goes back to the 1600's and very much do with why interracial marriage was banned. Profit from the slave. Create a buffer class that will be above the poor and yet keep them in line opposed to having them all rise up against the rich. Already happened and the separation of freeded indentured whites and black slaves who had rose up against them worked like a charm.

 

My brother, who I believe is a Democrat, but hates all politicians anyway, brought up an interesting point.

He said: if the government taxes the rich more, all of the philanthropy they do (starting foundations, donating to museums, causes, research, etc) would not happen like it used to.

He has a point.

 

Do conservatives really not care that Romney changes his policy and agenda focus depending on who his audience is??
Oh, and he's a easy LIAR.

If you calculate the impact of lowering the marginal tax rate by 20% and keeping the Bush tax cuts, the cost will be $5 trillion. Romney disputes this number because he's allegedly is going to eliminate deductions and federal programs to pay for it.
But to pay for $5 TRILLION dollar tax cut, you're going to have to make radical cuts. De-funding PBS is less than a drop of piss in the bucket.

Until Romney lays out how he's going to do what most economists say is impossible, (giving a $5trillion tax cut without significantly cutting entitlement spending and raising taxes on the poor and middle class), that $5 trillion dollar number is ACCURATE.

During the debate Romney said 23 million Americans are unemployed. The U.S. Labor Department says the number is 12 million.
From CNN/Money, 9.4/12;

Even if you add in unemployed people who are not counted in that total because they are not actively looking for work -- a category the Labor Department terms "marginally attached" -- that number rises to just over 15.3 million.






Obama said U.S. corporations are given subsidies and tax incentives to keep their factories and profits abroad.
Romney said he had NO IDEA what the POTUS was talking about.
The truth is here. http://www.americanprogressaction.o...s-new-tax-incentive-for-outsourcing-u-s-jobs/
Romney lied again.:vom:

More than half of what Romney said in that debate was a lie. So how did he 'win'??

 

And when he brought that up, I asked why he hasn't changed it in 4 years. The President used misdirection right there.

 

I don't quite get why someone who is giving away free money would stop giving it away due to taxes.

to boot, I don't see the disaster in taxing them to give kids pell grants over say donating money to museum.

Because as we all know, Museums are our future.

teach them well and let them lead the way
Show them all the beauty they possess inside

 

Not really, because that point assumes a lack of philanthropic giving in nations with relatively higher rates of taxation for the wealthy. Wealthy Americans give more because we allow them to keep more of their fortunes, but many Europeans (e.g. Danes, Swedes, Fins, Germans, French, etc.) have a higher standard of living than the average American because there is a greater distribution of wealth mandated by the state.

I prefer a model that demands more revenue from the wealthy upfront than one that relies on individual acts of generosity that may or may not come.

 

Wow, this is the first time that I can agree with him.

 

If Romney keeps this up in next debate, Obama is going to vote for him.

 

Paul Piff, a social psychologist at the University of California, Berkeley, says that's consistent with what he's found in years of research on income and giving.

"The more wealth you have, the more focused on your own self and your own needs you become, and the less attuned to the needs of other people you also become," he says.


http://www.npr.org/2012/08/20/158947667/study-reveals-the-geography-of-charitable-giving

 

Think about the rich people you know. It's consistent with their behavior. You can also search out. Other studies will tell you. Rich people collect more toys and houses not reach back.

 

I don't call it taking from the rich. I call it paying their fair share. They need to quit stealing from others and pay their way.

 

Being an avid listener to NPR, I can safely say you're incorrect on the accusation of NPR being left-leaning. You need to give it a listen once in a while before spewing right-wing talking points.

If anything, NPR have always been fairly unbiased in their reporting. All Things Considered is pretty much their only venue for news reporting and the way how they operate is that they give equal time and questioning on both candidates. They're akin to your local news station, which gives the reporting, but allows both sides to equally give off their time.

So again, I don't see how you can make that accusation unless you're listening to right-wingers along the lines of your Michael Savages or Limbaughs. Hell, a lot of conservatives I know watch it because of its unbiased reporting and didn't buy into the bullshit from the TEA Party groups.

 

It's been shown that a great deal of the 47%, that Mitt doesn't care about, are elderly. I think American society needs to take better care of their elderly. We barely do that and then we want to tax them on pittances from Social Security?? They paid in to Social Security that for all those years and Mitt wants to tax them when they collect on it? What are you asking for? I am unclear. Most elderly barely make it, the high cost of Rx drugs drives them into poverty.

As for the rich they need to pay like the rest of us........no free ride or free or reduced lunch for them tax wise.

Well, in this thread this may be the one thing we agree upon. :smt081

 

lol at you & other liberals on here demonizing rich & successful people.:smt043

 

7.8% unemployment

1 for Obama