Mitt Romney Chooses Paul Ryan As Election Running Mate

[Ulysses G.]

Yes, but WHO are these people, these parasitic 47%??

No one has suggested that they are "parasitic" but you.

Edited September 21, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

Yup, it might take more than 4 years to try and ameliorate the economic shipwreck that Bush Jr. piled up in 8 years of fiscal mismanagement.

Obama called adding 4 trillion dollars to the debt in 8 years "unpatriotic". He has added 6 trillion dollars in 4 years. Move over Benedict Arnold.

Edited September 21, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[chuckd]

"[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

Yes, but WHO are these people, these parasitic 47%??

Low income. There's no income tax if your income falls below a certain threshold. For a family of four, that threshold was $26,400 last year.

46% of the 47% are in this category

Benefits for the elderly. Some Social Security payments are not taxed as income. The elderly also get an extra standard deduction that lowers their taxes, in some cases to zero. 20% of the 47% are in this category.

Benefits for the working poor and children. These include the earned income tax credit, the child tax credit, and the child care tax credit. Because of these special benefits, a family of four (two parents, two children) earning up to $45,775 last year would not have had to pay income taxes, primarily because of special credits for children. 14% of the 47% are in this category

Other benefits. This includes itemized deductions, tax credits for education, and the income tax exemptions for everything from disability payments to interest on municipal bonds. 12% are in this category.

Talk about having no responsibility! Well, they should just borrow some money from their parents and start a small Private Equity company.

Since Romney was talking about the 47% of US voters that will not vote for him anyway, do these alleged statistics apply to them?

Edited out the word "unverified".

Edited September 21, 2012 by chuckd

[TheWalkingMan]

A vacation home for $35 Million and he "feels the pain" of some 25 million unemployed Americans? Yeah, sure.

There ain't no "smut machine" about that. If the purchase goes ahead, those are the facts he will be facing.

Always cracks me up when people complain about the wealthy spending money on things and how they (the wealthy) should not do this in order to show some type of solidarity for those in need. Almost sounds like something a socialist would say.

[Ulysses G.]

Especially the wealthy that demonize the rest of the "1%" and try to say that they are not paying their "fair share" even though they pay 70% of the Federal taxes in the USA.

[chuckd]

A vacation home for $35 Million and he "feels the pain" of some 25 million unemployed Americans? Yeah, sure.

There ain't no "smut machine" about that. If the purchase goes ahead, those are the facts he will be facing.

Always cracks me up when people complain about the wealthy spending money on things and how they (the wealthy) should not do this in order to show some type of solidarity for those in need. Almost sounds like something a socialist would say.

I really don't care what Obama spends his money on.

I care that he appeals to the masses by claiming he is one of them, when he clearly is not and never has been.

What's the word for that again? Oh yeah....hypocrisy.

[Chicog]

Especially the wealthy that demonize the rest of the "1%" and try to say that they are not paying their "fair share" even though they pay 70% of the Federal taxes in the USA.

Romney doesn't.

[Ulysses G.]

Unlike the current Treasury secretary Tim Geithner, he pays everything that he is legally obligated to, plus gives tons to charity.

Edited September 21, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[benever]

No one has suggested that they are "parasitic" but you.

Which part of "... who believe that they are victims, who believe that they are entitled...I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives." didn't you understand?

[Ulysses G.]

I understand that you are putting your own words in his mouth as you often do in posts that completely distort what other people have said in order to promote your own political views.

Edited September 21, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[rijb]

"the truth is that our tax system is relatively flat"

Top 5 Tax Myths

[Ulysses G.]

You do realize that that link is to moveon.org? They are not exactly an unbiased source.

[chuckd]

You do realize that that link is to moveon.org? They are not exactly an unbiased source.

Moveon.org? Quick, let me find something in Sean Hannity's programs that dispute it. Give me a break.

[rijb]

Put up or shut up.

[koheesti]

Obama promised to cut the deficit in half and he added 6 trillon dollars to it.

Bush has not been the president for the last 4 years.

The buck stops here!

-Harry S. Truman

Yeah, HOW do you go from cutting the deficit by $5 trillion, to adding $6 trillion to it instead? Is anyone really supposed to believe Obama when he says, "Well, the economy was worse when I took over than I thought". Really? What bullsh*t. Politicians make promises they can't keep all the time. But this one is much worse than simply breaking a promise, instead of trying to solve a problem, he did everything in his power to make it much worse. Imagine if our national debt were only $5 trillion, 1/3 of GDP instead of $16 trillion, larger than GDP. Then Obama would have a good case for reelection - which he sure as hell doesn't have now.

[chuckd]

Put up or shut up.

Moveon.org ain't worth the effort.

[rijb]

Obama promised to cut the deficit in half and he added 6 trillon dollars to it.

Bush has not been the president for the last 4 years.

The buck stops here!

-Harry S. Truman

Yeah, HOW do you go from cutting the deficit by $5 trillion, to adding $6 trillion to it instead? Is anyone really supposed to believe Obama when he says, "Well, the economy was worse when I took over than I thought". Really? What bullsh*t. Politicians make promises they can't keep all the time. But this one is much worse than simply breaking a promise, instead of trying to solve a problem, he did everything in his power to make it much worse. Imagine if our national debt were only $5 trillion, 1/3 of GDP instead of $16 trillion, larger than GDP. Then Obama would have a good case for reelection - which he sure as hell doesn't have now.

Here's how...

In June 2012, Congressional Budget Office summarized the cause of change between its January 2001 estimate of a $5.6 trillion cumulative surplus between 2002 and 2011 and the actual $6.1 trillion cumulative deficit that occurred, an unfavorable "turnaround" or debt increase of $11.7 trillion.

Tax cuts and slower-than-expected growth reduced revenues by $6.1 trillion and spending was $5.6 trillion higher. Of this total, the CBO attributes 72% to legislated tax cuts and spending increases and 27% to economic and technical factors. Of the latter, 56% occurred from 2009 to 2011.

The difference between the projected and actual debt in 2011 can be largely attributed to:

▪ $3.5 trillion – Economic changes (including lower than expected tax revenues and higher safety net spending due to recession)

▪ $1.6 trillion – Bush Tax Cuts, primarily tax cuts but also some smaller spending increases

▪ $1.5 trillion - Increased defense and non-defense discretionary spending

▪ $1.4 trillion – Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq

▪ $1.4 trillion - Incremental interest due to higher debt balances

▪ $0.9 trillion - Obama stimulus and tax cuts

(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget)

[benever]

The difference between the projected and actual debt in 2011 can be largely attributed to:

▪ $3.5 trillion – Economic changes (including lower than expected tax revenues and higher safety net spending due to recession)

▪ $1.6 trillion – Bush Tax Cuts, primarily tax cuts but also some smaller spending increases

▪ $1.5 trillion - Increased defense and non-defense discretionary spending

▪ $1.4 trillion – Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq

▪ $1.4 trillion - Incremental interest due to higher debt balances

▪ $0.9 trillion - Obama stimulus and tax cuts

In other words:

-the 2 needless and costly wars started by Bush (which Obama opposed at the time)

-the tax cuts smartly enacted at the very same time by Bush

-the horrible recession created by Bush's deregulations and runaway spending

-the desperate stimulus needed to try to get out of the whole mess after 8 years of Bush

Who did you vote for in 2000 and 2004 again?

Edited September 21, 2012 by benever

[koheesti]

Obama promised to cut the deficit in half and he added 6 trillon dollars to it.

Bush has not been the president for the last 4 years.

The buck stops here!

-Harry S. Truman

Yeah, HOW do you go from cutting the deficit by $5 trillion, to adding $6 trillion to it instead? Is anyone really supposed to believe Obama when he says, "Well, the economy was worse when I took over than I thought". Really? What bullsh*t. Politicians make promises they can't keep all the time. But this one is much worse than simply breaking a promise, instead of trying to solve a problem, he did everything in his power to make it much worse. Imagine if our national debt were only $5 trillion, 1/3 of GDP instead of $16 trillion, larger than GDP. Then Obama would have a good case for reelection - which he sure as hell doesn't have now.

Here's how...

In June 2012, Congressional Budget Office summarized the cause of change between its January 2001 estimate of a $5.6 trillion cumulative surplus between 2002 and 2011 and the actual $6.1 trillion cumulative deficit that occurred, an unfavorable "turnaround" or debt increase of $11.7 trillion.

Tax cuts and slower-than-expected growth reduced revenues by $6.1 trillion and spending was $5.6 trillion higher. Of this total, the CBO attributes 72% to legislated tax cuts and spending increases and 27% to economic and technical factors. Of the latter, 56% occurred from 2009 to 2011.

The difference between the projected and actual debt in 2011 can be largely attributed to:

▪ $3.5 trillion – Economic changes (including lower than expected tax revenues and higher safety net spending due to recession)

▪ $1.6 trillion – Bush Tax Cuts, primarily tax cuts but also some smaller spending increases

▪ $1.5 trillion - Increased defense and non-defense discretionary spending

▪ $1.4 trillion – Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq

▪ $1.4 trillion - Incremental interest due to higher debt balances

▪ $0.9 trillion - Obama stimulus and tax cuts

(source: http://en.wikipedia...._federal_budget)

So Obama didn't know anything about Bush tax cuts, or war expenditures, etc when he took office? OK, the guy really is in over his head.

[rijb]

Sorry, didn't mean to take the wind out of your baseless rant.

And don't forget all those shifty congress people....

Edited September 21, 2012 by rijb

[Neurath]

I understand that you are putting your own words in his mouth as you often do in posts that completely distort what other people have said in order to promote your own political views.

No need, Governor Romney's words are pretty clear:

"[They] will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what … These are people who pay no income tax …

"[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

[KKvampire]

A president who inherited an economy shrinking by 8% a year and losing 750,000 jobs a month and in the words of Bush;s financial team " On the verge of financial meltdown"..The President , despite Republican obstruction has started to turn it around, Growing by 2% a year and creating 200,000 jobs amonth, And you know what the VP candidate for the Republicans wants to do, ? Extend tax cuts to the most wealthy , from 35% to 25% . going back to failed trickle down economics and increasing the deficit by a Trillion $ Even Warren Buffet sees the madness.. I know what makes sense and I guess most voters will, in November or before in early voting, unless republican state legislators get their way to make in difficult to vote , Bunch of Anti American Neo Con Tea Baggers.

Edited September 21, 2012 by KKvampire

[Chicog]

There is nothing "trickle down" about giving tax cuts to the very wealthy, They just shove it in Cayman Islands bank accounts and lust for more.

[koheesti]

Sorry, didn't mean to take the wind out of your baseless rant.

And don't forget all those shifty congress people....

Obama, arguably the most brilliant man to hold public office, promised to cut the debt in half his first term. It is ridiculous for you to propose that he was unaware of the spending that happened the previous 8 years. On the contrary, he brought it up constantly during the 2008 campaign when he called it unpatriotic. There are only two choices that you cannot spin out of - he either lied to the voters or misled them. Since it is Congress that controls the spending - and the President signs off on - he can share the blame with the Democrats who controlled both houses of Congress from 2007-2011.

Edited September 21, 2012 by koheesti

[KKvampire]

There is nothing "trickle down" about giving tax cuts to the very wealthy, They just shove it in Cayman Islands bank accounts and lust for more.

But they want us to believe all those big tax cuts will create jobs, Facts show different, Offshore accounts being a prime example of where tax cuts go. And Taxes for the wealthy are at Historical low levels, It;s all about pleasing the Republican donors as well of course Romneys own bank balance. Edited September 21, 2012 by KKvampire

[koheesti]

There is nothing "trickle down" about giving tax cuts to the very wealthy, They just shove it in Cayman Islands bank accounts and lust for more.

Well, yeah. So would you if the government didn't make investing in your own country a good idea.

[koheesti]

A president who inherited an economy shrinking by 8% a year and losing 750,000 jobs a month and in the words of the G W Bush director " On the verge of financial meltdown"..The President , despite Republican obstruction has started to turn it around, Growing by 2% a year and creating 200,000 jobs amonth, And you know what the VP candidate for the Republicans wants to do, ? Extend tax cuts to the most wealthy , from 35% to 25% . going back to failed trickle down economics and increasing the deficit by a Trillion $ Even Warren Buffet sees the madness.. I know what makes sense and I guess most voters will, in November or before in early voting, unless republican state legislators get their way to make in difficult to vote , Bunch of Anti American Neo Con Tea Baggers.

And Obama's solution is to raise what, $70 billion or so from taxing the rich to offset he $1,500 billion budget? Yeah, that'll work.

[rijb]

Sorry, didn't mean to take the wind out of your baseless rant.

And don't forget all those shifty congress people....

Obama, arguably the most brilliant man to hold public office, promised to cut the debt in half his first term. It is ridiculous for you to propose that he was unaware of the spending that happened the previous 8 years. On the contrary, he brought it up constantly during the 2008 campaign when he called it unpatriotic. There are only two choices that you cannot spin out of - he either lied to the voters or misled them. Since it is Congress that controls the spending - and the President signs off on - he can share the blame with the Democrats who controlled both houses of Congress from 2007-2011.

I didn't propose anything about Obama's debt awareness.

However, he is aware that he is not the 43rd president and voters will blame his first year on Bush.

He is also aware that personal income is growing. And historically that's a key indicator for an incumbent president to win re-election by a comfortable margin.

Sleep tight.

[Ulysses G.]

Sorry, but no incumbent president has won re-election with unemployment above 8% since WW2.

[rijb]

Obama will point to 29 straight months of non-government job growth, a mini-revival of specialized manufacturing, saving the auto industry, a steading rise in the rate of existing home sales, etc., etc.

Timing is everything and Obama has momentum while Romney is still trying to hit his stride ... if he has one.