Without a job, Romney made $57,000.00 a DAY for last two years.

[Wry Catcher]

To simple minds cutting spending and living within ones means (not spending more than the revenue) is a good model for both the government and the citizen.

To more active minds such a plan is absurd. For a budget in the final analysis is a plan based on projections. When the projections are wrong, the plan needs to be modified. This week Alabama experienced an unplanned event. If the budget for Alabama and the Federal Government had been set in stone at the beginning of the fiscal year, no emergency services would have been available to aid its citizens.

I suppose to the fiscal conservative (and I use that term with utter sarcasm) it is up to the people not killed to rebuild their lives. Life to the simple minded is all about personal responsibility and there should be no talk of a social contract.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Why not?

Because its not yours?

Someone else decided that the money I earned was actually their money and took it!

Two wrongs make a right?

You're just bitter over people having things you don't.
Welcome to reality - and it sounds like you need a helmet.

You seem eager to embrace the wrong rather than seeking a solution.

And when you quote me, use the entire quote. Context means a lot to debate.

You are the one protesting. Where is YOUR solution?
BTW, WHO decided to "take" your money?
Yours is imply another approach in the very boring class warfare argument.
This is like moldy bread.

 

[Nosmo King]

I don't hate either party. I find that self defeating. I do not understand why one party believes that cutting spending alone can reduce the deficit. I don't understand how some folks think that if we allow the most money to flow into the fewest hands we can get economic growth.

Are you against the idea of continuing the Bush tax cuts while increasing spending?


Si o No?

Why didn't Nosmo respond to this?


He responded to my other posts.

I had to work. sorry for using a profanity.

I am for eliminating the Bush tax cuts AND cutting spending.

 

[Dr.Drock]

To simple minds cutting spending and living within ones means (not spending more than the revenue) is a good model for both the government and the citizen.

To more active minds such a plan is absurd. For a budget in the final analysis is a plan based on projections. When the projections are wrong, the plan needs to be modified. This week Alabama experienced an unplanned event. If the budget for Alabama and the Federal Government had been set in stone at the beginning of the fiscal year, no emergency services would have been available to aid its citizens.

I suppose to the fiscal conservative (and I use that term with utter sarcasm) it is up to the people not killed to rebuild their lives. Life to the simple minded is all about personal responsibility and there should be no talk of a social contract.

Which is why every time a budget is made it should be done with the idea of creating a surplus just in case something happens you're ready for it.

Just like every american with common sense does.

If hyperpartisans like you demanded that level of basic common sense out of your beloved politicians, we'd have a revolutionary change in gov't.

 

[Nosmo King]

Please tell me you aren't one of those pie guys? You know, the guy who thinks wealth is a finite pie that has to be divided infinitely and that some people are getting more pie than others. Say it ain't so. You are aware that there is not a limited amount of wealth in the world that just changes hands aren't you? You do realize that when Romney accumulates more wealth, he isn't taking it from poor old widows and orphans don't you? Tell me, who did Warren Buffet and George Soros steal their wealth from? How many homeless children starved to death because of their greed? Or Bill Gates and Steve Jobs? Here is the dirty little secret that liberals don't seem to grasp. When the pie has been divided and X number of people get a slice, you just bake another pie. Works that way for wealth too. People can actually accumulate their own wealth without having the government confiscate it from those who worked for it and redistributing it to those who didn't out of "fairness".

No. I'm one of those vibrant middle class guys. You know, the type who thinks that the more people with spending power, the more the economy grows.

I'm one of those guys who thinks that if more and more wealth is consolidated among the very few, that wealth had to come from somewhere. The cuts in workers pay and benefits begged for by management? The ultra high bonuses and salaries given to the very few who did not labor to produce, but merely gambled some of their own money and won? That the stakes for the bets made by investors has risen faster than the compensation for the folks actually responsible for production.

Which cuts in workers pay?
Are you referring to denials of union demands? Oh well. Union members are paid well above market rates anyway. Your argument is not going to gain any traction there.
Do you believe that if one person creates or has more wealth then another MUST have less?

So American workers are overpaid. The solution then, by the popular Conservative model, is to reduce that pay.

How does this create growth? The less money people have the less spending. Less spending means less money flowing through the system. Less money through the system (and economics is defined by the exchange of wealth for goods and services) the less economic growth. Lower growth means depression.

 

[amrchaos]

Nursing your money is a job. If you tried it, you would understand right-wing resentment against welfare recipients!

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why not?

Because its not yours?

Someone else decided that the money I earned was actually their money and took it!

Two wrongs make a right?

You're just bitter over people having things you don't.
Welcome to reality - and it sounds like you need a helmet.

You seem eager to embrace the wrong rather than seeking a solution.

You seem eager to take from those who have a lot so that you can have more.

Grow up and take respionsibility for your failure to prosper as much as you'd like.

 

[Dot Com]

No wonder the South Carolinians rejected him but that leaves them w/ who?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why not?

Because its not yours?

Someone else decided that the money I earned was actually their money and took it!

Two wrongs make a right?

You're just bitter over people having things you don't.
Welcome to reality - and it sounds like you need a helmet.

Ah..so you are in favor of a line item tax return..right?

Non sequitur.
Red herring.
Waste of time.

 

[California Girl]

No. I'm one of those vibrant middle class guys. You know, the type who thinks that the more people with spending power, the more the economy grows.

I'm one of those guys who thinks that if more and more wealth is consolidated among the very few, that wealth had to come from somewhere. The cuts in workers pay and benefits begged for by management? The ultra high bonuses and salaries given to the very few who did not labor to produce, but merely gambled some of their own money and won? That the stakes for the bets made by investors has risen faster than the compensation for the folks actually responsible for production.

Which cuts in workers pay?
Are you referring to denials of union demands? Oh well. Union members are paid well above market rates anyway. Your argument is not going to gain any traction there.
Do you believe that if one person creates or has more wealth then another MUST have less?

So American workers are overpaid. The solution then, by the popular Conservative model, is to reduce that pay.

How does this create growth? The less money people have the less spending. Less spending means less money flowing through the system. Less money through the system (and economics is defined by the exchange of wealth for goods and services) the less economic growth. Lower growth means depression.

If you have to resort to lying about conservative policies, you really are losing the battle.

 

[M14 Shooter]

To rational, reasonable minds, cutting spending and living within ones means (not spending more than the revenue) is a good model for both the government and the citizen.

Correct.

To power-hungry liberals, such a plan is absurd.

Correct.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Are you against the idea of continuing the Bush tax cuts while increasing spending?


Si o No?

Why didn't Nosmo respond to this?


He responded to my other posts.

I had to work. sorry for using a profanity.

I am for eliminating the Bush tax cuts AND cutting spending.

No problem, thanks for the apology.

So who will you be voting for to achieve those 2 objectives?

 

[Wry Catcher]

To simple minds cutting spending and living within ones means (not spending more than the revenue) is a good model for both the government and the citizen.

To more active minds such a plan is absurd. For a budget in the final analysis is a plan based on projections. When the projections are wrong, the plan needs to be modified. This week Alabama experienced an unplanned event. If the budget for Alabama and the Federal Government had been set in stone at the beginning of the fiscal year, no emergency services would have been available to aid its citizens.

I suppose to the fiscal conservative (and I use that term with utter sarcasm) it is up to the people not killed to rebuild their lives. Life to the simple minded is all about personal responsibility and there should be no talk of a social contract.

Which is why every time a budget is made it should be done with the idea of creating a surplus just in case something happens you're ready for it.

Just like every american with common sense does.

If hyperpartisans like you demanded that level of basic common sense out of your beloved politicians, we'd have a revolutionary change in gov't.

Does the law require or allow a rainy day fund? Would citizens allow for it, or demand it be remitted back to them?

BTW, I simply don't like Republicans of the "I got mine, screw the rest of you" type; that does not make me a hyperpartisan Democrat.

 

[paulitician]

Pretty cool 'Hope & Change' huh? Dividing the country like no other President in History has. Man, what a terrible scam.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Please tell me you aren't one of those pie guys? You know, the guy who thinks wealth is a finite pie that has to be divided infinitely and that some people are getting more pie than others. Say it ain't so. You are aware that there is not a limited amount of wealth in the world that just changes hands aren't you? You do realize that when Romney accumulates more wealth, he isn't taking it from poor old widows and orphans don't you? Tell me, who did Warren Buffet and George Soros steal their wealth from? How many homeless children starved to death because of their greed? Or Bill Gates and Steve Jobs? Here is the dirty little secret that liberals don't seem to grasp. When the pie has been divided and X number of people get a slice, you just bake another pie. Works that way for wealth too. People can actually accumulate their own wealth without having the government confiscate it from those who worked for it and redistributing it to those who didn't out of "fairness".

No. I'm one of those vibrant middle class guys. You know, the type who thinks that the more people with spending power, the more the economy grows.

I'm one of those guys who thinks that if more and more wealth is consolidated among the very few, that wealth had to come from somewhere. The cuts in workers pay and benefits begged for by management? The ultra high bonuses and salaries given to the very few who did not labor to produce, but merely gambled some of their own money and won? That the stakes for the bets made by investors has risen faster than the compensation for the folks actually responsible for production.

Which cuts in workers pay?
Are you referring to denials of union demands? Oh well. Union members are paid well above market rates anyway. Your argument is not going to gain any traction there.
Do you believe that if one person creates or has more wealth then another MUST have less?

Union workers are paid above market rates? Weren't their wages negotiated in a buyer/seller free market?

 

[Dr.Drock]

To simple minds cutting spending and living within ones means (not spending more than the revenue) is a good model for both the government and the citizen.

To more active minds such a plan is absurd. For a budget in the final analysis is a plan based on projections. When the projections are wrong, the plan needs to be modified. This week Alabama experienced an unplanned event. If the budget for Alabama and the Federal Government had been set in stone at the beginning of the fiscal year, no emergency services would have been available to aid its citizens.

I suppose to the fiscal conservative (and I use that term with utter sarcasm) it is up to the people not killed to rebuild their lives. Life to the simple minded is all about personal responsibility and there should be no talk of a social contract.

Which is why every time a budget is made it should be done with the idea of creating a surplus just in case something happens you're ready for it.

Just like every american with common sense does.

If hyperpartisans like you demanded that level of basic common sense out of your beloved politicians, we'd have a revolutionary change in gov't.

Does the law require or allow a rainy day fund? Would citizens allow for it, or demand it be remitted back to them?

BTW, I simply don't like Republicans of the "I got mine, screw the rest of you" type; that does not make me a hyperpartisan Democrat.

Shouldn't have to be a law, we as citizens should demand our politicians only pass budgets with a surplus.

But we don't.

If you attacked Obama as much as republicans, or even in the same ballpark, for continuing the Bush tax cuts while simultaneously increasing spending, I'd believe that you weren't a hyperpartisan democrat.

But you know and I know, that'll never happen.

 

[freedombecki]

Bush didn't make Barack Obama spend 5 trillion dollars in 2 years.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So if Mitt Romney's taxes were 10% higher,

he'd make what? $52,000 a day?

Romney thinks his own taxes are too high. Romney thinks he should be making 60 or 70 grand a day for not working.

And somehow, sadly, he thinks (or pretends to think) that will make America a better place.

 

[grunt11b]

The average American family makes $50,000.00 a year.

Romney paid 13.9% in taxes.

The average American's taxes are double Romney's.

This is the bottom line.

Romney's tax plan would cut his taxes by half.

Newt's tax plan would taxes for Romney all together.

Both would raise taxes on the average American.

I want to see Republicans run on this.

And the class warfare continues. Like racism, the left are overusing the cards, by election time people will be immune to both.

 

[Jarhead]

So if Mitt Romney's taxes were 10% higher,

he'd make what? $52,000 a day?

Romney thinks his own taxes are too high. Romney thinks he should be making 60 or 70 grand a day for not working.

And somehow, sadly, he thinks (or pretends to think) that will make America a better place.

Why do you hate senior citizens?

I mean, you are aware that their retirement will either be put off for years (if they have not yet retired) or result in them outliving their money if they have to pay a higher cap gains tax.

You are aware of that....no?