# Ann Romney: 'Going to be cuts made to a lot of programs people aren't going to like'



## Lakhota (Sep 2, 2012)

> It is like a bad dream come true, Ann Romney explaining the policies that will be put in place, should her husband win the election in November. There&#8217;s going to be cuts, in programs and people won&#8217;t like it.
> 
> Why on earth would the wife of a so-called experienced businessman, who claims he has a reputation for creating jobs when in reality he outsourced them to China, be speaking to American families and digging in the knife?
> 
> Why would Ann Romney love rubbing salt in the wounds of many bankrupt Americans, many homeless Americans, the jobless, the disabled and the elderly in an almost boastful fashion say this to &#8220;you people&#8221;?



More: Ann Romney There&#8217;s Going to Be Cuts -People Aren&#8217;t Going to Like | Politicol Commentary News


----------



## Lakhota (Sep 2, 2012)

That uppity bitch is as snotty as her husband.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 2, 2012)

Lakhota what would you cut to balance the budget?


----------



## Annie (Sep 2, 2012)

There are going to be cuts, people aren't going to like them. That's a fact. Even if Obama wins, by year 2, there will be cuts. He won't like them, neither will those effected. That is a fact. It's unavoidable, regardless of who wins.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Sep 2, 2012)

Why, because she is telling the truth?  There ARE going to be cuts in programs that people will not like, PERIOD.  It does not matter who wins.  Our financial future cannot exist on this current path by the rosiest estimates.  I guess that you don&#8217;t actually want to hear the truth though.  You would rather listen to Obama tell you that everything will be just fine if we can simply get those evil rich people to pay for everything.


Sorry, some of us are not idiots and actually want to hear the TRUTH.


----------



## Lakhota (Sep 2, 2012)

Matthew said:


> Lakhota what would you cut to balance the budget?



I would cut the defense budget in HALF.

I would allow Bush tax cuts to expire.


----------



## Lakhota (Sep 2, 2012)

I would make Paul Ryan eat his crazy budget.


----------



## Politico (Sep 2, 2012)

Annie said:


> There are going to be cuts, people aren't going to like them. That's a fact.



And sadly there won't be enough of them.


----------



## Lakhota (Sep 2, 2012)

Ben Bernanke and others are warning against further austerity measures.  Apparently, Bernanke is finally planning to take some action.  What took him so long?

Is The Fed Finally Poised To Do Something About The Economy? | TPMDC


----------



## IGetItAlready (Sep 2, 2012)

Duhkhota says, Why cut anything when we still have rich people to pay all the bills?
Oh, except that nation defense budget...for fuck sake, what do we need with national defense when we've got two oceans protecting us? 
The only thing keeping a unicorn out of every garage and a pot of rainbow stew simmering away in every kitchen is those nasty conservatives.


----------



## Political Junky (Sep 2, 2012)

Ending the Bush tax cuts would be a good start. We'd have Clinton prosperity once again.


----------



## Lakhota (Sep 2, 2012)

IGetItAlready said:


> Duhkhota says, Why cut anything when we still have rich people to pay all the bills?
> Oh, except that nation defense budget...for fuck sake, what do we need with national defense when we've got two oceans protecting us?
> The only thing keeping a unicorn out of every garage and a pot of rainbow stew simmering away in every kitchen is those nasty conservatives.



1. Rich people have gamed the system and aren't paying their fair share of taxes to Uncle Sam.  Make them pay their share.

2. Eisenhower warned us about the Military Industrial Complex - and he was sure right.  Cut the military budget in half.

3. Allow all Bush tax cuts to expire.  All of them.

4. Stop with all the crazy austerity bullshit until the economy gets stronger.  Bush used government spenting to get him out of recession - but Congress won't allow Obama to do that.


----------



## IGetItAlready (Sep 2, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> IGetItAlready said:
> 
> 
> > Duhkhota says, Why cut anything when we still have rich people to pay all the bills?
> ...



Are you fucking kidding? Not enough fed spending is our problem?
For the love of all things off the charts stupid!!!

I've got to tell you Duhkota, while chatting with you I'm envisioning you as a clam, sitting at a keyboard spitting droplets of water on the keys you want to hit. No, I take that back, a severely retarded clam at a keyboard.


----------



## Lakhota (Sep 2, 2012)

For all you wingnuts who try to falsely blame Obama for the national debt, deficits and economy, I invite you to please give us an accounting of the debt that Obama has added - that wasn't a direct or indirect result of Bush actions.  The Bush debt clock didn't just stop on the day Obama was sworn in.  Let me give you some starting tips: TWO wars that Bush kept OFF budget that Obama keeps ON budget and the Bush tax cuts.  In short, Bush-era policies are still driving the numbers.






10 Republican Lies About the Bush Tax Cuts | Crooks and Liars

I'm still waiting for you wingnut geniuses to give us an accounting of the debt that Obama has added - that wasn't a direct or indirect result of Bush actions. Waiting...


----------



## IGetItAlready (Sep 2, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> For all you wingnuts who try to falsely blame Obama for the national debt, deficits and economy, I invite you to please give us an accounting of the debt that Obama has added - that wasn't a direct or indirect result of Bush actions.  The Bush debt clock didn't just stop on the day Obama was sworn in.  Let me give you some starting tips: TWO wars that Bush kept OFF budget that Obama keeps ON budget and the Bush tax cuts.  In short, Bush-era policies are still driving the numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



According to dipshits like you the ONLY thing that has happened on Obama's watch that has NOT been the result of anything Bush did is killing Bin Laden. 
I can't fucking believe you're not a cabinet appointee!!!


----------



## Lakhota (Sep 2, 2012)

Why Letting The Bush Tax Cuts For The Rich Expire Will Not Hurt The Economy, In Three Graphs | ThinkProgress


----------



## Lakhota (Sep 2, 2012)

IGetItAlready said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > For all you wingnuts who try to falsely blame Obama for the national debt, deficits and economy, I invite you to please give us an accounting of the debt that Obama has added - that wasn't a direct or indirect result of Bush actions.  The Bush debt clock didn't just stop on the day Obama was sworn in.  Let me give you some starting tips: TWO wars that Bush kept OFF budget that Obama keeps ON budget and the Bush tax cuts.  In short, Bush-era policies are still driving the numbers.
> ...



You're sort of like a gnat on my ass while taking a shit in the woods.  You serve no purpose.


----------



## HUGGY (Sep 2, 2012)

Matthew said:


> Lakhota what would you cut to balance the budget?



Ya Lakhota .... Would you cut up Ann's horse and feed the poor with it?


----------



## Lakhota (Sep 2, 2012)

HUGGY said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota what would you cut to balance the budget?
> ...



No, I like horses.  They're good company.


----------



## IGetItAlready (Sep 2, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> IGetItAlready said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



The funny thing Mr woods shitter, is that you're oblivious to the fact that YOU are your own worst enemy. 
And thanks for the disgusting visual dick breath.


----------



## HUGGY (Sep 2, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



I don't.  Used to be they were good dog food.  Now it isn't politically correct to mention it.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zp0V1R7CzQ4]Friskies dog food commercial (1958?) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 2, 2012)




----------



## Lakhota (Sep 2, 2012)

Eat the cats and dogs - but leave the horses alone.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Sep 2, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota what would you cut to balance the budget?
> ...



So lets take your simpleton answer of obliterating the military and our ability to defend ourselves and see where that takes us (by the way, such a cut is something that A TON of people are not going to like so you are already agreeing with Ann but)

In 2010, total DoD spending was at: 683 billion

Deficit for the year  1.12 trillion

2012 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cutting the DoD in half saves you 341.5 billion laving 780 billion left.  What do the Bush tax cuts cost per year?  Nothing even close to that, and we are figuring that somehow such a MASSIVE tax increase is not going to damage our floundering economy even though you cant find anyone that would agree with such an insane idea.  

As far as the actual gains go, it varies as to weather or not oyu want to raise middle income earners too.  According to Obamas plan of repealing the Bush taxes on everyone earning over 200K you gain a whole 680 billion. OVER TEN YEARS.  Thats a grand total of 68 billion per year.  

Where is the other 712 billion coming from????


http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41393.pdf


----------



## Rozman (Sep 2, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Ending the Bush tax cuts would be a good start. We'd have Clinton prosperity once again.



Will we also have the Dot com bubble which made all that possible?
And the Newt Ginrich led house?


----------



## editec (Sep 2, 2012)

I do not doubt for a moment that should Romney attain the oval office, that millions of Americans will immediately regret it.

It will take the right wingers (who are not insiders) a while longer to realize that Romney'd plans aren't working, either.

But eventually even _they'll_ get it.


----------



## Stephanie (Sep 2, 2012)

my goodness, another thread where the poor Lakhota is FREAKING out

yawn


----------



## Seawytch (Sep 2, 2012)

What Ann should have said is "going to be cuts to a lot of programs _Democratic_ legislators like". What cuts will be made to programs Republicans like? Mitt RawMoney isn't cutting defense at all. Not a whit. Despite the fact that we spend more money on defense than the next score of countries combined, most of whom are our allies, Mittens isn't going to touch defense. Republicans will like the tax cuts in the Mitt Can't spell Romney without Money plan because they benefit the wealthiest Americans. 

What popular Republican programs are going to take a hit?


----------



## LoneLaugher (Sep 2, 2012)

Mrs Romney,

Would you care to tell us what those cuts are......so we can decide for ourselves whether or not we like them. And....please do so BEFORE the election.

Thanks,

America


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 2, 2012)

The Romney-Ryan plan. Cut as many programs for the needy as possible. Delete MediCare and MediAid, steal all that is left in the SS fund. Reduce the taxes on the very wealthy to zero. Then blame the ensueing Depression on the liberals. 

Because the plans of the GOP will result in the Second Great Republican Depression.


----------



## Stephanie (Sep 2, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> The Romney-Ryan plan. Cut as many programs for the needy as possible. Delete MediCare and MediAid, steal all that is left in the SS fund. Reduce the taxes on the very wealthy to zero. Then blame the ensueing Depression on the liberals.
> 
> Because the plans of the GOP will result in the Second Great Republican Depression.



wow, really


----------



## SuMar (Sep 2, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> > It is like a bad dream come true, Ann Romney explaining the policies that will be put in place, should her husband win the election in November. Theres going to be cuts, in programs and people wont like it.
> >
> > Why on earth would the wife of a so-called experienced businessman, who claims he has a reputation for creating jobs when in reality he outsourced them to China, be speaking to American families and digging in the knife?
> >
> ...





If we had smaller government, you wouldn't see all this unemployment.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 2, 2012)

Stephanie said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > The Romney-Ryan plan. Cut as many programs for the needy as possible. Delete MediCare and MediAid, steal all that is left in the SS fund. Reduce the taxes on the very wealthy to zero. Then blame the ensueing Depression on the liberals.
> ...



Really. You damned near managed that with "W". Now you want to try the same ol' shit again, only squared or cubed, with that Ryan twit in charge. 

January 2009, we were losing 750,000 jobs a month. The market dropped to half it's value. That was the result of the GOP policies. Now you want to double down on them?


----------



## HUGGY (Sep 2, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> That uppity bitch is as snotty as her husband.



Unless somebody has already said it I'd like to coin the word "Robocunt".

No thanks necessary.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 2, 2012)

Matthew said:


> Lakhota what would you cut to balance the budget?



I would not exempt rich people like the Romney's from the sacrifice, for starters.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 2, 2012)

The Ryan/Romney plan is as follows:

1. they now promise not to touch Medicare 

2.  they promise not to touch Social Security

3.  they promise to increase defense spending

4.  they promise to cut taxes

...any arguments with that so far?

So, with 1 through 4 they will _*increase*_ the deficit.

Now to their cuts that are supposed to eventually balance the budget:

You tell me.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 2, 2012)

The deficit won't increase if they stop the spending.  Stop the political hand outs to obama's chosen companies for a start.   Stop paying companies like Solyandra and Light Squared to fail, but not before they've made several hefty political donations.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Sep 2, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota what would you cut to balance the budget?
> ...



That won't fix it, there will still need to be entitlement cuts.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 2, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> The deficit won't increase if they stop the spending.  Stop the political hand outs to obama's chosen companies for a start.   Stop paying companies like Solyandra and Light Squared to fail, but not before they've made several hefty political donations.



If Romney were to make cuts in green energy government spending, but then turn around and make even bigger increases in defense spending,

how does that decrease the deficit?


----------



## Google (Sep 2, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> IGetItAlready said:
> 
> 
> > Duhkhota says, Why cut anything when we still have rich people to pay all the bills?
> ...



1. Roughly half of Americans, I'll go out on a limb and say you are one, pay zero income tax.  Another 25%-30% make a profit off of their taxes, ie get more money than they put in.

2.  A strong national defense is critical.  I know leftist like yourself have an instinctive hatred and contempt for our military and desperately wish to downsize America's influence in the world, but this is yet another issue that you are in the minority.

3.  Obama and the Democrats had the opportunity to allow the Bush tax cuts, but a Democrat Congress and White House extended them.  Furthermore, the Bush tax cuts saved or created millions of jobs.

4.  It is amazing the level of misinformation and ignorance of your posts.  If federal spending, deficits and debt were beneficial to economic growth we would be booming now.  You choose to ignore, or simply don't know, that for two years of Obama's presidency the Democrats held majorities in both the Senate and House.  

Spending has increased more under this administration than any previous, national debt has risen by $3,000,000,000,000--and simpletons like this believe if only we could go further in debt then Obama's policies would work


----------



## HUGGY (Sep 2, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



I would like to see that too.  We need the legislators to do something really radical and stupid to energise some people that count on their SS and medicare to go out and make some "cuts" of their own in the Johnny come lately herd that feeds in the gubmint pig trough.


----------



## Plasmaball (Sep 2, 2012)

IGetItAlready said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > For all you wingnuts who try to falsely blame Obama for the national debt, deficits and economy, I invite you to please give us an accounting of the debt that Obama has added - that wasn't a direct or indirect result of Bush actions.  The Bush debt clock didn't just stop on the day Obama was sworn in.  Let me give you some starting tips: TWO wars that Bush kept OFF budget that Obama keeps ON budget and the Bush tax cuts.  In short, Bush-era policies are still driving the numbers.
> ...



And according to people like you,bush never happened. His admin wasn't even at the convention nor made a speech. Its like 6 years of bad policy was all our imagination amd 2 years was all dems fault till obama took office.

Well sally as much as you people try to ignore history,the fact remains it happened.I suggest you come to terms with it.

As for ann,its interesting she would state this. It is unwise for her to state such things and opens her up to attacks..


----------



## tinydancer (Sep 2, 2012)

IGetItAlready said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > For all you wingnuts who try to falsely blame Obama for the national debt, deficits and economy, I invite you to please give us an accounting of the debt that Obama has added - that wasn't a direct or indirect result of Bush actions.  The Bush debt clock didn't just stop on the day Obama was sworn in.  Let me give you some starting tips: TWO wars that Bush kept OFF budget that Obama keeps ON budget and the Bush tax cuts.  In short, Bush-era policies are still driving the numbers.
> ...





I'm out of rep for today, but I'll rep you later.


----------



## Google (Sep 2, 2012)

This constant insistence that tax cuts, be it Bush Tax Cuts or not, is a government expenditure is illogical and revealing into the mindset of those on the left.  To believe that letting people keep more of the money they own is a government expense, you have to believe that all the money a person earns is the government's and what ever they let them keep is an expenditure that adds to the debt and deficit.

The left only proclaims to care about the debt/deficit when they are wanting to increase taxes on those people that they hold in such contempt and hatred.  They believe that these bastard rich are not only to blame for all the ills in their own lives, but all of the ills in the country.  They believe that the reason they are loosing political influence is because these rich people have bought the elections, that the Tea Party is these damn rich people influencing racist, backwards hicks to keep them from paying taxes, and gas prices are high because of the Koch Brothers.  

The left always and forever will need a continual boogey man, much like the Nazi's need the Jews, to place blame and project hatred by those whose lives are being negatively effected by the policies of this administration.  

Obama himself has admitted that raising taxes on the wealthy will have no impact on the deficit, but his lackeys continue to parrot this line.


----------



## Lakhota (Sep 2, 2012)

Ann looks and sounds scary.


----------



## Lakhota (Sep 2, 2012)




----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 2, 2012)

Mitt's going to put Ann in charge of FEMA,

because of her horse experience.


----------



## Moonglow (Sep 2, 2012)

But they won't touch Ann 188,000 dollar tax write off for her Olympic ballarina horse.
But they will cut out the mortgage deduction for millions of tax payers.


----------



## Moonglow (Sep 2, 2012)

Lakhota said:


>



Please, no more pics, I can't get a woody looking at that.


----------



## Conservadude (Sep 2, 2012)

Lakhota said:


>



What.. are we gonna just spend our way out of this mess?


----------



## Lakhota (Sep 2, 2012)

Conservadude said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



That's how Bush did it.


----------



## Moonglow (Sep 2, 2012)

but, but




> The broader Standard & Poor&#8217;s index is up 66.1 percent for Mr. Obama&#8217;s first term and the Nasdaq stock market has more than doubled, both increases more than was seen in the first terms of Presidents Carter, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, even as Mr. Obama has had sometimes difficult relations with Wall Street on issues ranging from financial regulation and taxes to the virtues of equity capitalism.
> 
> Read more: Stocks, gas prices offer hard election numbers for Obama - Washington Times Stocks, gas prices offer hard election numbers for Obama - Washington Times
> Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter





> A new study from the Social Science Research Network, a website that publishes scholarly research in fields such as economics and finance, argues that the stock market is the most important factor in determining whether a sitting president will be re-elected. In fact, its had a 33 percent influence on voters&#8217; choices, compared with only a 1 percent influence for the unemployment rate.
> 
> Read more: Stocks, gas prices offer hard election numbers for Obama - Washington Times Stocks, gas prices offer hard election numbers for Obama - Washington Times
> Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter


----------



## Lakhota (Sep 2, 2012)

> *CNN Host Dismantles Grover Norquists Anti-Tax Argument: This Is A Wish, Not A Plan*
> 
> _By Igor Volsky_
> 
> ...



More (w/graphs): CNN Host Dismantles Grover Norquist's Anti-Tax Argument: 'This Is A Wish, Not A Plan' | ThinkProgress


----------



## Big Black Dog (Sep 2, 2012)

We need to cut every program except for the military by 1/3 and not spend any more money than what is taken in on taxes.  For God sakes, stop borrowing money from China.


----------



## Lakhota (Sep 2, 2012)

Big Black Dog said:


> We need to cut every program except for the military by 1/3 and not spend any more money than what is taken in on taxes.  For God sakes, stop borrowing money from China.



I suspect your avatar is smarter than you.


----------



## Listening (Sep 2, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> That uppity bitch is as snotty as her husband.



She's ten times the person you'll ever be.

She is potentially going to be first lady.

You live in a trailer, lie about your neighbors, wait for your government checks and spend way to much time on meaningless message boards.

Your tombstone will be a blank.



Lakhota said:


> > *CNN Host Dismantles Grover Norquist&#8217;s Anti-Tax Argument: &#8216;This Is A Wish, Not A Plan&#8217;*
> >
> > _By Igor Volsky_
> >
> ...



The only wish here is yours.  You wish he'd won the debate.  Fareed is nothing but a worm in a suit.  CNN should fire his ass pretty soon so he can join the "intellectuals" over at MSNBC.  








Lakhota said:


> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> > We need to cut every program except for the military by 1/3 and not spend any more money than what is taken in on taxes.  For God sakes, stop borrowing money from China.
> ...



Another sterling comeback by the board ball-licker.

Nothing wrong with stopping borrowing.


----------



## initforme (Sep 2, 2012)

The military can be trimmed no doubt.   I'm not for massive cuts but trimming it is in order no doubt.  To say trimming shouldnt happen and be for less gov't seems hypocriticial.  If you are going to cut nothing should be off the table.  Oh, and alot less factory jobs and oh yes mandatory post high school training so only higher paying jobs are offered.  Minimum wage left only for kids.  ONLY for kids.   Let those bad businesses that are interested in low labor costs to wither and go away and I for one will cheer at their demise.


----------



## courseofhistory (Sep 2, 2012)

I would make the Romney's take a cut!


----------



## SuMar (Sep 2, 2012)

Big Black Dog said:


> We need to cut every program except for the military by 1/3 and not spend any more money than what is taken in on taxes.  For God sakes, stop borrowing money from China.



You know the libs want to keep this country in debt so we become totally dependent on their social agendas. 

And of course to deflect on having to answer any concerns about the economy, they harp on social issues that nobody gives a crap about currently such as abortion...gun control and gay marriage.


----------



## Dr.House (Sep 2, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Ending the Bush tax cuts would be a good start. We'd have Clinton prosperity once again.



0bama doesn't want to end the Bush cuts....

Sorry...

What else ya got?


----------



## Sinjorri (Sep 2, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> That uppity bitch is as snotty as her husband.



and your filled with hate,  at least shes telling people america needs to cut back,  you are still just full of hate.


----------



## Listening (Sep 3, 2012)

Sinjorri said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > That uppity bitch is as snotty as her husband.
> ...



Yep,

That ought to get the Tea Party on board.

And a lot of fiscally conservatve democrats.

Working towards balancing the budget.

Of course, we are going to have to raise taxes...everybody knows it.


----------



## Listening (Sep 3, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> That uppity bitch is as snotty as her husband.


----------



## barry1960 (Sep 3, 2012)

Listening said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > That uppity bitch is as snotty as her husband.
> ...



Fareed Zakeria is a moderate and a pretty smart guy. One can learn a lot from his show. The segment with Norquist was interesting. Fareed would not fit in with the "intellectuals" at MSNBC or with that "brain trust" over at Fox news.


----------



## Lakhota (Sep 3, 2012)

Ann Romney IS an uppity bitch!


----------



## Lakhota (Sep 3, 2012)

Sounds like Ann spent most of her college years knocked up: _"Right after Mitt graduated in 1975, we had our third boy"_


----------



## Murf76 (Sep 3, 2012)

Guess what boys 'n girls... When Romney is president, EVERYBODY is gonna get a hair cut.  There's not going to BE any sacred cows, and ya know why?  ...It's because at 16 TRILLION dollars, we can no longer afford any.

We'll spend less on the welfare system, but the safety net will be there for those in true need.  And we'll spend less on national security, but the dollars will buy us more.  And the reason for all that is because we've been spending our money STUPIDLY.  But that's going to stop under Romney.  The guy knows how to squeeze a buck and get the most out of it.


----------



## Lakhota (Sep 3, 2012)

Murf76 said:


> Guess what boys 'n girls... When Romney is president, EVERYBODY is gonna get a hair cut.  There's not going to BE any sacred cows, and ya know why?  ...It's because at 16 TRILLION dollars, we can no longer afford any.
> 
> We'll spend less on the welfare system, but the safety net will be there for those in true need.  And we'll spend less on national security, but the dollars will buy us more.  And the reason for all that is because we've been spending our money STUPIDLY.  But that's going to stop under Romney.  The guy knows how to squeeze a buck and get the most out of it.



Yeah, right.  Just like he did as governor...






http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...rnor-so-why-would-he-be-a-good-president.html


----------



## Murf76 (Sep 3, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> > Guess what boys 'n girls... When Romney is president, EVERYBODY is gonna get a hair cut.  There's not going to BE any sacred cows, and ya know why?  ...It's because at 16 TRILLION dollars, we can no longer afford any.
> ...



As governor, his state achieved FULL EMPLOYMENT.  So, yeah... "just like he did as governor".


----------



## Againsheila (Sep 3, 2012)

Matthew said:


> Lakhota what would you cut to balance the budget?



taxes on those making less than $75,000 a year.  Then the money would go back into the economy, creating jobs.


----------



## Lakhota (Sep 3, 2012)

Murf76 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > Murf76 said:
> ...



Full employment?  He was 48th in job creation.  Damn, that's funny...


----------



## Murf76 (Sep 3, 2012)

Listening said:


> Sinjorri said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



Not one American should be asked to pay a dime more until federal spending is under control.  And after that happens, yeah... if we need to raise taxes a little more the reasoning behind it will be clear.  Really though, revenues have tripled since 1965, and that's in adjusted dollars.  But spending has more than quintupled.  We won't know what we're looking at until we get the spending down where it needs to be.


----------



## Murf76 (Sep 3, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



Yes.  Full employment.  That means _less than 5%_.  MA was at 4.6% when Romney left.  So really, job creation wasn't a factor.


----------



## Lakhota (Sep 3, 2012)

> &#9632;The ad claims Romney &#8220;reduced unemployment to just 4.7 percent.&#8221; Yes &#8212; Massachusetts&#8217; unemployment rate went from 5.6 percent to 4.6 percent under Romney. But &#8212; the state&#8217;s unemployment rate was slightly lower than the national rate when he took office, and was roughly the same as the national rate when he left office.



FactCheck.org : Romney&#8217;s Jobs Record Is Best (or Worst)


----------



## IHBF (Sep 3, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota what would you cut to balance the budget?
> ...



People wouldn't like that.


----------



## Lakhota (Sep 3, 2012)




----------



## Barb (Sep 3, 2012)

editec said:


> I do not doubt for a moment that should Romney attain the oval office, that millions of Americans will immediately regret it.
> 
> It will take the right wingers (who are not insiders) a while longer to realize that Romney'd plans aren't working, either.
> 
> But eventually even _they'll_ get it.



They will, but up the arse, and they'll pretend to like it.


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 3, 2012)

FA_Q2 said:


> Why, because she is telling the truth?  There ARE going to be cuts in programs that people will not like, PERIOD.  It does not matter who wins.  Our financial future cannot exist on this current path by the rosiest estimates.  I guess that you dont actually want to hear the truth though.  You would rather listen to Obama tell you that everything will be just fine if we can simply get those evil rich people to pay for everything.
> 
> 
> Sorry, some of us are not idiots and actually want to hear the TRUTH.



Oh, so you are interested in the truth?

Try this truth on for size:

What I learned from hanging out with deficit hawks

The Fiscal Solutions Tour is the latest Peter G. Peterson Foundation effort to rouse the public against deficits and the national debt  and in particular (though they manage to avoid saying so) to win support for measures that would impose drastic cuts on Social Security and Medicare. It features Robert Bixby of the Concord Coalition, former Comptroller General David Walker and the veteran economist Alice Rivlin, whose recent distinctions include serving on the Bowles-Simpson commission. They came to Austin on February 9 and (partly because Rivlin is an old friend) I went.

Mr. Bixby began by describing the public debt as the defining issue of our time. It is, he said, a question of how big a debt we can have and what can we afford? He did not explain why this is so. He did not, for instance, attempt to compare the debt to the financial crisis, to joblessness or foreclosures, nor to energy or climate change. Oddly none of those issues were actually mentioned by anyone, all evening long.

A notable feature of Bixbys presentation were his charts. One of them showed clearly how the public deficit soared at the precise moment that the financial crisis struck in late 2008. The chart also shows how the Clinton surpluses had started to disappear in the recession of 2000. But Mr. Bixby seemed not to have noticed either event. Flashing this chart, he merely commented that Congress took care of the budget surplus. Still, the charts did show the facts  and in this respect they were the intellectual highpoint of the occasion.

A David Walker speech is always worth listening to with care, for Mr. Walker is a reliable and thorough enumerator of popular deficit-scare themes. Three of these in particular caught my attention on Friday.

To my surprise, Walker began on a disarming note: *he acknowledged that the level of our national debt is not actually high. In relation to GDP, it is only a bit over half of what it was in 1946. And to give more credit, the number Walker used, 63 percent, refers to debt held by the public, which is the correct construct  not the 90+ percent figure for gross debt, commonly seen in press reports and in comparisons with other countries. The relevant number is today below where it was in the mid-1950s, and comparable to the early 1990s.*


----------



## editec (Sep 3, 2012)

Ann's right.

Assuming that no compromise on the budget manifests, the folks in the military are positively going to HATE the fact that they are REDUCED IN FORCE as the militaary budget is cut deeply..

And since the economy is going to further go down thanks to that austerity move, the folks who go from sucking those FEDERAL TEATS are going to have one hell of a hard time finding work in the civilian capitalist world their masters have crafted..

Romany and his ilk don't really care what happens to the people of the US, though.

So one must applaude Ann's honesty for pointing out what a forking mess her man is planning for this nation.

.


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 3, 2012)

editec said:


> Ann's right.
> 
> Assuming that no compromise on the budget manifests, the folks in the military are positively going to HATE the fact that they are REDUCED IN FORCE as the militaary budget is cut deeply..
> 
> ...



What Bernanke Couldn't Quite Say

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke used his much-anticipated Friday speech at the Fed's annual end-of-summer conference in Jackson Hole, Wyo., to sound almost like the last Keynesian.

As he put it: "Monetary policy cannot achieve by itself what a broader and more balanced set of economic policies might achieve; in particular, it cannot neutralize the fiscal and financial risks that the country faces."

His point was that the rest of the government had to do some heavy lifting, too.

"It is critical that fiscal policymakers put in place a credible plan that sets the federal budget on a sustainable trajectory in the medium and longer runs. However, policymakers should take care to avoid a sharp near-term fiscal contraction that could endanger the recovery."

Translation: we will never get a strong recovery just by relying on cheap interest rates. We need a more sensible fiscal policy.

A Federal Reserve chairman is not supposed to address such topics, because taxing and spending are not part of his franchise. But to the extent that the failure to stimulate the economy has put unrealistic pressure on the Fed to work miracles, fiscal policy is necessarily the Fed's business.

What Bernanke hinted at, but couldn't quite say, was this:

While we need to bring deficits down over the long term, for the next few years we need more stimulus, not less. It isn't just a matter of avoiding "the fiscal cliff," as Bernanke warned. We need far more government spending.

The closest Bernanke could come to saying this was by expressing polite concern about fiscal "headwinds." As he put it: "Notwithstanding some recent improvement in tax revenues, state and local governments still face tight budget situations and continue to cut real spending and employment."

Translation: government should not be cutting back in a deep recession; it should be making up for the shortfall in private purchasing power.

In the 1930s, when the United States faced a far deeper depression, we built the Golden Gate Bridge, the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, the George Washington Bridge and the first modern highway systems; we constructed and renovated thousands of public schools, fire stations and post offices; planted a billion trees; laid 20,000 miles of water mains; electrified rural America and undertook countless other public works projects. And when the early projects were not sufficient to end the Great Depression, we doubled down.

This time around, President Obama in February 2009 persuaded Congress to enact a $787 billion stimulus program that his own advisers considered inadequate, but one that did a lot of good -- for two years. Then nearly all of the stimulus spending petered out. Of the total, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that $718 billion was spent by 2011. And by 2011, of course, Republicans controlled the House so no further stimulus was politically possible.

Today, there is so much public infrastructure in disarray, such a crying need to move the nation to a sustainable energy path, and so great a need for the jobs that could be created by large-scale public investments that more stimulus spending should be a no-brainer. But this alternative is not even being seriously debated. Rather Democratic paths to deficit reduction are jousting with Republican paths.

So here is Ben Bernanke -- a Republican, first appointed by George W. Bush, a huge admirer of Milton Friedman -- saying what no other Republican and too few Democrats are willing to say: The problem is not the deficit, but the risk that Congress will overreact to the deficit.


----------



## Stephanie (Sep 3, 2012)

just what the hell was PREVENTING Bernake FROM SAYING THAT?



> What Bernanke hinted at, but couldn't quite say, was this:
> 
> While we need to bring deficits down over the long term, for the next few years we need more stimulus, not less. It isn't just a matter of avoiding "the fiscal cliff," as Bernanke warned. We need far more government spending.



man oh man


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 3, 2012)

Stephanie said:


> just what the hell was PREVENTING Bernake FROM SAYING THAT?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Here's a novel idea Steph...try READING...

_A Federal Reserve chairman is not supposed to address such topics, because taxing and spending are not part of his franchise._

Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 3, 2012)

Mitt Romney's claims to having engineered anything positive about the Massachusett's economy (except, ironically, the healthcare plan he won't talk about)

 during his tenure as governor cover up one fact that changes the whiole story -

Romney vetoed 800 bills while governor, almost all of which were overriden by an 85% Democratic legislature.

Romney did not make  Massachusetts an economic success while governor;  he had no power to do so.  His big accomplishment, the MA healthcare plan, occurred when Romney for all practical purposes, became a Democrat.

Romney As Governor: 800 Vetoes And One Big Deal : NPR


----------



## Stephanie (Sep 3, 2012)

Bfgrn said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > just what the hell was PREVENTING Bernake FROM SAYING THAT?
> ...



oh ok, so we'll let the Hufferpost translate it for us, and THIS is what they come up with folks




> While we need to bring deficits down over the long term, for the next few years we need more stimulus, not less. It isn't just a matter of avoiding "the fiscal cliff," as Bernanke warned. We need far more government spending.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Sep 3, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> *Ann Romney: 'Going to be cuts made to a lot of programs people aren't going to like'*


Isn't it about time she let's her ol' man know what those might be.....'cause *he* sure-as-fuck hasn't come-up with anything, yet.



(Is she bangin' Karl Rove?)​


----------



## FA_Q2 (Sep 3, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> > &#9632;The ad claims Romney reduced unemployment to just 4.7 percent. Yes  Massachusetts unemployment rate went from 5.6 percent to 4.6 percent under Romney. But  the states unemployment rate was slightly lower than the national rate when he took office, and was roughly the same as the national rate when he left office.
> 
> 
> 
> FactCheck.org : Romneys Jobs Record Is Best (or Worst)



Do you even understand what full employment is?  What would you expect?  That unemployment go below 4 percent?  3 percent?  Do you even realize that it is healthy for an economy to have SOME unemployment.  

Your fact check is utter bullshit.  More jobs were not created there because THEY WERE NOT NEEDED.


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 3, 2012)

Stephanie said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



Don't like Robert Kuttner's opinion? How about the far right Washington Times?

Bernanke hints at more Fed stimulus

 Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on Friday left the door wide open to a further easing of monetary policy, saying the stagnation in the U.S. labor market was a "grave concern," but he stopped short of providing a clear signal of imminent action.

His stark language gave a temporary lift to U.S. stocks, but economists walked away from the Fed chairman's remarks still divided over whether the central bank would launch a fresh round of bond purchases at its upcoming meeting in September.

Bernanke said the Fed had to weigh the costs as well as the benefits of more monetary stimulus, although *he hinted the costs were likely worthwhile.*

Read more: Bernanke hints at more Fed stimulus | Times 247


----------



## RoadVirus (Sep 3, 2012)

Annie said:


> Even if Obama wins, by year 2, there will be cuts. He won't like them, neither will those effected.



Yeah right. Obama and the Dumbos in Congress would rather see another credit downgrade then cut things they won't like to cut (welfare).


----------



## Moonglow (Sep 3, 2012)

RoadVirus said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > Even if Obama wins, by year 2, there will be cuts. He won't like them, neither will those effected.
> ...



Your ignorance is a dime a dozen with RWer's,



> On September 19,. 2011, President Obama presented his detailed plan to reduce the federal deficit, and to pay for his jobs creation bill, The American Jobs Act.
> Per the President, his deficit reduction plan will achieve "approximately $4.4 trillion in deficit reduction" and pay for "the cost of the American Jobs Act," which is about $447 billion. "This plan cuts $2 in spending for every dollar in new revenues," the President added.
> 
> In summary, the President's plan reduces the U.S. deficit with the following federal spending cuts and tax increases, as follows:
> ...


Summary of Obama's Deficit Reduction Plan - President Obama's Plan to Reduce the Deficit

today the US govt. has 276 thousand fewer govt. employed people than 1985 under reagan and his smaller govt.


----------



## Moonglow (Sep 3, 2012)

RoadVirus said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > Even if Obama wins, by year 2, there will be cuts. He won't like them, neither will those effected.
> ...



the downgrade was from not taxing more and having more revenue coming in, not because of the dumos and reputurds.


----------



## squeeze berry (Sep 3, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> Mitt's going to put Ann in charge of FEMA,
> 
> because of her horse experience.



then Mitt should put you in charge of the NYC sewer system


----------



## healthmyths (Sep 3, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> > It is like a bad dream come true, Ann Romney explaining the policies that will be put in place, should her husband win the election in November. Theres going to be cuts, in programs and people wont like it.
> >
> > Why on earth would the wife of a so-called experienced businessman, who claims he has a reputation for creating jobs when in reality he outsourced them to China, be speaking to American families and digging in the knife?
> >
> ...



Probably people that won't like the cuts are these people...
Chinese and Vietnamese Prostitutes...


  - spend $2.6 million to make sure prostitutes in China drink less on the job.
  - $1.44 million in federal funds estimating the size of the population and examining the social milieu  of male prostitutes in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
  -  on-tax-dollars-spent-to-study-male-prostitutes-in-vietnam
  -  Washington spends $25 billion annually maintaining unused or vacant federal properties

U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) today released a new oversight report, 
_*Wastebook 2010 that highlights some of the most egregious examples of government waste in 2010.*_
Dr. Coburn Releases New Oversight Report:


----------



## Barb (Sep 3, 2012)

RoadVirus said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > Even if Obama wins, by year 2, there will be cuts. He won't like them, neither will those effected.
> ...



Welfare, as of 2000, is 1.7% of the ENTIRE FEDERAL BUDGET, asswipe. 

You can't continue to try to balance the whole household budget by ever cheaper brands of kitty litter and toilet paper. Sooner or later the champagne and caviar has to go.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 3, 2012)

Maybe Finland won't get the money to keep their auto industry going.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Sep 3, 2012)

I only read half of the first page but I am guessing there was a lot of liberal fail in this thread. The statement is factual and honest. 

Bring on the cuts and then we can discuss higher taxes


----------



## GuyPinestra (Sep 3, 2012)

Lakhota said:


>



You looked at the 'pay gap' in the Obama White House lately?

Fucking hack!


----------



## initforme (Sep 3, 2012)

Start with Dept of transportation and commerce.  Cut em.


----------



## squeeze berry (Sep 3, 2012)

initforme said:


> Start with Dept of transportation and commerce.  Cut em.



 DOE and HUD


----------



## Dot Com (Sep 3, 2012)

Barb said:


> RoadVirus said:
> 
> 
> > Annie said:
> ...



Amen to that sister


----------



## squeeze berry (Sep 3, 2012)

Barb said:


> RoadVirus said:
> 
> 
> > Annie said:
> ...



booze and cigs are something people on welfare always seem to be able to afford


----------



## Vel (Sep 3, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> That uppity bitch is as snotty as her husband.



Wow, that much hate usually means fear. Are you afraid that if Obama doesn't get elected the economy might improve and you'll have to move out of your Mommy's basement and stand on your own two feet?


----------



## Barb (Sep 3, 2012)

squeeze berry said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > RoadVirus said:
> ...



What part of one. POINT. seven. percent. of. THE. ENTIRE. FEDERAL. BUDGET. is hard (even for you) to grasp? 

The analogy stands. Our government since Reagan has tried to balance budgets that plan more for champagne and caviar than basic household supplies for thirty YEARS. They then use the inevitable results to campaign against anything that amounts to sane fiscal management. But hey, you have fun down that rabbit hole. Just don't try to upstage the Red Queen too much.


----------



## HUGGY (Sep 3, 2012)

squeeze berry said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > RoadVirus said:
> ...



Ya that's a plan!  Take away the cigarettes!  You are going to have a whole lot of pissed off people with THAT plan.  I can't wait to see how that works out.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Sep 3, 2012)

We've got hundreds of unnecessary overseas bases staffed by 10's of 1000's of military. Close the bases, bring home the men. It saves billions of dollars and we get the added benefit of those soldiers spending their paychecks HERE, stimulating OUR economy rather than someone else's.

I'm sure we could use 50,000 or more of them on our southern border stopping the influx of illegal aliens, saving what few jobs we have left for LEGAL American citizens.

Looks like a win/win to me...


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 3, 2012)

Annie said:


> There are going to be cuts, people aren't going to like them. That's a fact. Even if Obama wins, by year 2, there will be cuts. He won't like them, neither will those effected. That is a fact. It's unavoidable, regardless of who wins.



I agree, there will be cuts.  

And there will probably be tax increases no matter who wins.  

But then it becomes a question of why you are making cuts and who is effected by them.  

I have no problem trimming the growth of medicare to ensure it is there in 15 years when I'm going to need it.  

I have a huge problem with gutting it and turning it into an inadquate voucher plan so that a few rich people can get even more tax breaks.


----------



## Dot Com (Sep 3, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > There are going to be cuts, people aren't going to like them. That's a fact. Even if Obama wins, by year 2, there will be cuts. He won't like them, neither will those effected. That is a fact. It's unavoidable, regardless of who wins.
> ...



I agree w/ you. Repubs never liked it anyway. They say they want to "save it" but what they mean is they want it to be a mere shadow of its former self.


----------



## Vel (Sep 3, 2012)

Dot Com said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Annie said:
> ...



 If Obama wins re-election Medicare will be gutted and run by a panel of 15 un-elected appointees who will get to decide how to continue skimming from Medicare to fund Obamatax. LOL.. That's amusing that you think it will be there for you if Obama has his way. The competition introduced by the Romney plan will start to lower costs and make programs responsive to consumers again.


----------



## P@triot (Sep 3, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> > It is like a bad dream come true, Ann Romney explaining the policies that will be put in place, should her husband win the election in November. Theres going to be cuts, in programs and people wont like it.
> >
> > Why on earth would the wife of a so-called experienced businessman, who claims he has a reputation for creating jobs when in reality he outsourced them to China, be speaking to American families and digging in the knife?
> >
> ...



Yes - that's called leadership. This is how you know that the GOP are the only adults in the room. As a parent, you constantly have to make decisions that your children don't like, but which are good for them.

The same with ending the nation collapsing gravy train for the parasite class...


----------



## Lakhota (Sep 3, 2012)

The Romney mantra: Privatize gains, socialize losses.

Government welfare for the rich far exceeds government welfare for the poor.


----------



## Moonglow (Sep 3, 2012)

Rottweiler said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > > It is like a bad dream come true, Ann Romney explaining the policies that will be put in place, should her husband win the election in November. Theres going to be cuts, in programs and people wont like it.
> ...



like the politicans?


----------



## Stephanie (Sep 3, 2012)

HUGGY said:


> squeeze berry said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



naaa, they can't do that then Obama and the Democrats won't be able to tax the poor

SNIP:
ma's Tax on the (Smoking) Non-Rich 
Calvin Woodward writes for the Associated Press: "One of President Barack Obama's campaign pledges on taxes went up in puffs of smoke Wednesday.

*"The largest increase in tobacco taxes took effect* despite Obama's promise not to raise taxes of any kind on families earning under $250,000 or individuals under $200,000.

"This is one tax that disproportionately affects the poor, who are more likely to smoke than the rich."

Obama's no-taxes pledge was most often made in the context of income taxes. But consider this: "'I can make a firm pledge,' he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12. 'Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.'...

the rest at
White House Watch - Obama's Tax on the (Smoking) Non-Rich

but VOTE for him again suckers


----------



## Lakhota (Sep 3, 2012)




----------



## FA_Q2 (Sep 3, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> We've got hundreds of unnecessary overseas bases staffed by 10's of 1000's of military. Close the bases, bring home the men. It saves billions of dollars and we get the added benefit of those soldiers spending their paychecks HERE, stimulating OUR economy rather than someone else's.
> 
> I'm sure we could use 50,000 or more of them on our southern border stopping the influx of illegal aliens, saving what few jobs we have left for LEGAL American citizens.
> 
> Looks like a win/win to me...



Very much so, and one of the things that NEITHER party wants to accomplish.

And yet we sit here arguing for and against the 2 parties.


----------



## Stephanie (Sep 3, 2012)

Lakhota said:


>



the poor dear child has entered the room


----------



## Lakhota (Sep 3, 2012)




----------



## Stephanie (Sep 3, 2012)

AGAIN PEOPLE, OBAMA PLEDGED not to raise your TAXES and he LIED to you and did it as soon as he BECAME PRESIDENT
--------------------------------
"One of President Barack Obama's campaign pledges on taxes went up in puffs of smoke Wednesday.

"The largest increase in tobacco taxes took effect despite Obama's promise not to raise taxes of any kind on families earning under $250,000 or individuals under $200,000.

"This is one tax that disproportionately affects the poor, who are more likely to smoke than the rich."

Obama's no-taxes pledge was most often made in the context of income taxes. But consider this: "'I can make a firm pledge,' he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12. 'Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.'...

the rest at
White House Watch - Obama's Tax on the (Smoking) Non-Rich


----------



## Dot Com (Sep 3, 2012)

u seriously goin to vote for Willard Stephanie?


----------



## Lakhota (Sep 3, 2012)

Stephanie said:


> AGAIN PEOPLE, OBAMA PLEDGED not to raise your TAXES and he LIED to you and did it as soon as he BECAME PRESIDENT
> --------------------------------
> "One of President Barack Obama's campaign pledges on taxes went up in puffs of smoke Wednesday.
> 
> ...



Yes, he did - and it REALLY pissed me off.  I can afford my smokes, but that's not the point.  Tobacco taxes are used for just about everything - EXCEPT smokers' healthcare.


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 3, 2012)

Vel said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Ignorance in one paragraph. Why are you right wingers so stupid?

Affordable Insurance Exchanges

The Affordable Care Act helps create a competitive private health insurance market through the creation of Affordable Insurance Exchanges. These State-based, competitive marketplaces, which launch in 2014, will provide millions of Americans and small businesses with &#8220;one-stop shopping&#8221; for affordable coverage. They will also provide the sole venue where Members of Congress will get their health insurance.

What is a health insurance exchange?

Exchanges are new organizations that will be set up to create a more organized and competitive market for buying health insurance. They will offer a choice of different health plans, certifying plans that participate and providing information to help consumers better understand their options.

Beginning in 2014, Exchanges will serve primarily individuals buying insurance on their own and small businesses with up to 100 employees, though states can choose to include larger employers in the future. States are expected to establish Exchanges--which can be a government agency or a non-profit organization--with the federal government stepping in if a state does not set them up. States can create multiple Exchanges, so long as only one serves each geographic area, and can work together to form regional Exchanges. The federal government will offer technical assistance to help states set up Exchanges.


The Facts About the Independent Payment Advisory Board

The Independent Payment Advisory Board &#8211; IPAB, was created by the Affordable Care Act. Here&#8217;s how IPAB works:


15 experts including doctors and patient advocates would be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate to serve on IPAB.


IPAB would recommend policies to Congress to help Medicare provide better care at lower costs.  This could include ideas on coordinating care, getting rid of waste in the system, incentivizing best practices, and prioritizing primary care.


IPAB is specifically prohibited by law from recommending any policies that ration care, raise taxes, increase premiums or cost-sharing, restrict benefits or modify who is eligible for Medicare.

Congress then has the power to accept or reject these recommendations. If Congress rejects the recommendations, and Medicare spending exceeds specific targets, Congress must either enact policies that achieve equivalent savings or let the Secretary of Health and Human Services follow IPAB&#8217;s recommendations.

IPAB is a backstop &#8211; it would only take effect if Medicare costs grow too fast.  We&#8217;re already implementing a series of reforms that will improve the quality of care and reduce costs. In fact, according to Congressional Budget Office projections, Medicare spending won&#8217;t hit the targets that would cause IPAB&#8217;s recommendations to take effect in the next decade. But independent experts agree that IPAB will offer constructive ideas and help keep Medicare cost growth per enrollee affordable in the long run:

Experts including former Bush Administration Medicare Official Mark McClellan called for &#8220;[strengthening] and [clarifying] the authority and capacity of the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB).&#8221;

Former Congressional Budget Office Director Former CBO Director Robert Reischauer called IPAB a &#8220;big deal&#8221; that &#8220;could generate substantial savings.&#8221;

Experts from the Commonwealth Fund wrote &#8220;the Affordable Care Act includes important provisions that will finally begin to control unchecked health care costs, such as&#8230;the creation of the Independent Payment Advisory Board. Building on and extending these provisions across the health system has the greatest promise of slowing the growth of government health care budget outlays, private insurance premiums, and underlying health care cost trends.&#8221;

    A coalition of economists including three Nobel laureates said &#8220;the Affordable Care Act contains essentially every cost-containment provision policy analysts have considered effective in reducing the rate of medical spending&#8221; including an Independent Payment Advisory Board.

Under the President&#8217;s framework, seniors will have their guaranteed Medicare benefits. People on Medicare won&#8217;t be saddled with thousands of dollars in additional health care costs. And Medicare beneficiaries will be able to choose the health care plan and doctor that work for them.


----------



## Stephanie (Sep 3, 2012)

Dot Com said:


> u seriously goin to vote for Willard Stephanie?



the bigger question is are you going to vote for the liar in Chief?


----------



## Harry Dresden (Sep 3, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Ending the Bush tax cuts would be a good start. We'd have Clinton prosperity once again.



are we going to have another Dot-Com Boom?....


----------



## Annie (Sep 3, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> Ben Bernanke and others are warning against further austerity measures.  Apparently, Bernanke is finally planning to take some action.  What took him so long?
> 
> Is The Fed Finally Poised To Do Something About The Economy? | TPMDC



You are living in neverland. Anyone that deals with cash; banking, retail; will tell you there is way too much 'new money.' Be it coin or paper, it's slush. Now you want more slush? Hello inflation in big way.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Sep 3, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> For all you wingnuts who try to falsely blame Obama for the national debt, deficits and economy, I invite you to please give us an accounting of the debt that Obama has added - that wasn't a direct or indirect result of Bush actions.  The Bush debt clock didn't just stop on the day Obama was sworn in.  Let me give you some starting tips: TWO wars that Bush kept OFF budget that Obama keeps ON budget and the Bush tax cuts.  In short, Bush-era policies are still driving the numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



hey Lakunta.....when can people start blaming Obama for the stuff he is responsible for doing?.....just thought i would ask....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Sep 3, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> The Romney-Ryan plan. Cut as many programs for the needy as possible. Delete MediCare and MediAid, steal all that is left in the SS fund. Reduce the taxes on the very wealthy to zero. Then blame the ensueing Depression on the liberals.
> 
> Because the plans of the GOP will result in the Second Great Republican Depression.



because we all know Democrats have never touched SS right Rocks?....out here Gov.Brown has cut many programs for the needy too.....maybe these Politicians are more alike than you want to admit....


----------



## Lakhota (Sep 3, 2012)

Social Security has been tuned and tweaked several times since its creation.  It just needs some more tuning and tweaking - not VOUCHERS.  Vouchercare is not what American want.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Sep 3, 2012)

Moonglow said:


> But they won't touch Ann 188,000 dollar tax write off for her Olympic ballarina horse.
> But they will cut out the mortgage deduction for millions of tax payers.



business expense...if you owned the Horse you would be doing the same dam thing....


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 3, 2012)

Dot Com said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Annie said:
> ...



It is kind of like Colonel Sanders suddenly developing a concern for the welfare of Chickens...


----------



## Harry Dresden (Sep 3, 2012)

Moonglow said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



you said you cant get one anyhow.....try some Levitra.....you will be able to get it up even if Helen Thomas is standing in front of you.....well maybe not....


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 3, 2012)

Harry Dresden said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > But they won't touch Ann 188,000 dollar tax write off for her Olympic ballarina horse.
> ...



Except it's not realy a business.  That dressage horse is not bringing in any money.  

It's really more of a hobby.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Sep 3, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



right and unless they make a buck or two breeding them....so what about Moons statement about a 188,000 dollar write off?.....i looked it up and Bloomberg business said the Romneys have not been able to write off anything YET except 50 bucks....here is what they said.....

*
In 2010, the only complete year of tax returns that the Romneys have released publicly, the couple was able to deduct only $50 of more than $77,000 in losses related to the horse business. When they can turn the losses into future deductions depends in part on whether and when their horse business becomes profitable.*

so Moon care to explain what you said?.....


----------



## Murf76 (Sep 3, 2012)

Lakhota said:


>



You know what's interesting about your little poster there?  It appears to forget ALL of Obamacare's many mandates. 

The guy telling women what their "healthcare choices" are going to be is... ta dah!...  Barack Obama.  They're told to buy the government-approved policy or face tax penalties.  They're told to buy it even if they have moral or religious objections to it.  They're told what kind of policies are acceptable and what aren't.  They're told that their medical records will include such vital statistics as BMI, and be electronically available by 2014 to the federal government for _Comparative Effectiveness Research_.  So much for the Right to Privacy which underlines Roe v. Wade, huh?

I actually think that Democrats are going to find that there is much more to American Women than they think, and that Abortion isn't the defining issue they believe it is.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 3, 2012)

squeeze berry said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > RoadVirus said:
> ...



lol, which if nothing else proves that poor people pay federal taxes.


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 3, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> > It is like a bad dream come true, Ann Romney explaining the policies that will be put in place, should her husband win the election in November. Theres going to be cuts, in programs and people wont like it.
> >
> > Why on earth would the wife of a so-called experienced businessman, who claims he has a reputation for creating jobs when in reality he outsourced them to China, be speaking to American families and digging in the knife?
> >
> ...




You guys have a Problem with Math it seems. She is Right, It is inevitable, We can not sustain this Pace, Painful Cuts will be a reality. 

I love your Reaction is to attack her for Pointing out a Mathematically Reality.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Sep 3, 2012)

Harry Dresden said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...


That was already pointed out to him in the first thread created on this subject but of course he is going to leave out the facts.

Bigots will be bigots.


----------



## Barb (Sep 4, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > AGAIN PEOPLE, OBAMA PLEDGED not to raise your TAXES and he LIED to you and did it as soon as he BECAME PRESIDENT
> ...



True story. Buuuut, poor people and smart people (but that turns out to be redundant, as necessity becomes the mother of invention) get around that one without driving to the reservations. 

Cigar cut tobacco isn't charged the same rate of tax, and its merely a longer cut of tobacco...it rolls the same. There are the little plastic rollers that don't cost the earth, but we broke down and bought an electric machine. A large bag of pipe cut tobacco and including the cost of tubes works out to be about .75 cents a pack.


----------



## Lakhota (Sep 4, 2012)

Barb said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



Thanks for the info.


----------



## courseofhistory (Sep 4, 2012)

What "cuts" are the Romney's going to make???  I think it's rather pompous of the Romney's to sit in judgement of what the rest of us are going to have to deal with.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 4, 2012)

FA_Q2 said:


> Why, because she is telling the truth?  There ARE going to be cuts in programs that people will not like, PERIOD.  It does not matter who wins.  Our financial future cannot exist on this current path by the rosiest estimates.  I guess that you dont actually want to hear the truth though.  You would rather listen to Obama tell you that everything will be just fine if we can simply get those evil rich people to pay for everything.
> 
> 
> Sorry, some of us are not idiots and actually want to hear the TRUTH.



Lokata has the you owe me and I'm  going to get mine mentality


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 4, 2012)

Why is there no sacrifice for the Romney's, and those like the Romney's, economically,

in these grand plans for national 'sacrifice' that Mitt Romney is proposing, and Ann Romney is dutifully endorsing?

What is the rationale for exempting the Rich from sacrifice at a time when a (sort of) national effort, requiring sacrifice, is considered necessary?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 4, 2012)

Faced with these 2 choices:

1.  Obama imposes cost cutting reforms on Medicare and uses some of the savings towards expanding Medicaid, the program providing healthcare for poor and low income Americans, or,

2.  Mitt Romney cuts Medicaid, the program providing healthcare for poor and low income Americans, and uses some of the savings to give himself a huge tax cut,

which one do you find - from an economic and a moral perspective - more defensible?


----------



## Claudette (Sep 4, 2012)

Big Black Dog said:


> We need to cut every program except for the military by 1/3 and not spend any more money than what is taken in on taxes.  For God sakes, stop borrowing money from China.



Yup. Everything should be on the table. Everything. 

I'm sure the DOD has loads of programs that can be cut without interfering with what it takes to keep our troops safe. 

The Govt is crammed full of duplicate, wateful and just plain stupid programs. 

Might be nice if the 49% who pay no Fed taxes pitched in as well. 

We are broke folks and borrowing more money from China ain't the answer. Spending cuts is. 

Anyone seen that commercial where a Chinese professor is telling his students that the US workers are working for China??


----------



## squeeze berry (Sep 4, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> Why is there no sacrifice for the Romney's, and those like the Romney's, economically,
> 
> in these grand plans for national 'sacrifice' that Mitt Romney is proposing, and Ann Romney is dutifully endorsing?
> 
> What is the rationale for exempting the Rich from sacrifice at a time when a (sort of) national effort, requiring sacrifice, is considered necessary?



let us know when Michelle stops buying $400 shoes


----------



## buckeye45_73 (Sep 4, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> That uppity bitch is as snotty as her husband.


 Actually you were talking about Moochelle, who once she goes back to Chitown, wont be proud of her country any longer.....


----------



## buckeye45_73 (Sep 4, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...


 


Wait Lakhota, so when the government won all those lawsuits and said all these great smoking programs were going to be funded by the lawsuits and taxes, you're saying they're not? are you shocked, SHOCKED by this? This is how liberals operate....how did you not see this one comming?


----------



## editec (Sep 4, 2012)

We are informed that if automatic cuts take place those cuts will be _across the board_ decreasing spending by $ 1 TRILLION over the next 10 years.

The Defense Department cuts will be $500 billion, at least $55 billion of which would go into effect immediately
Read more here: Sequestration sparks military spending cut concerns in Washington state - KansasCity.com


----------



## squeeze berry (Sep 4, 2012)

editec said:


> We are informed that if automatic cuts take place those cuts will be _across the board_ decreasing spending by $ 1 TRILLION over the next 10 years.
> 
> The Defense Department cuts will be $500 billion, at least $55 billion of which would go into effect immediately
> Read more here: Sequestration sparks military spending cut concerns in Washington state - KansasCity.com



quite frankly I'll be happy when/if we pull out of alot of places and have less military involvement


----------



## Barb (Sep 4, 2012)

buckeye45_73 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



It was up to the states to apply the money to non smoking programs. I think Vermont did. For the most part, few if any of the rest did. A bipartisan failure.


----------



## Barb (Sep 4, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> Faced with these 2 choices:
> 
> 1.  Obama imposes cost cutting reforms on Medicare and uses some of the savings towards expanding Medicaid, the program providing healthcare for poor and low income Americans, or,
> 
> ...



And the choices really *are* that clearly defined.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Sep 4, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> > It is like a bad dream come true, Ann Romney explaining the policies that will be put in place, should her husband win the election in November. There&#8217;s going to be cuts, in programs and people won&#8217;t like it.
> >
> > Why on earth would the wife of a so-called experienced businessman, who claims he has a reputation for creating jobs when in reality he outsourced them to China, be speaking to American families and digging in the knife?
> >
> ...




Can Lady Romney be a little more specific about the programs she will cut, or are us mere commoners unworthy of that knowledge?


I'm guessing it will be things like reproductive health aid for poor women and food stamps and health care for poor children - aid to the more wretched elements of society that we simply could do without - and not removal of tax loopholes for the uber-rich Duchies and Dukes like Bain and Lord Romney - without whom which we would all die fighting each other over food.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 4, 2012)

FA_Q2 said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



The insanity is that we got people out there trying to make ends meet, and these assholes are spending 188K on fucking dancing horses...


----------



## Harry Dresden (Sep 4, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Why, because she is telling the truth?  There ARE going to be cuts in programs that people will not like, PERIOD.  It does not matter who wins.  Our financial future cannot exist on this current path by the rosiest estimates.  I guess that you dont actually want to hear the truth though.  You would rather listen to Obama tell you that everything will be just fine if we can simply get those evil rich people to pay for everything.
> ...



also Lakunta doesnt answer certain questions asked of him.....says a lot about his character...


----------



## Harry Dresden (Sep 4, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



how is that different Joe than all those other rich fuckers in Congress who spend big money on Boats,vacation homes etc.etc........


----------



## Harry Dresden (Sep 4, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> Social Security has been tuned and tweaked several times since its creation.  It just needs some more tuning and tweaking - not VOUCHERS.  Vouchercare is not what American want.



bullshit.....the word is RAIDED......


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 4, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> squeeze berry said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



Because they have no discipline or responsibility. 
Booze and cigs come first to them, to hell with the kids. 
Force the government to plunder from the producers to give to them.
And one wonders why the moocher class is growing.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 4, 2012)

squeeze berry said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Why is there no sacrifice for the Romney's, and those like the Romney's, economically,
> ...



The President's plan would raise his and Michelle's taxes.  They're willing to share in the sacrifice.

Why aren't the Romney's?  Why does Mitt propose a plan of national belt tightening where only he and his Rich peers not only don't have to tighten their belts,

but they come out money ahead?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 4, 2012)

Harry Dresden said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > But they won't touch Ann 188,000 dollar tax write off for her Olympic ballarina horse.
> ...



A legitimate business has to have a reasonable expectation of being able to make  money.


----------



## Nova78 (Sep 4, 2012)

'Going to be cuts made to a lot of programs people aren't going to like' 


Like this is not the truth,you have a out of control president who pissses away money at will,time pull in the reins,truth always hurts......and you think in your wildest dreams we can continue on the path we are on ?


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 4, 2012)

Harry Dresden said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > Social Security has been tuned and tweaked several times since its creation.  It just needs some more tuning and tweaking - not VOUCHERS.  Vouchercare is not what American want.
> ...



The word is RAIDED......the names are Ronald Reagan, Alan Greenspan and David Stockman.


----------



## Goodoledays (Sep 4, 2012)

Matthew said:


> Lakhota what would you cut to balance the budget?



Hopefully his own tongue out.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 4, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



A legitimate business has to have a reasonable expectation OF WHAT GOVERNMENT POLICY WILL BE on taxes.
And with Obama I do not have that. I have "we will do this and that for another year and see"
So why would I want to start my 4th business when I have no clue what one of my major expenses will be?
You could tax everyone that makes over 250K a year 100% and it will not run the country for 7 months. That is fact.
Spending is the problem. Unfunded mandates for Medicare alone are 35 trillion for the next 30 years.
Do you really believe taxes being raised solves that?
Everytime we raise taxes government raises spending to match it. 
We doubled the size of food stamps and unemployment insurance in 4 years and Obama believes that is a success story.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 4, 2012)

Average age of Medicare recipient now is 79.
Was 69 25 years ago.


----------



## Goodoledays (Sep 4, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> I would make Paul Ryan eat his crazy budget.



I bet you would. Lets just go by Ubama's budget. PRINT MORE AND MORE MONEY. That would make you lefties so very happy.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 4, 2012)

Bfgrn said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



Democratic Congress passed it overwhelmingly.

*WELL DUH*

"Reagan forced us to do it Mommy"

Ignorance is growing.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 4, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



"Uncertainty" is a red herring.  There is never certainty, about tax policy, spending policy, regulatory policy, anything.  When was there ever certainty?

Reagan changed tax policy repeatedly over 8 years.  He cut taxes raised taxes cut taxes raised taxes over and over again.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 4, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



The executive DOES NOT AND CAN NEVER cut taxes.
That is a Legislative function per The Constitution.


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 4, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



Revenues are the bigger problem. And one party refuses to raise them. Do you understand what Obama is proposing on taxes over $250,000?

Your tax rate would not change on the first $250,000, it would be at the Bush tax rates even for Bill Gates, and it would increase by 4.5% on anything over $250,000.

So, if you made $250,001 you would pay 4 1/2 CENTS more in taxes...

SOCIALISM!!!!


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Sep 4, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



Or what? They no longer desire profit? How come I don't need to be able to predict the future for myself to desire income?


----------



## DiamondDave (Sep 4, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota what would you cut to balance the budget?
> ...



So otherwise stated.. you would cut extreme amounts from something the federal government is constitutionally charged to do... continue with a tax policy that is based on unequal treatment... continue to have larger numbers not contributing to the federal income tax pool.. and keep spending extraordinary amounts on entitlements the federal government is not constitutionally charged to do

Idiotic, to say the least


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Sep 4, 2012)

DiamondDave said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...




The Constitution charges the Congress with spending way too much on the military? Really?


----------



## DiamondDave (Sep 4, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



Nice leap... I said extreme cuts to something that the government is constitutionally charged to do.... There is no doubt that there is fat that can be trimmed from the defense budget.. but this bozo wants a 50% cut, while not eliminating things that the government is not constitutionally charged to do... all the while keeping the mantra of unequal treatment so that 'others' can pay for things you want


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Sep 4, 2012)

DiamondDave said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...




The Constitution charges Congress with a lot of things.


----------



## DiamondDave (Sep 4, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



It charges the government to do a list of SPECIFIC things.... it is not charged to be a nanny, allowance giver, etc.. then you have the 10th amendment that ensures that powers not specifically given to the federal govt are reserved for the states and/or the citizens...


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 4, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



I wasn't aware that the signing of tax legislation by the President had been stopped.  What year was that?

Stop being an idiot. PLEASE.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 4, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Only an idiot believes that Congress has no authority to over ride a Presidential veto.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 4, 2012)

GAO has it that by 2045, 33 years, that Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security will consume ONE HUNDRED PER CENT OF THE BUDGET.
So where do we cut other than the 3 fastest growing out of control expenses.

I saw a dumb ass reporter on the news last night asking Romney a question?

"So what was your objective when you were on the Board at Bain, creating jobs or making a profit?"

What OTHER motive and objective does any investor with an IQ over 42 have other than PROFIT?

America has become a nation of village idiots.


----------



## Lovebears65 (Sep 4, 2012)

Like it or not . IT is SOMETHING that has to be done. We ARE BROKE. Like NO MONEY. Like we borrow 40 cents on EVERY damn dollar..   The WELL IS DRY.. 





Lakhota said:


> > It is like a bad dream come true, Ann Romney explaining the policies that will be put in place, should her husband win the election in November. Theres going to be cuts, in programs and people wont like it.
> >
> > Why on earth would the wife of a so-called experienced businessman, who claims he has a reputation for creating jobs when in reality he outsourced them to China, be speaking to American families and digging in the knife?
> >
> ...


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 4, 2012)

Bfgrn said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



So tell us oh wise one how the 4.5 increases in the taxes income above 250K makes a dent in the debt.
Fact is those additional revenues were added up and it would take 250 years of them to balance the current 1.2 trillion dollar deficit this year.
Those extra taxes do not amount to anything to touch the 1.2 trillion a year deficit we are running.
Spending is the problem. Everytime we have raised taxes the spending goes up to spend the $.
You trust government? How stupid is that? 
You trust government with that extra tax revenue. Respectfully, that is about as stupid as it gets brother. Who in government do you trust?
Please join us in the real world. QUIT GIVING THOSE FOOLS MORE $$$$$.

We have become a nation of village idiots.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 4, 2012)

Lovebears65 said:


> Like it or not . IT is SOMETHING that has to be done. We ARE BROKE. Like NO MONEY. Like we borrow 40 cents on EVERY damn dollar..   The WELL IS DRY..
> 
> 
> 
> ...



STF up. Moochers need more free shit.
How come you are unwilling to be fair?


----------



## Lovebears65 (Sep 4, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Lovebears65 said:
> 
> 
> > Like it or not . IT is SOMETHING that has to be done. We ARE BROKE. Like NO MONEY. Like we borrow 40 cents on EVERY damn dollar..   The WELL IS DRY..
> ...


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 4, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Ok, so under your theory that Reagan raised taxes how come that was not enough to balance the budget then?
What happened then?
Democrats raised spending TO MATCH THOSE INCREASES every time.
Wake the fuck up dude. That is FACT.


----------



## Mr. Peepers (Sep 4, 2012)

We spend far more on corporate welfare than "entitlement" welfare.  And does any of this go to help small businesses?  Hell no.  It goes to mega corporations raking in billions, all while buying our political process and writing / influencing the tax code.  This is the FIRST thing that should go.

Think by Numbers » Government Spends More on Corporate Welfare Subsidies than Social Welfare Programs


----------



## FA_Q2 (Sep 4, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Average age of Medicare recipient now is 79.
> Was 69 25 years ago.



One of the great lies about the Medicare a SS programs that the liberals dont want to acknowledge.  Most people were never actually supposed to use the benefits that were outlined in these programs.  They were supposed to die first.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 4, 2012)

Mr. Peepers said:


> We spend far more on corporate welfare than "entitlement" welfare.  And does any of this go to help small businesses?  Hell no.  It goes to mega corporations raking in billions, all while buying our political process and writing / influencing the tax code.  This is the FIRST thing that should go.
> 
> Think by Numbers » Government Spends More on Corporate Welfare Subsidies than Social Welfare Programs



We spend ZERO on corporate welfare.

Allowing others to KEEP THEIR HARD EARNED $$$$ is not welfare.

Welfare is government plunder at the point of a gun stealing from the producers to give to the growing and demanding MOOCHER CLASS.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 4, 2012)

FA_Q2 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Average age of Medicare recipient now is 79.
> ...



About social security, that is true as when it was first initiated average life span of an American was 61 years old. 

Social security was set up IN CASE you lived past the norm as insurance for that.
Social security WAS NEVER set up and passed as a retirement program.

Medicare was to buy votes from seniors as part of "the great society".
With good intentions and it does a lot of good but fraud is 25-30% and unfunded mandates for Medicare is 30 trillion for the next 35 years.


----------



## Mr. Peepers (Sep 4, 2012)

> We spend ZERO on corporate welfare.
> 
> Allowing others to KEEP THEIR HARD EARNED $$$$ is not welfare.
> 
> Welfare is government plunder at the point of a gun stealing from the producers to give to the growing and demanding MOOCHER CLASS.



Complete horse shit and you know it.  Why does any company making billions in PROFIT need tax breaks?  Big oil admitted that they do not "need" tax breaks for R&D but whined... "but, but other businesses are getting breaks".  Disgusting.  Do small , sustainable farmers and growers get subsidized?  NO.  Do small businesses get tax subsidies and loopholes that allow them to pay ZERO in taxes?  HELL NO.  Did you know McDonalds gets small business subsidies for opening restaurant FRANCHISES?  Yep - how wrong is that?  They've all rigged it this way.  It is the billionaires and corporations that are the "moocher class".

Did you not even look at my article?


----------



## CausingPAIN (Sep 4, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota what would you cut to balance the budget?
> ...



I wouldn't cut the defense budget by half, maybe 20%.
There are a lot of Americans supported by the money spent on defense.  Gov't created jobs in the private sector.
If we can just get the two war funding to stop, which is already have an 
affect as per Iraq.  And a 20% funding cut on defense.  Would be a good start.

Bush tax cuts Gotta go. Obama tax increase on the 1% and what needs to be done.
Obama tax increase on 1%.  Sounds great.


----------



## CausingPAIN (Sep 4, 2012)

Mr. Peepers said:


> > We spend ZERO on corporate welfare.
> >
> > Allowing others to KEEP THEIR HARD EARNED $$$$ is not welfare.
> >
> ...




I don't know about this every time I have an increase in expenses to the business.
I raise the prices on all my services and goods.  So by default we the taxpayers pay for it that's great.

By the way on my corporations I pay zero taxes.  By designed corporations usefulness is to distribute money to other places ending up with no money or profits.  But I do love the church's nonprofit tax exempt status if I could get one.  But I'd truly love to see them  go away, as church is truly do nothing of any substantial worth in the first place.  It's just the legitimate business sucking ignorant gullible people.


----------



## Mr. Peepers (Sep 4, 2012)

> I don't know about this every time I have an increase in expenses to the business.
> I raise the prices on all my services and goods. So by default we the taxpayers pay for it that's great.
> 
> By the way on my corporations I pay zero taxes. By designed corporations usefulness is to distribute money to other places ending up with no money or profits. But I do love the church's nonprofit tax exempt status if I could get one. But I'd truly love to see them go away, as church is truly do nothing of any substantial worth in the first place. It's just the legitimate business sucking ignorant gullible people.



These corporations use more resources, more energy, pollute, poison our waters, blow up our mountains, and in some cases they destroy communities.  They SHOULD pay a hefty tax obligation.  How many downtowns does a big box store have to destroy (all while getting tax breaks for creating minimum wage jobs) before we "get it"?  People starting small businesses, small & niche farmer's and entrepreneurs are the ones who deserve any help available, not big oil and Monsanto-backed big agra.  Did you know they're trying to find a way to make farmer's markets and backyard gardening illegal?  Not the government... the private sector.  Wake up!


----------



## CausingPAIN (Sep 4, 2012)

Mr. Peepers said:


> > I don't know about this every time I have an increase in expenses to the business.
> > I raise the prices on all my services and goods. So by default we the taxpayers pay for it that's great.
> >
> > By the way on my corporations I pay zero taxes. By designed corporations usefulness is to distribute money to other places ending up with no money or profits. But I do love the church's nonprofit tax exempt status if I could get one. But I'd truly love to see them go away, as church is truly do nothing of any substantial worth in the first place. It's just the legitimate business sucking ignorant gullible people.
> ...



I agree small businesses should benefit the most from tax breaks on some formulated scale.  But that scale and for how long you get the breaks would be a question.  As for the oil companies take them all away.  And on the stock market get rid of the futures on a oil.
We all know the fix is in for the oil companies, on how they worked this game.  The Arabs are happy to sell us a barrel oil, it only costs them $1. 75 a barrel to produce and slope the future on the stock market.  That only have to make the jihad bogeyman go bananas so they make a profit. They are the biggest buyers a futures.  That's where the real money is that.  I think this is one place you can get an overwhelming republican and democrat cooperation.  I've never run and a one person at the gas station us of the one that pay more for this stuff.  And yes I know the oil companies own both parties.  Representing the 1% both sides in style.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 4, 2012)

Mr. Peepers said:


> > We spend ZERO on corporate welfare.
> >
> > Allowing others to KEEP THEIR HARD EARNED $$$$ is not welfare.
> >
> ...



You claimed it was "welfare" 
THEY EARNED THOSE PROFITS. 
Get rid of the tax code which Democrats love. That is the problem, THE TAX CODE. 
Tax breaks, deductions and subsidies ARE NOT WELFARE.
Welfare is receiving money from others that is not yours. 
Someone that pays zero net taxes IS NOT ON WELFARE. 
So you favor getting rid of the tax code also?
Good man!


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 4, 2012)

Mr. Peepers said:


> > I don't know about this every time I have an increase in expenses to the business.
> > I raise the prices on all my services and goods. So by default we the taxpayers pay for it that's great.
> >
> > By the way on my corporations I pay zero taxes. By designed corporations usefulness is to distribute money to other places ending up with no money or profits. But I do love the church's nonprofit tax exempt status if I could get one. But I'd truly love to see them go away, as church is truly do nothing of any substantial worth in the first place. It's just the legitimate business sucking ignorant gullible people.
> ...



You mean those PEOPLE buy more resources, buy more energy and create more jobs because PEOPLE demanded they do so.


Corporations DO NOTHING unless you and I DEMAND IT.
Go spank your own whiny bitchy uninformed ass.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 4, 2012)

How come Democrats ALWAYS OPPOSE every suggested obsolete military base closing THE MILITARY wants to close? They oppose shutting down obsolete weapons systems manufacturing plants also THE MILITARY wants to close.
All Democrats want to do is LAY OFF SOLDIERS which only a dumb ass would do. Soldiers HAVE NO UNION and do not vote as a block in a state to support obsolete bases and plants. 
And it costs more $$$ to retrain new soldiers when we need them so laying them off is ass backerds.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 4, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> A legitimate business has to have a reasonable expectation OF WHAT GOVERNMENT POLICY WILL BE on taxes.
> And with Obama I do not have that. I have "we will do this and that for another year and see"
> So why would I want to start my 4th business when I have no clue what one of my major expenses will be?
> You could tax everyone that makes over 250K a year 100% and it will not run the country for 7 months. That is fact.
> ...



Some folks are born silver spoon in hand, 
Lord, don't they help themselves, oh. 
But when the taxman comes to the door, 
Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale, yes,


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 4, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> How come Democrats ALWAYS OPPOSE every suggested obsolete military base closing THE MILITARY wants to close? They oppose shutting down obsolete weapons systems manufacturing plants also THE MILITARY wants to close.
> All Democrats want to do is LAY OFF SOLDIERS which only a dumb ass would do. Soldiers HAVE NO UNION and do not vote as a block in a state to support obsolete bases and plants.
> And it costs more $$$ to retrain new soldiers when we need them so laying them off is ass backerds.



NIce try.  Both parties oppose closing bases in their districts or closing down weapons systems built in their states.  

MOre to the point, most people in the military are only there for one enistment.


----------



## HUGGY (Sep 4, 2012)

*Ann Romney: 'Going to be cuts made to a lot of programs people aren't going to like'  
*

Let's start by cutting out the tax deduction for dressage horses.  There's an easy 75,000 bucks!


----------



## Harry Dresden (Sep 4, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


i posted something about this already....if they make money it will be in breeding them....but Moon has not answered were he got that 177,000 dollar tax right off he said Mitt got for the Horses......the article said he go 50 bucks......big difference....


----------



## FA_Q2 (Sep 4, 2012)

HUGGY said:


> *Ann Romney: 'Going to be cuts made to a lot of programs people aren't going to like'
> *
> 
> Let's start by cutting out the tax deduction for dressage horses.  There's an easy 75,000 bucks!



What was Romneys write off for the horse?

Do you even know or are you incapable of actual thought


----------



## FA_Q2 (Sep 4, 2012)

Harry Dresden said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



Dammit.  You gave him the answer


----------



## Harry Dresden (Sep 4, 2012)

FA_Q2 said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



sorry......


----------



## FA_Q2 (Sep 4, 2012)

Harry Dresden said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



All that smug superiority wasted on nothing

Oh well.  I guess I have to go somewhere else to take care of that


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 4, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



You need to go back to about the 5th grade and learn 

1.  how a bill becomes law, and 2. how not to be annoying asshole.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Sep 4, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



So now you think you're qualified to tell people what they can spend their own fucking money on??
Typical liberal bullshit!!


----------



## HUGGY (Sep 4, 2012)

FA_Q2 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > *Ann Romney: 'Going to be cuts made to a lot of programs people aren't going to like'
> ...



My bad...clearly...  It wasn't $75,000.  It was $77,000.

Both Left And Right Got The Taxes On The Romneys' Olympic Horse Wrong - Forbes


----------



## Moonglow (Sep 4, 2012)

Harry Dresden said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



I was wrong, it was 77k



> Included in this pushing of the envelope is a $77,000 tax deduction for the care and feeding of a horse.
> 
> Well, not just any horse. A ballet horse. Dressage is the French name of the sport that is often referred to as horse ballet, an elite equestrian sport.
> 
> ...



Romney&#8217;s Gold Medal In Tax Deductions « CBS Minnesota


----------



## Jackson (Sep 4, 2012)

HUGGY said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



From your link:



> Since the taxpayer must allocate passive income proportionately against passive losses, only $49 of their passive horse loss could be used.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Sep 4, 2012)

HUGGY said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



You were given the answer twice and you STILL fucked it up.  I guess you cant actually think for yourself.

That is what the horse COST.  They only received 50 bucks off their tax.


----------



## Moonglow (Sep 4, 2012)

> But wait, there&#8217;s more. Last week, on the conservative Breitbart site, the right wing took a swing and also missed.  Lee Stranahan erroneously suggested in &#8220;Beating A Dead Horse: The Left Media Lies About Romney Taxes,&#8217;&#8217; that  the Romneys will only get to use their $77,000 tax deduction &#8220;if there&#8217;s profit in the future on their horse business investment.&#8221;
> 
> *Wrong. The Romneys will likely get to claim all the horse losses later, even if they never make a dime form Rob Rom&#8212;in other words, the taxpayers will end up subsidizing Mrs. Romney&#8217;s love of dressage, only on a deferred basis. *(Kind of appropriate since the U.S. puts most things on the credit card.)



Both Left And Right Got The Taxes On The Romneys' Olympic Horse Wrong - Forbes


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 4, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



It's interesting you would claim that today, when a few months ago you were talking about the BUSH TAX CUTS:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4812612-post16.html

Maybe you should set up a debate with yourself.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Sep 4, 2012)

Moonglow said:


> > But wait, theres more. Last week, on the conservative Breitbart site, the right wing took a swing and also missed.  Lee Stranahan erroneously suggested in Beating A Dead Horse: The Left Media Lies About Romney Taxes, that  the Romneys will only get to use their $77,000 tax deduction if theres profit in the future on their horse business investment.
> >
> > *Wrong. The Romneys will likely get to claim all the horse losses later, even if they never make a dime form Rob Romin other words, the taxpayers will end up subsidizing Mrs. Romneys love of dressage, only on a deferred basis. *(Kind of appropriate since the U.S. puts most things on the credit card.)
> 
> ...


so in other words .....it hasnt happened yet......so until it does....its a non story.....


----------



## GuyPinestra (Sep 4, 2012)

Bitching about something that hasn't happened is Leftie pastime...


----------



## Lakhota (Sep 4, 2012)




----------



## FA_Q2 (Sep 4, 2012)

Moonglow said:


> > But wait, theres more. Last week, on the conservative Breitbart site, the right wing took a swing and also missed.  Lee Stranahan erroneously suggested in Beating A Dead Horse: The Left Media Lies About Romney Taxes, that  the Romneys will only get to use their $77,000 tax deduction if theres profit in the future on their horse business investment.
> >
> > *Wrong. The Romneys will likely get to claim all the horse losses later, even if they never make a dime form Rob Romin other words, the taxpayers will end up subsidizing Mrs. Romneys love of dressage, only on a deferred basis. *(Kind of appropriate since the U.S. puts most things on the credit card.)
> 
> ...





> The Romneys 2010 return shows $2,276,385 in losses from various passive activities, including a loss of $77,731 from Rob Rom, but just *$2,120* in passive income. Since the taxpayer must allocate passive income proportionately against passive losses, only $49 of their passive horse loss could be used.


How many years do you expect it to take to get the deduction?  How many years can you defer the tax?

If he was only able to claim 50 bucks this year, why do you seem to think he is going to get so damn much in the next.  Or, are you going to return to a legitimate business investment and then rail on buisnesses actually deducting costs.

There really is no bad way to slice this.. You just cant, no matter how hard you try.


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 4, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> > It is like a bad dream come true, Ann Romney explaining the policies that will be put in place, should her husband win the election in November. Theres going to be cuts, in programs and people wont like it.
> >
> > Why on earth would the wife of a so-called experienced businessman, who claims he has a reputation for creating jobs when in reality he outsourced them to China, be speaking to American families and digging in the knife?
> >
> ...




I love how Liberals attack someone for Speaking the Plain truth. She was being perfectly Honest, Something Democrats are unwilling to do. The American People deserve to be told exactly what is up. were in Trouble, and sooner or Later very Painful Cuts will be unavoidable, The longer our Leaders kick the Can down the Road, the more it is going to hurt when we finally can not kick it any further.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 5, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



YOu think it's fine that a few people can divide the pie?  

The real problem here is that allow accumulation of wealth in a few hands, which is absolutely insane, and dangerous.  So people buying dancing horses when people are starving to death is actually pretty dangerous and foolish.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 5, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...




Congressional override Presidential veto.
Presidents always sign legislation when they know that the Congress has the votes for an override of a veto. 
What would be the point of a Presidential veto if he knew it would be overriden?
Ignorant people do get annoyed easily by those of us that know the law.
Govern yourself accordingly.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Sep 5, 2012)

DiamondDave said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...


And?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 5, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



It's about the economy.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Sep 5, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



What is?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 5, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



The election and obama's deflection from the subject.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Sep 5, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



What deflection?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 5, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...


Deflection from the economy kind of like what you are doing now. Asking these stupid questions.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Sep 5, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I'm only asking you to justify your statements.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 6, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...




Wealth is never allowed, it is earned.

Wealth in your mind is like when you enter a large convention hall where they are serving 2000 lunches, each with a large cheese cake for dessert. You believe wealth is where someone at that convention goes and takes 20 cheese cakes, others take 40 and so on off of other tables leaving many tables of the 2000 with no cheese cake.

Socialists think that way.

But to those of us that risk our wealth daily we know that the way we earned our wealth from years of 70 hour weeks is that wealth is where each of those tables of 2000 had a lit candle on it at that convention and that we brought and expanded the number of candles and lit another candle from those already lit AND GREW THE NUMBER OF CANDLES.

Economies GROW and the growth of the economy IS WHAT ACCUMULATES wealth.

PIES GROW. There is no limit on how large the economic pie can grow.

Cry, ask for Mommy and whine about how you do not have enough.
Or do like most of us that have wealth did WHO CAME FROM NO WEALTH AT ALL as my father was a teacher and mother a home maker.

Work hard and invest your $$ IN YOURSELF.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 6, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Tell us how Romney's plan to cut taxes, not touch Medicare, not touch SS, and increase defense spending will lower the deficit.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 6, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Wealth is never allowed, it is earned.
> 
> .



NO, actually, it's allowed.  Sorry.  The rest of us can vote to take away your shit any time we want.  

That's not socialism, it's democracy. 

Now, I think that there are good reasons to allow wealth. As an incentive, as an organizing tool.  

When it's abused, the rest of us seriously need to snap that back.  

Otherwise you get a society where the rich harvest the poor for transplant organs.


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 6, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



"It just isn't going to work, and it's very interesting that the man who invested this type of what I call a voodoo economic policy"
George H. W. Bush - Speech at Carnegie Mellon University (10 April 1980)


----------



## FA_Q2 (Sep 7, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Wealth is never allowed, it is earned.
> ...



Thats called tyranny.  It does not matter if that tyranny comes from the despot or from the masses, it is just as wrong.  Of course, you dont see anything wrong with it because no one is burning your house down just as you dont see anything wrong with your bigotry because it is someone else that receives the bigotry.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 7, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



What's obama's plan to pay for obamatax?


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 7, 2012)

FA_Q2 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



I see nothign wrong with it because I know  history, and that societies that have no middle class, just the very rich and the very poor, end up badly.  See Iran, 1979, Cuba 1959, Russia 1917, France 1789.    

A solid working class earning a good living is the foundation of a stable society.  Otherwise, your fancy mansion sinks into the mud, Car Elevator and all.  

When you get guys like Gawdog who are proud of the fact that they pay their workers as little as possible and they better learn to like it, eventually you end up with a society that is going to upend the apple cart because they have nothing left to lose. 

I've lived through a period when we had riots in out streets because a segment of the population figured they had nothing to lose.  And we had a stronger middle class then than we do now. 

Common decency and humanity might be lost on you people, but I'd hope you are capable of simple self-preservation.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 7, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Tell us how much I pay workers Mr. Economic Know It All.
How much?
In my business if you do not pay top wages you do not get quality work.
You are so weak at explaining your views you take out your crystal ball and attempt to state what others believe and do.
I pay my professional staff $40 an hour top wage and non professional $20-$30 an hour. 

Nothing to do with your bull shit "common decency and humanity" nonsense.
I pay them that because that is WHAT THE MARKET DEMANDS and THEY EARN IT.
Concepts unfamiliar to union thugs like you that go around with baseball bats hitting old women that want to work.
You talking about and asking for decency and humanity is like Charles Manson asking for leniency at sentencing.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 7, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Tell us how much I pay workers Mr. Economic Know It All.
> How much?
> In my business if you do not pay top wages you do not get quality work.
> You are so weak at explaining your views you take out your crystal ball and attempt to state what others believe and do.
> ...



That bitch never should have crossed a picket line, but we know you bravely documented her beating...


----------



## FA_Q2 (Sep 7, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Tell us how much I pay workers Mr. Economic Know It All.
> ...



Wow, you are one of the biggest piles of wasted human trash here joe.  I really cant believe the crap that is produced from your keyboard.


----------



## Lakhota (Sep 7, 2012)

> The year President Dwight Eisenhower ran for a second term against Adlai Stevenson, the platform sung the praises of unions, called for government to have a "heart as well as a head," and backed the doomed Equal Rights Amendment.



GOP Platform Flashback: "Government Must Have a Heart" | Mother Jones

My, how things have changed...


----------



## Maple (Sep 7, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> > It is like a bad dream come true, Ann Romney explaining the policies that will be put in place, should her husband win the election in November. There&#8217;s going to be cuts, in programs and people won&#8217;t like it.
> >
> > Why on earth would the wife of a so-called experienced businessman, who claims he has a reputation for creating jobs when in reality he outsourced them to China, be speaking to American families and digging in the knife?
> >
> ...



Outsourced to China?? have you seen what Obama did with the 787 billion dollar stimulus plan where our tax dollars went all over the world to create jobs, problem is they didn't create one job here.


----------



## Maple (Sep 7, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



The reason they don't have a middle class is that they are socialists or communists, a business will not pay what it is not worth it to pay. You see, business's need to be profitable, if they are not profitable they can't stay in business as they have NO MONEY to pay anyone with. 
Get it, yet??? If the product or service they provide does not generate a profit from people or customers willing to pay for it, they go out of business as well, because there is NO MONEY, they have generated no profit, therefore NO MONEY to pay anyone with. They are not the government who just prints more. The private sector is the producer of wealth, the government is the consumer of wealth.

" Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, the gospel of envy, it's only virtue is the shared equality of misery. " Winston Churchill

Obama as well as Jimmy Carter are socialists, Obama has marixt leanings along with socialism. He is one scary dude.


----------



## Barb (Sep 7, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



WHO taxes are raised ON makes a difference, and accounting under the Reagan administration taxed the classes that couldn't afford the hit, raised the payroll contribution for Social Security (for the first time) higher than the program needed for running the program, leaving working people less of their paychecks to pay their bills, to save, or to invest. He then used THOSE revenues to cook the books to look like the budget balanced, while keeping his tax cuts for the rich, for capital gains, and wealth. 

When the idea that the federal government need to raise revenues was first floated, it was WEALTH (and import duties, etc) that was to pay for needed government infrastructure, as the toil of WORKING people was supposed to be left TO working people on simple and accepted moral grounds. This is what comes from the contradiction of terms, and fucking around with Webster's definition of words. The word "people" was, once upon a time (even in America), reserved for actual people. Now when the "conservatives" (another contradiction) publicly cry about the "people," ACTUAL PEOPLE think they're talking about them!


----------



## Barb (Sep 7, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Wealth is never allowed, it is earned.
> ...


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 8, 2012)

FA_Q2 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Mr. Dirty Pictures is proud of the fact his agency got pictures of strikers beating up picket breakers they were able to use in court against the strikers. 

Actually preventing the beatings actually never occurred to them. They would have gotten hurt. 

Again, you cross a picket line, you are stealing from someone else.... You should get the same treatment you get if I catch you walking out of my house with my widescreen.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 8, 2012)

Maple said:


> The reason they don't have a middle class is that they are socialists or communists, a business will not pay what it is not worth it to pay. You see, business's need to be profitable, if they are not profitable they can't stay in business as they have NO MONEY to pay anyone with.



The reason we have a middle class and Saturday off is because we had a labor movement that fought for those things and an end to shit like this... 









Maple said:


> Get it, yet??? If the product or service they provide does not generate a profit from people or customers willing to pay for it, they go out of business as well, because there is NO MONEY, they have generated no profit, therefore NO MONEY to pay anyone with. They are not the government who just prints more. The private sector is the producer of wealth, the government is the consumer of wealth.



Another one of those great lies, the parasite has convinced you it's a vital organ. 

what creates business is consumer demand, and you get more consumer demand from working folks buying consumer goods than from rich assholes like the Romney's buying Dressage Horses.  





Maple said:


> " Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, the gospel of envy, it's only virtue is the shared equality of misery. " Winston Churchill
> 
> Obama as well as Jimmy Carter are socialists, Obama has marixt leanings along with socialism. He is one scary dude.



Why do you guys feel the need to quote one of the great assholes of history, Winston Churchill?  

Churchill lived in a country where white people lived high on the hog because they looted the countries where brown people lived of everything that wasn't nailed down.  And when the brown people had quite enough of that shit, they threw Winnie and his boys out.  

Churchill considered Ghandi more dangerous than Hitler.


----------



## ba1614 (Sep 8, 2012)

Truth is the enemy of the progressive, they keep telling people they don't need to cut anything, in fact, they need to increase spending to bring the deficit down.


----------



## Lakhota (Sep 9, 2012)




----------



## Lakhota (Sep 9, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGnE83A1Z4U]The Agenda Project: Granny Off the Cliff - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## tinydancer (Sep 9, 2012)

Old school and very blatant. I am going to consider going to the mods and asking that you be banned.

I know that you are flooding the board.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Sep 9, 2012)

tinydancer said:


> Old school and very blatant. I am going to consider going to the mods and asking that you be banned.
> 
> I know that you are flooding the board.



Thats rather pointless.  He may be a complete idiot but he has been here a year and that idiocy is not new.  If they wanted to ban him, he would no longer be here.

No, this is acceptable here mostly because you dont actually have to read anything he writes.  You do know there is an ignore function and a scroll function (usually there is even a button located on your mouse just to make it that much easier).

Banning is for those that harass and make real threats to others here, not for annoying intellectual dolts.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 9, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Incoherent outbursts with madeup words are not considered answers where I come from.

But don't feel bad, as many times as I've asked the question in one form or another, I've yet to get anything remotely resembling even an intelligent attempt to answer it.


----------



## Lakhota (Sep 17, 2012)




----------



## Lakhota (Sep 17, 2012)

Is Ann running for president?  If not, why is she shooting her mouth off about cuts people aren't going to like?


----------



## Lakhota (Sep 17, 2012)

Thanks for forewarning us, Ann.  Your husband confirmed your warning today.

Oh, and Michelle will keep her White House drapes for another four years.


----------



## Lakhota (Sep 18, 2012)




----------



## Lakhota (Sep 19, 2012)

Tell us all about it, Ann.


----------



## Lakhota (Oct 3, 2012)




----------



## Lakhota (Oct 28, 2012)




----------



## Stephanie (Oct 28, 2012)

oh goody, the petty troll is back with a vengeance...

had to dig up a old Ann Romeny thread to slap around..

sad sad sad


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 28, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



obama care was ruled unconstitutional and  became obama tax, don't like it take it up with the courts.,


----------



## Lakhota (Oct 30, 2012)




----------



## Lakhota (Nov 5, 2012)




----------



## strollingbones (Nov 5, 2012)

tinydancer said:


> Old school and very blatant. I am going to consider going to the mods and asking that you be banned.
> 
> I know that you are flooding the board.




the conservative answer to everything....if you dont like it...try to ban it...outlaw it....or simply disable it......

how funny....going to the mod and asking someone be banned?


let me guess you claim to be for freedom of speech right?


----------



## Colin (Nov 5, 2012)

tinydancer said:


> Old school and very blatant. I am going to consider going to the mods and asking that you be banned.
> 
> I know that you are flooding the board.



Thanks for confirming what a nasty piece of work you are. Don't like the heat...stay out of the fucking kitchen!


----------



## Steelplate (Nov 5, 2012)

Ok....I know this is an old thread that is being bumped......but why do conservatives think that putting more people in dire straits....that is, screwing with Medicare, SS, the Public Assistance system.....and letting these people rely on anemic charities, suffer in silence or just plain die off is good for the country, the economy, or the GOP's political aspirations?

What people have to realize is that Conservative policy is what got us here.....the Reagan economics policies have taken us from being able to pay for our programs and keeping the National Debt to a minimum.....to exploding National Debt and shitty wages and benefits for way too many people that now can't be relied on to pay for that debt through taxation.

This is what pandering to the Conglomerate, marginalizing the workforce, busting private sector unions, and Free Trade Agreements have done. It turned America from a country where very few people needed government help to one where 47% of the population(the vast majority of whom are working full time) need food stamps, Medicaid, and/or housing subsidies to survive.

And Conservatives still think the answer is to tighten the noose around the workforce yet again and give more to the conglomerate, to make life harder for people who have worked hard all their lives and contributed faithfully to the system of SS and Medicare, and to keep spending like madmen on our military....which is already more expensive than the next 10 country's military budgets....COMBINED! To keep giving more and more to our wealthiest and most powerful people at the expense of everyone else.

It's going to cause our slow swirl down the economic toilet to accelerate. More people with less money means less buying power, less buying power means less demand, less demand means less commerce, less commerce means less profits.....and that cycle will continue.

But, the responsibility to reverse this cycle lies with our private sector.....government can help....but it's up to the private sector to make a conscious decision to accept lower profits and personal gain in the short term to actually CREATE JOBS that will ensure their profits in the long run....but given the history of our private sector the past thirty years? I'm not holding my breath.

That's the thing....Conservatives keep bawling about Socialism, Marxism and Communism.....but it's these policies that actually encourage those ideologies to flourish.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Nov 5, 2012)

Its that "you people" attitude we've heard from them both. Mittens went to "Human School" and learned his lessons very well. We don't hear his real opinion anymore - that they are royalty and we are the peons whose job it is to fill their pockets. 

If he's elected, they won't be able to keep up the act for very long and we'll see a return of their real selves. 

Hopefully, come Wednesday, they'll just go away - not to start yet another campaign for him but for his vile little clone, Tagg. Betcha.


----------



## Katzndogz (Nov 5, 2012)

Let's hope that the first program to go is the expensive and wasteful program that tries to force feed kids garbage in schools.


----------



## tooAlive (Nov 5, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> IGetItAlready said:
> 
> 
> > Duhkhota says, Why cut anything when we still have rich people to pay all the bills?
> ...



What makes you say that Lakhota?

40% isn't enough for them?

It's thanks to those "rich people" that the majority of US citizens have jobs. Stop biting the hand that feeds you.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Nov 5, 2012)

Steelplate said:


> Ok....I know this is an old thread that is being bumped......but why do conservatives think that putting more people in dire straits....that is, screwing with Medicare, SS, the Public Assistance system.....and letting these people rely on anemic charities, suffer in silence or just plain die off is good for the country, the economy, or the GOP's political aspirations?
> 
> What people have to realize is that Conservative policy is what got us here.....the Reagan economics policies have taken us from being able to pay for our programs and keeping the National Debt to a minimum.....to exploding National Debt and shitty wages and benefits for way too many people that now can't be relied on to pay for that debt through taxation.
> 
> ...



This is exactly spot on and cannot be argued. There is no way any R politician or rw voter can deny these very basic facts - that R&R want to take us back to the ReaganBushBush fiasco.

Its also why the R has made up lie after lie about Obama - they don't  have truth to hold up to the voter so it has been one crazy lie after another about the president. 

Ask any rw here to PROVE the idiotic Obama lies and all you get are more lies, name calling and really stupid insults. And, earlier in this thread, incredibly, one wants to see opposing words actually banned from the site!


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Nov 5, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Let's hope that the first program to go is the expensive and wasteful program that tries to force feed kids garbage in schools.



Oh, don't worry. I'm sure that if the Romney's are crowned king and queen, they'll expect poor kids to eat cake.


----------



## Rinata (Nov 5, 2012)

I don't like Ann Romney. She acts like a stuck up witch. She has, "I am better than you", written all over her. What an awful first lady she would make.

At least we got a good first lady when we got stuck with W. Laura Bush was very sweet and seems like a nice person. Thank God we will be done with Romney and his snooty wife as of tomorrow!!! Yeah!!!


----------



## tooAlive (Nov 5, 2012)

Rinata said:


> I don't like Ann Romney. She acts like a stuck up witch. She has, "I am better than you", written all over her. What an awful first lady she would make.
> 
> At least we got a good first lady when we got stuck with W. Laura Bush was very sweet and seems like a nice person. Thank God we will be done with Romney and his snooty wife as of tomorrow!!! Yeah!!!



Hmm. That's interesting. I haven't noticed that about Ann.

Although I do find it funny that you mentioned Laura Bushed and totally skipped over Michelle Obama. No worries.. I would've too.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Nov 5, 2012)

Agree about Laura Bush and, Michele Obama has worked so very hard for our kids and our vets and their families. 

How telling is it that the Rs hate her for that. 

If Mitt is elected, vets and their families will lose what little headway they have made. Mitt wants to take their medical care away from them and the pubpots agree. Sad.


----------



## tooAlive (Nov 5, 2012)

luddly.neddite said:


> Agree about Laura Bush and, Michele Obama has worked so very hard for our kids and our vets and their families.
> 
> How telling is it that the Rs hate her for that.
> 
> If Mitt is elected, *vets and their families will lose what little headway they have made.* Mitt wants to take their medical care away from them and the pubpots agree. Sad.



You're right. Mitt has to scrap the "little headway" Obama has made, and actually do something to help those people.


----------



## Katzndogz (Nov 5, 2012)

tooAlive said:


> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> > I don't like Ann Romney. She acts like a stuck up witch. She has, "I am better than you", written all over her. What an awful first lady she would make.
> ...



The Big mooch is the worst pretender to being first lady that we have EVER had.   We've never had a first lady to lumber across the stage on national television and ridicule an Olympic champion before.


----------



## hazlnut (Nov 5, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> > It is like a bad dream come true, Ann Romney explaining the policies that will be put in place, should her husband win the election in November. There&#8217;s going to be cuts, in programs and people won&#8217;t like it.
> >
> > Why on earth would the wife of a so-called experienced businessman, who claims he has a reputation for creating jobs when in reality he outsourced them to China, be speaking to American families and digging in the knife?
> >
> ...




But no cut to YOUR taxes, Ann...

Got it.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Nov 5, 2012)

And the leftwing, moonbat meltdown continues.... Wednesday morning is going to be sooooooo awesome.


----------



## Dante (Nov 5, 2012)

tinydancer said:


> Old school and very blatant. I am going to consider going to the mods and asking that you be banned.
> 
> I know that you are flooding the board.



stfu


neg rep


go away


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 5, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Interesting that 3 of the 4 countries you mention are worse off now than they were, perhaps with the exception of Russia who has moved towards Capitalism.
You could add China too if you like.


----------



## tinydancer (Nov 5, 2012)

See the flooding?


----------



## tinydancer (Nov 5, 2012)

Dante said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > Old school and very blatant. I am going to consider going to the mods and asking that you be banned.
> ...




I know where you come from little girl.

I've patterned you for quite a while. 

Do you want me to out you?


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 5, 2012)

Annie said:


> There are going to be cuts, people aren't going to like them. That's a fact. Even if Obama wins, by year 2, there will be cuts. He won't like them, neither will those effected. That is a fact. It's unavoidable, regardless of who wins.



I cannot see obama signing any legislation that interrupts his redistribution efforts.


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 5, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota what would you cut to balance the budget?
> ...



Shows how stupid you really are. Mindless drivel.


----------



## tinydancer (Nov 5, 2012)

Dante said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > Old school and very blatant. I am going to consider going to the mods and asking that you be banned.
> ...



Too funny. You negged me again. I swear you live to neg me.


----------



## Rinata (Nov 5, 2012)

tooAlive said:


> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> > I don't like Ann Romney. She acts like a stuck up witch. She has, "I am better than you", written all over her. What an awful first lady she would make.
> ...



Well, I was talking about Republicans. Michelle Obama has been a terrific first lady. I think it's disgraceful that she has been treated so badly by the right.

I was trying to point out that I don't dislike Ann Romney because of her husband. And mentioned Laura Bush to support that. That's all. Nothing untoward.


----------



## Rinata (Nov 5, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> > Rinata said:
> ...



You are an ass hole. That is one of the reason I cannot stand you right wing extremists. You put down Mrs. Obama because you don't like her husband. The left did not do that to Laura Bush. Why don't you grow up, you jerk??


----------



## Rinata (Nov 5, 2012)

tinydancer said:


> Old school and very blatant. I am going to consider going to the mods and asking that you be banned.
> 
> I know that you are flooding the board.



That's ridiculous. You want someone banned just because you don't like him?? If everybody did that we would only have maybe 10 people on here.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Nov 5, 2012)

tinydancer said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...



Is this within the rules of the board?

Even if it is, there's something seriously wrong with you. 

Grow up.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Nov 5, 2012)

hazlnut said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > > It is like a bad dream come true, Ann Romney explaining the policies that will be put in place, should her husband win the election in November. Theres going to be cuts, in programs and people wont like it.
> ...



Yabut, they need their money to be earning interest in the Caimans so they can invest in more foreign companies.


----------



## Rinata (Nov 5, 2012)

tinydancer said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...



Do you know how uncool it is to threaten people?? Better watch out before someone outs you as a complete idiot. Oh, wait. Never mind. We already know that.


----------



## Rinata (Nov 5, 2012)

luddly.neddite said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



These righties are coming unglued right in front of our eyes.


----------



## mikegriffith1 (Nov 5, 2012)

And the sooner we get serious about cutting spending, the less painful it will and the sooner we will return to fiscal sanity and stability.

Yes, OF COURSE, there are going to have to be cuts that some people aren't going to like.  We can either cut now with some pain or cut later with enormous pain--and unrest.  

Heard of Greece?  Spain?  England?  They followed Obama's borrow-tax-spend policies are now paying for it dearly.


----------



## EriktheRed (Nov 5, 2012)




----------



## Lakhota (Nov 5, 2012)




----------



## Lakhota (Nov 6, 2012)




----------



## strollingbones (Nov 6, 2012)

tinydancer said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...



now you are using implied threats to silence other posters?


----------



## Pinocchio (Nov 6, 2012)

All this talk about painful program cuts.

What about the painful tax cuts for the wealthy.

That will help balance the budget.  LOL


----------



## Dot Com (Nov 6, 2012)

> Ann Romney: 'Going to be cuts made to a lot of programs people aren't going to like'



did she discuss this over tea & crumpets w/ Mitt?


----------



## Sarah G (Nov 6, 2012)

I tried to like her but I just don't.  She's always saying dumb things as well.


----------



## Lakhota (Nov 29, 2012)




----------



## Lakhota (Mar 3, 2013)

Sarah G said:


> I tried to like her but I just don't.  She's always saying dumb things as well.



I agree.  The Romneys ran the dumbest presidential campaign that I can remember in my lifetime.  It was truly bizarre.


----------



## whitehall (Mar 3, 2013)

Flattering picture. Y'all won the election fools. Stop the campaign.


----------



## whitehall (Mar 3, 2013)

Anybody can see the topic is part of the democrat sissie boy war on women especially conservative women. What possible relevance can the wife of the losing presidential candidate have in the political arena today? The nerdie lefties probably spend an entire afternoon away from video games searching for the most unflattering photo of the wife of the former presidential candidate and giggle as they post it. This is junk and hate speech.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Mar 3, 2013)

Why do trolls always bump old ass threads?


----------



## candycorn (Mar 3, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > I tried to like her but I just don't.  She's always saying dumb things as well.
> ...



The Romney campaign was doomed from the moment they won the GOP nomination.  There was little that could be done from the GOP side of the ballot to stop this.


----------



## jasonnfree (Mar 4, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> > It is like a bad dream come true, Ann Romney explaining the policies that will be put in place, should her husband win the election in November. Theres going to be cuts, in programs and people wont like it.
> >
> > Why on earth would the wife of a so-called experienced businessman, who claims he has a reputation for creating jobs when in reality he outsourced them to China, be speaking to American families and digging in the knife?
> >
> ...



I wonder if taking the family horse deduction was slated for the chopping block.
Gotta keep these old romney victory posts alive.  Maybe the right wing will start to see that if they were so hellacious wrong about the election, that maybe they're wrong about a few other things also?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 4, 2013)

A "cut" to a government program is slowing the growth of that program.
GAO from data from the last 40 years states without any doubt that if we limited government growth to 1-2% a year for the next 11 years we will have solved the deficit.
But folks want their government DOPE, their disability, their Medicare paid for scooters that they do not need and 1001 other freebies they are "entitled" to.


----------

