If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The National Memo)   Mitt promises 12 million new jobs, eliminate the deficit, & lower taxes. Wall Street investor does the math: "At a 25 percent Federal tax rate on all the new income, the average new job would have to pay a mere $433,333 per year to fill the gap"   (nationalmemo.com) divider line 387
    More: Hero, Mitt Romney, deficits, tax rates  
•       •       •

4041 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Oct 2012 at 6:01 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



387 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-04 07:51:30 PM  
Obama said it last night. Romney's tax plan is great if you ignore history, math, and common sense.
 
2012-10-04 07:51:30 PM  
Maybe he just meant annually If so, he needs to borrow some Excel templates from Bill Clinton and pray.
 
2012-10-04 07:52:31 PM  

MyRandomName: I point out an obvious flaw in this analyst's assumptions you take in without question


The analyst was pointing out the plan as stated is full of it.
 
2012-10-04 07:52:46 PM  

MyRandomName: The report basically was an analysis of their retarded assumptions on what Romney bwver put forth.


They had to make assumptions because Romney won't talk about the details of his own damn plan. If you don't give anyone details about your plan, don't get upset when people make assumptions because you didn't give them details.
 
2012-10-04 07:54:15 PM  

soy_bomb: Smackledorfer: meat0918: soy_bomb: [www.investors.com image 620x518]
/Once QE4 rolls out, $433,333 will be the poverty line.
I like how the first chart ends right before we start shedding 700,000 jobs per month.
Soy is one of the least honest posters here.

Because I don't believe that Obama destroyed Romney last night, I am a "least honest poster".


No, it's not that. It's your misleading graphs right here in this quote chain, which are representative of your contributions to the site.
 
2012-10-04 07:55:27 PM  

Mrtraveler01: MyRandomName: I was unaware the only tax revenue available was income tax. Could have sworn increased income increases purchases, increases corporate taxes, etc.

Can you answer this for me:

How much would the economy have to grow in order to make Romney's plan to reduce tax rates and reduce deductions revenue neutral?


http://www.american.com/archive/2012/october/the-romney-tax-plan-not- a -tax-hike-on-the-middle-class

Here you go, the numbers.

Step 1)
More base-broadeners are on the table. TPC originally claimed that the Romney plan would raise taxes on the middle class by $86 billion. After a critique by AEI colleague Matt Jensen, who pointed out additional opportunities for base-broadening, TPC downgraded its estimate considerably. Specifically, Jensen pointed out that the exclusion of interest on state and local bonds and the exclusion of inside buildup on life-insurance products could yield more revenue. TPC then acknowledged that repeal of these provisions would raise approximately $45 billion from high-income taxpayers, reducing any need to tax the middle class by the same amount. The result: A purported $86 billion tax increase on the middle class shrinks to $41 billion.

This was the original analysis TPC farked up. They farked up badly. They walked back their report based on this AEI analysis.

Step 2)
The TPC revenue baseline assumption is inflated. TPC assumed that the baseline against which Romney is seeking revenue neutrality includes a 0.9 percent surcharge on "earned" income and an additional 3.8 percent surcharge on "unearned" income of high-income taxpayers that were adopted in the healthcare law. Romney has proposed repealing these taxes, but has not suggested that the cost of repeal would be paid for by tax reform. Instead, the budget effect of repealing these taxes should be analyzed in the context of the repeal of various other healthcare provisions.

Despite TPC's assertion that adjusting its baseline assumption "does not alter our primary conclusion," the revenue consequence of repealing this tax in 2015 is a full $29 billion, all of which falls on high-income earners. Correcting the baseline by removing this provision means that more of the revenue raised by broadening the tax base on high-income taxpayers can be used to finance tax reductions for the middle class. The result: A $41 billion tax increase shrinks to $12 billion.

TPC used an incorrect baseline. They assumed tax increases as a baseline that are in the ACA bill. Romney has already stated that he would remove the costs associated with the ACA bill, so assuming the ACA tax baseline but not allowing for reduction in costs is another dumb move from TPC.

3rd Step)
Even modest economic growth makes a difference. And finally, the important factor that I discussed above. Based on Table 3-1 of the "Analytical Perspectives" report by the president's Office of Management and Budget, I compute that if the economy were to grow just 0.1 percentage point faster per year as a result of the reform, the additional revenue in 2015 would be approximately $13 billion. The result: A $12 billion tax increase on the middle class actually becomes a tax cut.

TPC assumed a zero growth rate, which is just utterly silly. Even now we are getting a growth rate of 1.0+%. Even Keynesian models associate cuts to growth. Unless you want to argue against Keynesian models, leaving out those growth terms is just silly. This was even with just a modest growth factor tied in.

Step 4)
TPC also left out the majority of assumptions on Corporate taxation. They had as one of their primary assumptions that corporate taxation could not go up as a share of taxes, Romney never stated this. By separating out the revenue generation (Again from economic growth, funding of new business, reduction in corporate tax loopholes), TPC is removing a large part of the ability for the plan to balance.

Basically TPC used a ton of shiatty assumptions and was rightly blasted for it. AEI, Heritage, et al have blasted TPC for their assumptions which Romney nor Ryan have ever ever made.

SO yes, the TPC tax plan is not revenue neutral, that does not mean the Romney tax plan is.
 
2012-10-04 07:55:36 PM  

ManateeGag: if that's the case, where can I get one of those 430K/year jobs?


I believe you'll have to get it from Rmoney's rear end, because that's where he's pulling them from.
 
2012-10-04 07:55:45 PM  
Okay folks. Lets assume that government gets additional revenue equivalent to half of every nickel that the 12 million new job holders have. That would include income tax, payroll tax, additional gas taxes, increased corporate taxes, etc.

At this "50%" tax rate, the new job holders would be making $216,667 per year.

The federal government does NOT take half of what we make even indirectly. (Maybe if you add the what states, cities, etc. and remove poor people from the averaging, but state taxes don't lower federal deficits.)

Even if you increase wages too, it still does not come close.

And Romney wants to decrease taxes. The last few times we have done that it has resulted in decreased tax revenue so it is unrealistic to say that decreases tax rates will not decrease tax revenue (especially at first).
 
2012-10-04 07:55:55 PM  

MyRandomName: Mrtraveler01: MyRandomName: I was unaware the only tax revenue available was income tax. Could have sworn increased income increases purchases, increases corporate taxes, etc.

Can you answer this for me:

How much would the economy have to grow in order to make Romney's plan to reduce tax rates and reduce deductions revenue neutral?

Zero. Many analysts [weasel words] have shown what a piece of shiat[Contentious Labels] the tax policy center analysis was. It assumed zero GDP growth, discounted all changes to corporate deductions, ignored bond interest writeoffs which can account for half of their deficit. The report basically was an analysis of their retarded assumptions on what Romney bwver put forth. Will link in a few a 3 step example. The tax report was garbage.[Editorializing] The fact they rescinded their original numbers from 86 to 41 billion aafter the aei analysis shows that.


This post has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues in this thread.
This post needs additional citations for verification.
This post is written like a personal reflection or essay rather than an encyclopedic description of the subject.
This post may contain no research whatsoever.
 
2012-10-04 07:57:02 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: I must be working for the wrong small business


Well, just borrow $20,000 from your parents and start a new one. That's how it's done according to Romney.
 
2012-10-04 07:57:49 PM  
The only plan Mitt has involves strapping a muppet to the roof of his car.

img59.imageshack.us
 
2012-10-04 07:57:59 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: gremzo: ddam: meat0918: Corvus: nevirus: Yeah, but you did the math without including Romney's super-secret numbers that make it all revenue-neutral and add jobs and bring down the deficit.

Even if you don't do the math. If it's not going to be a tax cut because the deductions are in theory going to balance it out how is it going to help anyone?? We might have a simpler tax code but if what Romney is saying is true (which I think is not true, I think he plans to shift the tax burden to the middle and poor classes he is just using this as the pretext) then it won't save anyone one penny on their taxes.

And another thing.

Didn't Romney say he would lower the rate while closing loopholes, and then claim no one had ever done that before?

Isn't that exactly what Reagan did???

Reagan also had balance budgets and the national deficit was $0 when he left office.


umm... Really? because this chart says otherwise.

What's the source for that chart?



GIS for US deficits then it took me to WIkipaedia

but I can give you another one
www.usgovernmentspending.com
 
2012-10-04 07:59:15 PM  

MyRandomName: Basically TPC used a ton of shiatty assumptions and was rightly blasted for it. AEI, Heritage, et al have blasted TPC for their assumptions which Romney nor Ryan have ever ever made.


So a bunch of right-wing think tanks are covering for Romney/Ryan because they won't offer any details and yet get upset when people make assumptions about their tax plan because of the lack of details. 

Quite the non-partisan source you used btw.
 
2012-10-04 08:00:38 PM  

soy_bomb: Smackledorfer: meat0918: soy_bomb: [www.investors.com image 620x518]
/Once QE4 rolls out, $433,333 will be the poverty line.
I like how the first chart ends right before we start shedding 700,000 jobs per month.
Soy is one of the least honest posters here.

Because I don't believe that Obama destroyed Romney last night, I am a "least honest poster".


This is some farking performance art right here. If you don't see why, look again.
 
2012-10-04 08:00:50 PM  

gilgigamesh: It will come from the magical revenue that will pour down on us like manna from heaven, once the job creators are unshackled from their onerous tax burden.


Ancient Aliens taught me manna was just green algae.
 
2012-10-04 08:02:27 PM  
"It's all bullshiat, folks and it's bad for ya."

― George Carlin
 
2012-10-04 08:03:12 PM  

skilbride: gilgigamesh: It will come from the magical revenue that will pour down on us like manna from heaven, once the job creators are unshackled from their onerous tax burden.

Ancient Aliens taught me manna was just green algae.


Everyone knows it comes in little blue bottles, silly
 
2012-10-04 08:04:31 PM  

gilgigamesh: WhyteRaven74: hey were are all the usual suspects to defend Romney? Shift change?

They are off vomiting blood over the sudden realization that they have just spent the past 20 hours defending Romney.

They'll be back in a few.


No, no, no, no, no. They're out applying for those new jobs that are going to pay 433 large.
 
2012-10-04 08:05:39 PM  

jst3p: tortilla burger: The problem isn't that Romney lied in the debates; it's the voters that are too dumb to know when they're being lied to

This.

The only people anyone can convince at this point are "undecided" voters. Voters who are undecided at this point are idiots. It's a pretty solid strategy.


cdn.crooksandliars.com 

As true now as it was then.
 
2012-10-04 08:05:47 PM  

Mikey1969: violentsalvation: *click*

[i798.photobucket.com image 539x359]

*closes tab*

Mitt still isn't going to fark you.


Barack isn't either.
 
2012-10-04 08:06:18 PM  

gremzo: ddam: meat0918: Corvus: nevirus: Yeah, but you did the math without including Romney's super-secret numbers that make it all revenue-neutral and add jobs and bring down the deficit.

Even if you don't do the math. If it's not going to be a tax cut because the deductions are in theory going to balance it out how is it going to help anyone?? We might have a simpler tax code but if what Romney is saying is true (which I think is not true, I think he plans to shift the tax burden to the middle and poor classes he is just using this as the pretext) then it won't save anyone one penny on their taxes.

And another thing.

Didn't Romney say he would lower the rate while closing loopholes, and then claim no one had ever done that before?

Isn't that exactly what Reagan did???

Reagan also had balance budgets and the national deficit was $0 when he left office.


umm... Really? because this chart says otherwise.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x394]


Typical liberal chart. You have to unskew it to see the conservative (truthful) viewpoint. You're probably too dumb and liberal to do it, so I did it for you:

i.imgur.com
 
2012-10-04 08:06:19 PM  

Lost Thought 00: skilbride: gilgigamesh: It will come from the magical revenue that will pour down on us like manna from heaven, once the job creators are unshackled from their onerous tax burden.

Ancient Aliens taught me manna was just green algae.

Everyone knows it comes in little blue bottles, silly


No, that MANA. Manna is green algae. :-P
 
2012-10-04 08:06:21 PM  
Wow... the conservative farkers return... They've been missing for the past few months. About time you guys show your faces.
 
2012-10-04 08:08:30 PM  

Sock Ruh Tease: gremzo: ddam: meat0918: Corvus: nevirus: Yeah, but you did the math without including Romney's super-secret numbers that make it all revenue-neutral and add jobs and bring down the deficit.

Even if you don't do the math. If it's not going to be a tax cut because the deductions are in theory going to balance it out how is it going to help anyone?? We might have a simpler tax code but if what Romney is saying is true (which I think is not true, I think he plans to shift the tax burden to the middle and poor classes he is just using this as the pretext) then it won't save anyone one penny on their taxes.

And another thing.

Didn't Romney say he would lower the rate while closing loopholes, and then claim no one had ever done that before?

Isn't that exactly what Reagan did???

Reagan also had balance budgets and the national deficit was $0 when he left office.


umm... Really? because this chart says otherwise.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x394]

Typical liberal chart. You have to unskew it to see the conservative (truthful) viewpoint. You're probably too dumb and liberal to do it, so I did it for you:

[i.imgur.com image 850x394]


kudos sir, you made me laught
 
2012-10-04 08:09:31 PM  

jso2897: No. It's a very real effect - but it only lasts for so long, and only happens on the front side of the bell curve. Reagan used it up. It's been gone for a generation - now, lower taxes just mean lower revenues, and will until normal and equitable taxation is restored.


I know the charts are real and 'true' while at the same time being amazingly disingenuous . That's what I was marveling at.
 
2012-10-04 08:10:36 PM  

MyRandomName: Mrtraveler01: MyRandomName: I was unaware the only tax revenue available was income tax. Could have sworn increased income increases purchases, increases corporate taxes, etc.

Can you answer this for me:

How much would the economy have to grow in order to make Romney's plan to reduce tax rates and reduce deductions revenue neutral?

http://www.american.com/archive/2012/october/the-romney-tax-plan-not- a -tax-hike-on-the-middle-class

Here you go, the numbers.

Step 1)
More base-broadeners are on the table. TPC originally claimed that the Romney plan would raise taxes on the middle class by $86 billion. After a critique by AEI colleague Matt Jensen, who pointed out additional opportunities for base-broadening, TPC downgraded its estimate considerably. Specifically, Jensen pointed out that the exclusion of interest on state and local bonds and the exclusion of inside buildup on life-insurance products could yield more revenue. TPC then acknowledged that repeal of these provisions would raise approximately $45 billion from high-income taxpayers, reducing any need to tax the middle class by the same amount. The result: A purported $86 billion tax increase on the middle class shrinks to $41 billion.

This was the original analysis TPC farked up. They farked up badly. They walked back their report based on this AEI analysis.

Step 2)
The TPC revenue baseline assumption is inflated. TPC assumed that the baseline against which Romney is seeking revenue neutrality includes a 0.9 percent surcharge on "earned" income and an additional 3.8 percent surcharge on "unearned" income of high-income taxpayers that were adopted in the healthcare law. Romney has proposed repealing these taxes, but has not suggested that the cost of repeal would be paid for by tax reform. Instead, the budget effect of repealing these taxes should be analyzed in the context of the repeal of various other healthcare provisions.

Despite TPC's assertion that adjusting its baseline assumption "does not a ...


all that and you missed just one word right at the end.... "either"
 
2012-10-04 08:11:01 PM  
That salary is middle income as defined by Romney. If you make under that, you're losing your entitlements, leech.
 
2012-10-04 08:11:02 PM  
See, this is why Romney is better for the country, all Obama is going to create is a bunch of $10 an hour jobs.
 
2012-10-04 08:11:02 PM  
MyRandomName:

Still waiting to find out how fast the economy would have to grow to make Romney's tax plan revenue neutral.
 
2012-10-04 08:13:49 PM  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: aircraftkiller: One of my FB friends put this bullshiat up as their cover photo:

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 400x518]

I linked Snopes for clarification on who actually said it. I got this in response, a few replies after his friends were circle-jerking each other over the evils of "liberals":

"I hate it when people hide behind snopes/APfactcheck/etc. Does it make them feel better that they can provide a link to disprove/discredit something else? These are wise words regardless."

Translation: "I hate when people use facts to show that I'm wrong about what I believe in. Rather than educate myself and learn what my ideology stands for, I'd rather circle-jerk\echo chamber my friends on Facebook because nothing says intellectualism like reading and hearing what I already believed in."

I'm sure you guys knew this, though.

Reminds me of a facebook conversation that was going around a few years back. The Boobieser said something about how the earth would freeze if it were one foot further, and burn if it were one foot closer to the sun. Then followed it with something about how God is so amazing that he can do that. A couple people started circle-jerking about how awesome God is to plan the earth's orbit like that. Then some guy broke stroke and told them about how the earth's path is an elliptical orbit, and how many tens of thousands of miles difference the major and minor axis are from each other, and how that's why we have colder winters in the northern hemisphere and warmer summers in the southern. The original poster started cursing about how nobody asked his opinion and how he better not say that he's wrong again. It was complete with f-bombs and exclamation points, solidifying that this person was indeed a Christian.


And he wasn't even correct; although the earth's orbit is indeed elliptical, we have seasons because the earth wobbles on its axis like a spinning top, a phenomenon also known as axial tilt.
 
2012-10-04 08:13:56 PM  
Are there even 12M Americans making $433k currently?
 
US1
2012-10-04 08:17:56 PM  
img140.imageshack.us
 
2012-10-04 08:20:06 PM  
I'm glad Romney wants to fire Big Bird. He's another moocher who sucks the teet of government and don't get me started on that dude that spends my tax dollars on cookies.
 
2012-10-04 08:21:03 PM  

sno man: MyRandomName: Mrtraveler01: MyRandomName: I was unaware the only tax revenue available was income tax. Could have sworn increased income increases purchases, increases corporate taxes, etc.

Can you answer this for me:

How much would the economy have to grow in order to make Romney's plan to reduce tax rates and reduce deductions revenue neutral?

http://www.american.com/archive/2012/october/the-romney-tax-plan-not- a -tax-hike-on-the-middle-class

Here you go, the numbers.

Step 1)
More base-broadeners are on the table. TPC originally claimed that the Romney plan would raise taxes on the middle class by $86 billion. After a critique by AEI colleague Matt Jensen, who pointed out additional opportunities for base-broadening, TPC downgraded its estimate considerably. Specifically, Jensen pointed out that the exclusion of interest on state and local bonds and the exclusion of inside buildup on life-insurance products could yield more revenue. TPC then acknowledged that repeal of these provisions would raise approximately $45 billion from high-income taxpayers, reducing any need to tax the middle class by the same amount. The result: A purported $86 billion tax increase on the middle class shrinks to $41 billion.

This was the original analysis TPC farked up. They farked up badly. They walked back their report based on this AEI analysis.

Step 2)
The TPC revenue baseline assumption is inflated. TPC assumed that the baseline against which Romney is seeking revenue neutrality includes a 0.9 percent surcharge on "earned" income and an additional 3.8 percent surcharge on "unearned" income of high-income taxpayers that were adopted in the healthcare law. Romney has proposed repealing these taxes, but has not suggested that the cost of repeal would be paid for by tax reform. Instead, the budget effect of repealing these taxes should be analyzed in the context of the repeal of various other healthcare provisions.

Despite TPC's assertion that adjusting its baseline assumpti ...


The funny thing is that he was whining about the Tax Policy Center using assumptions in regards to Romney's tax plan.

And he responds to this by using assumptions from the American Enterprise Institute.
 
2012-10-04 08:21:07 PM  

MyRandomName: TheMysteriousStranger: MyRandomName: I was unaware the only tax revenue available was income tax. Could have sworn increased income increases purchases, increases corporate taxes, etc. Have Keynesians been lying or is this analyst a farking retard?

So give us some numbers. How much taxes are you proposing a creation of a new job will create. How much taxes are you proposing whatever increase in pay the already employed will get from pay increases? Do the math. Is it greater than a trillion dollars.

I point out an obvious flaw in this analyst's assumptions you take in without question, and you ask me to do the math. Hilarious. Do you or do you not believe Keynesian models?


I guess you can't propose such a model.

The $433,333 average is parody. I don't take it seriously, other than to point out just how absurd what Gov. Romney is saying. As I have pointed above it does use some dubious assumptions.

As even McDonald's hiring will be included in the "12 million new jobs" as will part time work, etc. $40K is probably more realistic especially since new hires don't generally start of the top rates. That would be 480 billion in new wages. I don't think there is any possibility that those increased wages will generate even remotely enough money to close the gap even if you take the reality that their employers will pay more taxes too. Add it a few thousand extra dollars to existing wage earner too. If Mitt did that he would be almost guaranteed reelection. It still would not come up to the money to eliminate the deficit.

And then Mitt wants to lower taxes. From the past few times this has been done, we know it will lower tax revenue.

Yeah there are some multiplier effects that can be expected. But the extent that they are needed to make Mitt's numbers add up is believing in magic.

So give us some numbers, make some assumptions, and do the calculations. This is math you almost certainly can do. Lets see if you can eliminate the deficit.
 
2012-10-04 08:21:13 PM  

Sock Ruh Tease: gremzo: ddam: meat0918: Corvus: nevirus: Yeah, but you did the math without including Romney's super-secret numbers that make it all revenue-neutral and add jobs and bring down the deficit.

Even if you don't do the math. If it's not going to be a tax cut because the deductions are in theory going to balance it out how is it going to help anyone?? We might have a simpler tax code but if what Romney is saying is true (which I think is not true, I think he plans to shift the tax burden to the middle and poor classes he is just using this as the pretext) then it won't save anyone one penny on their taxes.

And another thing.

Didn't Romney say he would lower the rate while closing loopholes, and then claim no one had ever done that before?

Isn't that exactly what Reagan did???

Reagan also had balance budgets and the national deficit was $0 when he left office.


umm... Really? because this chart says otherwise.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x394]

Typical liberal chart. You have to unskew it to see the conservative (truthful) viewpoint. You're probably too dumb and liberal to do it, so I did it for you:

[i.imgur.com image 850x394]


Awesome.
 
2012-10-04 08:23:11 PM  

TheMysteriousStranger: MyRandomName: TheMysteriousStranger: MyRandomName: I was unaware the only tax revenue available was income tax. Could have sworn increased income increases purchases, increases corporate taxes, etc. Have Keynesians been lying or is this analyst a farking retard?

So give us some numbers. How much taxes are you proposing a creation of a new job will create. How much taxes are you proposing whatever increase in pay the already employed will get from pay increases? Do the math. Is it greater than a trillion dollars.

I point out an obvious flaw in this analyst's assumptions you take in without question, and you ask me to do the math. Hilarious. Do you or do you not believe Keynesian models?

I guess you can't propose such a model.

The $433,333 average is parody. I don't take it seriously, other than to point out just how absurd what Gov. Romney is saying. As I have pointed above it does use some dubious assumptions.

As even McDonald's hiring will be included in the "12 million new jobs" as will part time work, etc. $40K is probably more realistic especially since new hires don't generally start of the top rates. That would be 480 billion in new wages. I don't think there is any possibility that those increased wages will generate even remotely enough money to close the gap even if you take the reality that their employers will pay more taxes too. Add it a few thousand extra dollars to existing wage earner too. If Mitt did that he would be almost guaranteed reelection. It still would not come up to the money to eliminate the deficit.

And then Mitt wants to lower taxes. From the past few times this has been done, we know it will lower tax revenue.

Yeah there are some multiplier effects that can be expected. But the extent that they are needed to make Mitt's numbers add up is believing in magic.

So give us some numbers, make some assumptions, and do the calculations. This is math you almost certainly can do. Lets see if you can eliminate the ...


He's too busy deriding the assumptions done by the Tax Policy Center while simultaneously praising the assumptions done by the American Enterprise Institute.
 
2012-10-04 08:26:45 PM  
Obama got schooled!

i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-10-04 08:29:12 PM  

cabbyman: Obama got schooled!

[i0.kym-cdn.com image 799x444]


Romney won, but he was all style and no substance. Romney offered nothing new last night in terms of policy, he was just same ole, same ole.

Agreed?
 
2012-10-04 08:29:29 PM  

TheMysteriousStranger: Yeah there are some multiplier effects that can be expected. But the extent that they are needed to make Mitt's numbers add up is believing in magic.


Hyperinflation.

That's the Republican's goal. Make our currency and debt worthless.

Then create a Randian paradise.
 
2012-10-04 08:30:38 PM  

soy_bomb: [www.investors.com image 620x518]

/Once QE4 rolls out, $433,333 will be the poverty line.


way to cherry pick some stats there. you notice anything odd about the stopping and starting dates of those charts?
 
2012-10-04 08:31:22 PM  
More like he got bullied and lied about, but yes, it did hurt.
 
2012-10-04 08:32:35 PM  

Mrtraveler01: cabbyman: Obama got schooled!

[i0.kym-cdn.com image 799x444]

Romney won, but he was all style and no substance. Romney offered nothing new last night in terms of policy, he was just same ole, same ole.

Agreed?


He did offer something new. He stole Presidebt Barry Marshall Davis's policy stances and proscribed them to himself. He was like a used car salesman combined with that guy at Best Buy who says "Can I help you?" while you're browsing computers and points you to a particular computer then says "It's got a lot of RAMs and gigs inside, and it's only $5500." It was awesome and very much adherent to Republican morality and behavior. It makes me proud to be a Merican.
 
2012-10-04 08:33:00 PM  
You guys and your facts and stuff. Everyone in the MSM said Mitt won the debate and that's all that counts.
 
2012-10-04 08:33:26 PM  
Nobody cares about the lies. All that matters is that Romney looks good.

Jesus Christ, what the fark? The narcissists have taken over the henhouse.
 
2012-10-04 08:33:27 PM  
A President is the Chief Executive. The point of the Executive is to set a strategic plan. They don't have to worry about the operational or tactical plans. That is why Obama failed - diving too much into specifics doesn't work when your track record has shown you to be distant and aloof when it comes to the legislation your party is struggling to put through congress. No one believes his shiat any more.

When Romney says his goals are lower taxes, a balanced budget, and more jobs, you have to understand that it's impossible to have all three at once. The great managers are capable of managing the paradox and finding the proper balance of their main objectives to come out with a workable outcome.
 
2012-10-04 08:34:06 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Romney won, but he was all style and no substance.


If we were picking analogies, would you say that, perhaps, Romney was an "empty suit"?
 
2012-10-04 08:34:10 PM  

Xai: Romney "I will lower taxes, make more jobs and reduce the deficit"

Obama "That's impossible"

Romney "I have a super secret plan, I won't tell you or you might steal it"

Voters "Yeah we'll vote for you, mitt - not like you might be lying or anything are black"


Fixed for accuracy.
 
2012-10-04 08:34:56 PM  

Shaggy_C: When Romney says his goals are lower taxes, a balanced budget, and more jobs, you have to understand that it's impossible to have all three at once. The great managers are capable of managing the paradox and finding the proper balance of their main objectives to come out with a workable outcome.


What has Romney offered to have a workable outcome for all 3?
 
2012-10-04 08:35:22 PM  

Mrtraveler01: cabbyman: Obama got schooled!

[i0.kym-cdn.com image 799x444]

Romney won, but he was all style and no substance. Romney offered nothing new last night in terms of policy, he was just same ole, same ole.

Agreed?


But...but...but..Romney WON! Why are you arguing??
 
Displayed 50 of 387 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report