Presidential debate...

[BraveUlysses]

genuine is usually the first thing that comes to mind when I think of romney

I like the way you think!

[Kershaw]

i was waiting for someone to post about his "binder full of women" lie. the way he tells it, romney & staff went out looking for talented women because HE noticed that there wasnt enough women in his cabinet.

that is a blatant lie and distortion of the truth.

a woman's group made a binder full of eligible potential cabinet members and gave it both participants.
Source.

--------------

i guess this could go here since they do discuss marginal tax rates. romneys OWN website has conflicting views on his tax policy. we all know it's already vague and he flip flops a lot on what he says, but here is his site putting it down in written word that even his campaign doesnt know what side of the fence they are on.

http://www.myhsj.org/Schools/Newspaper/tabid/100/view/frontpage/schoolid/4662/articleid/546822/newspaperid/4985/Careful_Inspection_of_Mitt_Romneys_Website_Reveals_Discrepancies.aspx

[joshh]

Yes because he has clearly been DESTROYING this country for the past 4 years. With our new healthcare laws guaranteeing care to millions, pulling out of Iraq, new infrastructure and investments to the tune of almost a trillion dollars, slow but sure economic growth, etc. We sure are doing just awful. /s

Joshh, you sound like one of those entitled Liberals complaining about how bad they have it with their Iphone, Honda Accord, 2 bedroom house, safe neighborhood and 40 hour a week job with benefits. Why don't you go pound sand.

I love it when you can't handle the truth. Yeah healthcare laws guaranteeing to fuck over thousands of businesses across the country. New infrastructure and investments to the tune of a trillion dollars ....like the dozen+ green companies that have gone belly up at the cost of the tax payer. Slow economic growth...so slow in fact the Fed has had to inject money into the system. And so slow they started QE3 which is well known now for more than likely causing more harm than help to this economy than anything else. Damn right this country is doing awful.

Except I'm not complaining about how bad I have it because even with my disability I fucking work for a living. But that part was cute.

Much as I despite responding to your nonsensical posts, Obama was talking about the lunatic fringe who somehow believe that "downsizing" can resolve our economic conundrum.

It's not about who *pays* for shit. It's already well-known that the wealthiest pay the most. But the wealthy don't go out and build physical things. I've never in my life seen some business owner roll his sleeves up and go pour concrete in downtown Portland outside his storefront; no matter how much taxes he pays or people he hires the street only gets paved by a government worker with a shovel. and most of the time their kids are being taught by a teacher paid by local tax dollars. and the streets that got built by government workers are protected by government paid police and firefighters.


Obama is directly responding to the insanity that is pervading our current elections wherein people seem to think that we can carve out all that "government" and make any sizeable dent in our current economic downturn. And this problem is magnified by the fact that we've got a lot of infrastructure that is currently failing while able bodied workers are standing idly by since there's no funding for them and exacerbated by the fact that in all of this horseshit about downsizing the government there's not a peep about shrinking the single largest drain on our resources--our bloated military projects.

So you think we should increase the size of government while there are far fewer people paying taxes to pay for that infrastructure you're talking about that needs repair. That's where your fallacy lies. You can't pay for it. It's that fucking simple. But beyond that Obama was busy passing Obamacare and spending a shit ton of money doing other things than fixing the infrastructure of this country.
And even beyond that he went on the berate business owners about how they "didn't build that". But they did in fact pay for that. So you can play all the word games you like to say the business owners didn't pick up a shovel themselves to build the street or put in the sewer or whatever you like...but that fucking business owner is paying that city workers pay check while he holds that shovel and paying for his fucking pension as well. Which typically is far better than the small business owner will ever see.

[smooth]

yep, business owners pay the salaries of the guys holding the shovels which is why obama is reminding people that they didn't build the infrastructure and that's why taxes can't just be abolished much as everyone hates them

the point is we're part of a larger society and it works as a system. you can't just pick and choose what you think you use and say you're only responsible for part of it because you benefit from the physical infrastructure whether you are capable of recognizing what you use or don't use

it's like mrsleeve's notion that he paid his way through any education he used. his tuition paid for a fraction of the cost of his education.
it's as ridiculous as when someone is stopped by the police and they demand the officer serve them like a waiter because they "pay their salary"

[joshh]

yep, business owners pay the salaries of the guys holding the shovels which is why obama is reminding people that they didn't build the infrastructure and that's why taxes can't just be abolished much as everyone hates them

the point is we're part of a larger society and it works as a system. you can't just pick and choose what you think you use and say you're only responsible for part of it because you benefit from the physical infrastructure whether you are capable of recognizing what you use or don't use

it's like mrsleeve's notion that he paid his way through any education he used. his tuition paid for a fraction of the cost of his education.
it's as ridiculous as when someone is stopped by the police and they demand the officer serve them like a waiter because they "pay their salary"

Who is saying taxes should be abolished?

[smooth]

the tea party and Libertarians

[joshh]

That's a generality. The Tea party and Libertarians want similar things to what I want and that does not include no taxes. Low taxes and small government.

[smooth]

you're out to lunch if you don't even know the official positions of the people you claim to align yourself with
pretty dangerous way to live and vote

why don't you take this opportunity to explain how your belief would function

in the hypothetical world of "low taxes and small government" how do the roads get repaved in front of the small business owners' storefronts and who polices the streets? private contractors and security guards paid how?

[joshh]

you're out to lunch if you don't even know the official positions of the people you claim to align yourself with

pretty dangerous way to live and vote

I suppose they're both asking for Anarchy too.

[joshh]

you're out to lunch if you don't even know the official positions of the people you claim to align yourself with
pretty dangerous way to live and vote

why don't you take this opportunity to explain how your belief would function

in the hypothetical world of "low taxes and small government" how do the roads get repaved in front of the small business owners' storefronts and who polices the streets? private contractors and security guards paid how?

If you consider how much we spend on war, SS, waste on pork in Congress, farm subsidies, oil subsidies, foreign aid, handing out free money to green start ups, etc, etc. You put more people back to work. Have more people pay taxes and less people able to take advantage of welfare and food stamps, it wouldn't be as impossible as you're imagining.

[smooth]

your statement is an excellent example of why you need to do more research on the philosophies you claim to espouse. you apparently have no idea of the philosophical underpinnings for the rhetoric you spew all over these forums.

libertarians believe in limited governance whereas anarchists are opposed to governance in all matters. libertarians want the abolishment of taxation and reduce government intrusion in labor relations so that market rules can shape on their own.

anarchists want the abolishment of the state entirely. they wouldn't willingly accept market rules in its place--they want the abolishment of rule and market relations simply become a proxy of the state rather than self-rule

I'm not sure where you get your whacked out ideas but you need to read some philosophy books

[joshh]

your statement is an excellent example of why you need to do more research on the philosophies you claim to espouse. you apparently have no idea of the philosophical underpinnings for the rhetoric you spew all over these forums.

libertarians believe in limited governance whereas anarchists are opposed to governance in all matters. libertarians want the abolishment of taxation and reduce government intrusion in labor relations so that market rules can shape on their own.

anarchists want the abolishment of the state entirely. they wouldn't willingly accept market rules in its place--they want the abolishment of rule and market relations simply become a proxy of the state rather than self-rule

I'm not sure where you get your whacked out ideas but you need to read some philosophy books

How can Libertarians want small government yet want abolishment of all taxes? You have some reading to do. Or your rhetoric is getting in the way. I'll lead you to the answer If you like. The Tea Party and Libertarians are not the same. Libertarians are more hard core in the lower tax area but still believe in taxes.

[smooth]

Yeah, well don't blame me for the libertarian conundrum. If they oppose federal income tax, social security taxes, estate taxes, capital gains taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, and state income taxes explain to us which taxes they support

Sent from my HTC One S using Tapatalk 2

[joshh]

Yeah, well don't blame me for the libertarian conundrum. If they oppose federal income tax, social security taxes, estate taxes, capital gains taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, and state income taxes explain to us which taxes they support

Sent from my HTC One S using Tapatalk 2

You've either read way too much and don't remember much or you haven't read anything.

http://www.libertarianism.com/content/100

The point is Libertarians want a small government which means there would have to be taxes...I'm not a Libertarian.

[smooth]

You've either read way too much and don't remember much or you haven't read anything.

http://www.libertarianism.com/content/100

The point is Libertarians want a small government which means there would have to be taxes...I'm not a Libertarian.

that's the problem with ignorance...you don't understand the specifics so you regurgitate talking points without comprehending how the points become mutually exclusive.

then, when pressed for details, you can't provide them so you just spew forth some bullshit that doesn't make any sense and rather than a lightbulb going off in your head alerting you to the fact that what you just said can't actually work you deride the educated person who actually knows what he's talking about as not knowing enough


I gave you two specific scenarios and you couldn't respond adequately to either one:
1. how do we pay for local public works and safety
your answer: reduce a bunch of federal spending?

the two aren't related. The City of Portland can't pay police wages with money the federal government saves by reducing oil and farm subsidies!

2. which specific taxes do libertarians support
your answer: they just do. they do because they must. you don't know the specific because now you aren't a libertarian...you just agree with their policies :\


and the cherry on top: I've either read too much or I haven't read enough!
hahahaha, how's that supposed to work? there's some middle ground of merrily reading talking points but not knowing enough about the issues to speak specifically about them?