Romney is funny

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Typhoon

Republicans don't represent me.
Democrats really don't represent me.

Who to vote for?

Gary Johnson.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by PaulS

But don't you think people are more apt to vote for someone they think can relate to them? Romney doesn't poll as good as Ryan or Obama on that. I see Ryan in a golf shirt and he seems comfortable - Romney looks more comfortable in a tie or a sports jacket.

you're right

[Typhoon]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Gary Johnson.

Thinking of writing in Ron Paul.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

People don't vote for the best choice, they vote for the least worst choice.

-spence

Who are we kidding,in the real world, people will vote for the canidate who will most line
their pockets.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Typhoon

Thinking of writing in Ron Paul.

Vote for Dom.
You know you want to.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Nothing more than a poor attempt at humour .

maybe he got the memo

"There's really no way to make the conspiracy about President Obama's birth certificate completely go away, so we might as well laugh at it -- and make sure as many people as possible are in on the joke."

https://store.barackobama.com/madein..._BUTTONS_MERCH

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

He's also exactly right, on big issues like abortion, immigration, health care etc the GOP platform has taken a hard right stance which compared to Romney's history is quite a radical shift.


spence

not exactly....


"The 2012 platform adopted the identical pro-life language that has been in the platform since the late Rep. Henry Hyde inserted it in 1984 in Dallas."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...form-best-yet/


"The platform sections on immigration are examples of how closely social and fiscal issues and costs are intertwined. It is in favor of the rule of law, against any kind of amnesty, and supports requiring employers to use e-Verify to make sure their employees are legally in the United States. It also takes a strong stand for approving photo IDs before allowing someone to vote."
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...discrimination
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...t_work_permits
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._control_first
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...mmigration_law


"the platform calls for repealing Obamacare"
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ealth_care_law\

"Most voters still support repeal of President Obama’s national health care law "


what was he "exactly right" about Spence?
what and where "exacty" is this "radical shift" and/or "hard right stance" in the GOP Platform ?
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...same_of_romney
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...or_wrong_track

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Nor do we understand much about the fortunes of the vast majority of members of Congress, including Pelosi and Reid who shout for the disclosure of Romney's tax records for the last 10 years instead of only the two years that he is submitting. They submit financial disclosures that are required by Congress, but not tax records which are far fuller and more detailed. Their claim is that they are not running for President. Well, they have as much to do with tax policies, and maybe more, as the President. Why shouldn't We the People know what venture capital firms they invest in and in what tax schemes they take advantage of and in which offshore tax shelters?

I'm not sure Harry Reid has that significant of a fortune so to speak. Pelosi is certainly loaded by comparison, although still nothing close to Romney.

The congressional disclosure might not be as clear as a tax return, but it does give a pretty good picture of where interests may lie. By contrast Romney is pretty much tight lipped saying his hundreds of millions are all in blind trusts. Go away, nothing to see here...

It's interesting as well he says he's said in the past that disclosing his returns isn't fair as it would show his tithing which is intended to be private, but yet he has disclosed some. So why not the others?

This really has nothing to do with privacy and everything to do with politics. Romney has largely built his fortune using tax schemes that even if legal are a prime example of the elite playing by a different set of rules than everybody else. Taxes are a big issue this election and under the GOP plan Romney would likely end up paying even LESS in a disproportionately dramatic manner.

If voters are going to make a decision based largely on trust, I'd like to see pretty much everything on the table.

-spence

[Swimmer]

Originally Posted by Nebe

How anyone can support Romney after his history at Bain Capital or what ever that place is spelled is beyond me... Lets see.. Bain Capital buys a company, fires everyone and outsources the jobs overseas..

mmmm yeah.. thats patriotic.

Yup, and NAFTA helped that become eben easier.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I'm not sure Harry Reid has that significant of a fortune so to speak. Pelosi is certainly loaded by comparison, although still nothing close to Romney.

Harry Reid has far more than most of us and his position in Congress has helped him acquire it. Pelosi's husband heads Financial Leasing Services, Inc., a venture capital and real estate firm. Seeing as how venture capitalists are painted as highly secretive, tax scheming, financial vampires, shouldn't we get detailed tax returns included in her financial disclosures? And it is Congress that legislates tax policies, so congressional disclosures should be as detailed as presidential disclosures. Congress has more control of tax policies than the President, and can gain as much, or more, from their legislation than the President.

The congressional disclosure might not be as clear as a tax return, but it does give a pretty good picture of where interests may lie. By contrast Romney is pretty much tight lipped saying his hundreds of millions are all in blind trusts. Go away, nothing to see here...

Craig Holman, a gvt. affairs lobbyist for Public Citizen, a non-partisan watch dog group said "Senior public officials, especially members of Congress and presidential candidates, should be required to disclose their tax returns so that the public can monitor conflicts of interest." Congress has the power to legislate against "secret" tax shelters, and had it completely during Obama's first two years, but did no such thing. And it controls what members must financially disclose, but when it comes to tax returns, Congress is "tight lipped." Could it be that disclosures and restrictions would impede the personal gains of its members, who control tax policies? Yes.

Tax returns reveal assets and investments in a way congressional financial disclosures don't. Those disclosures offer no direct information on tax liabilities and no requirement for reporting spousal income other than the source, but not the amount of any income over $1,000. When it comes to valuation of investments or reporting income on the annual disclosure forms, only broad numbers such as between $250,000 and $500,000, or $1 million and $5 million, which makes it difficult to know how much a lawmaker will benefit from competing tax plans. Darrel West, a vice president of left leaning Brooking Institution, said that congressional financial disclosures don't provide the same level of detail as a tax return--which makes it difficult to determine how politicians will benefit from tax policies.

In a McClatchy investigation, only 17 of Congress's members gave their tax returns. The reporters requested returns, anonymously, to examine in detail how members would personally be affected by changes in tax laws, including income tax rates as well as capital gains and dividends and deductions for expenses. Most, including Pelosi, Reid, and Wasserman, the loudest callers for Romney's returns, chose to keep their tax liabilities a secret. Of the meager 17 who disclosed, most got large deductions for interest on personal and investment real estate.

It's interesting as well he says he's said in the past that disclosing his returns isn't fair as it would show his tithing which is intended to be private, but yet he has disclosed some. So why not the others?

Romney already has disclosed more tax returns than members of Congress who never had to disclose ANY, certainly not 10 years worth, when they ran for office, and only disclose annual disclosures which don't offer the detail necessary for voters to know how tax policies affect them. Detailed spousal incomes are not reported, and some have investments offshore, including Bermuda in which a Romney investment has been criticized.

This really has nothing to do with privacy and everything to do with politics. Romney has largely built his fortune using tax schemes that even if legal are a prime example of the elite playing by a different set of rules than everybody else. Taxes are a big issue this election and under the GOP plan Romney would likely end up paying even LESS in a disproportionately dramatic manner.

Exactly. Privacy is OK for some, but not others. It has everything to do with politics. Somehow, we are to believe that how Romney made his fortune will color how he operates as President. But that does not apply to members of Congress. They will, somehow, legislate for our benefit, whatever they define that to be, but Romney will line his pockets. Pelosi, Reid, Wasserman, et. al., will maintain their privacy and try to deny Romney's so that it will not be shown that they are "guilty" of some of the same things with which they wish to hammer him. I will give the congress persons the benefit of the doubt and assume that none of them has done anything illegal, but merely taken advantage of rules they created. Those are the same rules Romney followed.

The Founders were wealthy, and to a great extent on the basis of not being burdened with taxes. Yet we consider Washington to be our greatest President. How would he fair in today's political climate? Comparatively speaking, he was far wealthier than Romney. Did his wealth or tax evasion cause him to be a bad/unworthy/evil destroyer of the middle class for his own gain? Haven't most Presidents been wealthy? Do we assume that they sought the office to secure even more wealth? Didn't we once assume that wealthy candidates would be more trustworthy than poor ones, since they didn't need the money?

Romney made his under rules that he didn't create, and rules that Congress legislated, much to their own benefit. Are Congressional members in it for the money? Should we know all the details of their finances? Do you really believe that Romney cares that much about more wealth that he will risk his presidency by s#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g more wealth from the middle class? Could it be that if indeed, Ryan's plan will allow him to pay even less taxes (Reid Claims he doesn't pay any now, how much less can you get) it would allow the economy to grow so that all will benefit?

If voters are going to make a decision based largely on trust, I'd like to see pretty much everything on the table.

-spence

If everything is on the table, then decisions will not be largely on trust. If you want to see everything on the table, that should apply to ALL politicians and judges.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If everything is on the table, then decisions will not be largely on trust. If you want to see everything on the table, that should apply to ALL politicians and judges.

I'll certainly agree that those in positions of public authority should be held to a high standard. Congress has the ability to legislate away potential conflicts of interest which doesn't have any real value for their constituents.

But again the real issue here isn't privacy but policy. Interesting new Pew poll on American's opinions.

The poll found that many Americans believe rich people to be intelligent and hardworking but also greedy and less honest than the average American. Nearly six in 10, or 58 percent, say the rich don’t pay enough in taxes, while 26 percent believe the rich pay their fair share and 8 percent say they pay too much.

http://www.boston.com/business/perso...CnN/story.html

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I'll certainly agree that those in positions of public authority should be held to a high standard. Congress has the ability to legislate away potential conflicts of interest which doesn't have any real value for their constituents.

But again the real issue here isn't privacy but policy. Interesting new Pew poll on American's opinions.


-spence

As far as policy being "the" issue, Congress has much power over policy, so should not be exempt from the same scrutiny as presidential candidates. But policy is not only the purview of all our governments from local to federal including all the branches of those governments, even their judiciarys, it also requires the participation of The People in and their influence on those governments. That participation and influence was originally intended to be more direct on, and closer to, those governments. It has progressively become more distant and indirect, almost to the point of subservience. We seem to lack the will, desire, or "time" to devote to the more constant participation that is demanded to preserve the power that once was bequeathed to us. We are hearded into polls structured to elicit responses which can be used as evidence to support "policies" concocted by distant, unelected bureaucrats--quite as Woodrow Wilson, one of the fathers of progressivism, said must be done to influence us in the direction of the will of the administrative state.

The Pew poll that you link doesn't impress me with a rational meaning to exist. What is the purpose of a poll of the opinions of a basically uninformed, uninvolved (except for personal gain) selection of people. You asked previously in this thread in a response to Sea Dangles "So we should run the U.S.A. on the basis of share holder value?" One might ask, in response to your linked poll "So, should we run the U.S.A. on the basis of polls?"

Was a poll like this done in 1800, or 1840, or 1875, 0r 1900, or 1932, or 1960? Would average American opinions of the rich been appreciably different in the past?

If it has any meaning, it is a blue print for waging class warfare. If polls show a "majority", or "most" Americans believe that the wealthy or Republicans "favor" or "will benefit" the wealthy if elected, then government by polls demands that we never elect a rich person or a Republican. And, after purging the rich and Republicans from government, we find that politicians still get wealthy and there is still disparity in income and wealth among the people, even though the income gap would have narrowed due to policies of middle class and poor politicians who favor the middle class and poor and which would have dwindled the rich class and its creation of wealth, there would obviously be more work to be done. The middle class, having more opportunity for education, employment and wealth (decreased as it might be) would by dint of greater intelligence and wealth than the poor, have more access to the seats of government, and by downsizing the economic scale due to the suppression of wealth, there would be less opportunity for the poor to rise out of poverty, so the income gap would again grow and the public opinion polls of the now greater numbers of poor would begin to resemble your poll, with the middle class now being the wealthy who could not be trusted as much as the poor, and who would be seen as greedy, and who would be viewed as favoring the middle class over the poor. So, by public opinion poll, the middle class would have to be purged from the functions of government, and the poor would rule, becoming more plentiful as wealth and greed, and dishonesty were removed from the seats of power, and what wealth remained, would be distributed to the poor, by poor politicians who favered and benefitted the poor. And the poor would multiply so that virtually all would be poor . . . and equal . . . so class warfare would no longer be necessary.

So, Spence,how should we run the U.S.A.? Might it be better to run it by a system of individual freedom to pursue individual dreams garanteed by immutable laws and inalienable rights? Or by the opinions of shifting majorities discerned by polls and an administrative system that directs the opinions to respond to such prefabricated polls?

Communism has been tried and been found very wanting. Socialism seems to work better for a longer period of time but then degrades in the direction of communism. Neither system satisfies the human potential and desires of disparate natures, of those with different inherent capabilities and the ensuing dreams of realizing those capabilities.

I know you've professed a desire for "fairness" and "responsibility" in government, but haven't stated how those would be achieved, nor even what they mean. So, Spence, how should we run the U.S.A.?

[scottw]

[QUOTE=detbuch;956049]The Pew poll that you link doesn't impress me with a rational meaning to exist. If it has any meaning, it is a blue print for waging class warfare. QUOTE]



Quote:
The poll found that many Americans believe skinny people to be intelligent and hardworking but also greedy and less honest than the average American. Nearly six in 10, or 58 percent, say the skinny don’t eat enough, while 26 percent believe the skinny eat their fair share and 8 percent say they eat too much.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

When he ran that company he was not auditioning for the presidency,he was merely trying to make it profitable.

He was trying to deliver shareholder value. The point being that the type of leadership that requires might not be what the country needs, yet that's what he's selling...

Debt per person isa deceiving statistic if you don't understand what debt really is;wealthy people can incur more more debt as a result of their wealth and per capita income. (see CT)

The stat was state debt per capita. As I've noted this in the other thread there are many reasons for this, but if the current US debt is owned by Obama I'd think Romney would own MA at that time, and it wasn't that good.

Spence,like most dems the picture you paint regarding the nations sad sacks is purely sensationalism.Put the broad brush away,anyone with common sense can understand there is too much abuse of the current system.The Palin comment is puzzling to me but typical of one who may be grasping at straws.

There's abuse all around. For every welfare cheat or public employee with a fat pension you have corporate abuse of the same system.

Thank you for explaining the ins and outs of car assembly but either you missed the point or didn't understand it.

Then what was it?

Do you really think another 4 years of Obama is going to benefit the United States Jeff?

I'd like to see more leadership, but the proposed changes from the GOP I don't see as offering an attractive alternative. There's significant risk of making things even worse.

-spence