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  
•       •       •

4038 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Oct 2012 at 6:01 PM (1 year 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
 
kab
2012-10-04 10:33:58 PM

Solid Muldoon: They day America began to die was the first time anyone ever said the phrase, "We had an obligation to our shareholders."


And I thought I was the only person around who has arrived at this conclusion.
 
2012-10-04 10:36:53 PM
Oh who am I kidding, you shiat the thread.

shootglasss:
imageshack.us
An Obamabot website...no thanks, I can do the math a lot better.
imageshack.us
 
2012-10-04 10:38:09 PM

Bucky Katt: You guys and your facts and stuff. Everyone in the MSM said Mitt won the debate and that's all that counts.


It was lehrer's fault. Yeah, obama got his ass kicked because the moderator let Romney talk all over him.

No, wait. Obama only lost because he was playing rope a dope. It was all a trap to get quotes for ads. Hehe, stupid Romney falling for obama's trap.

No, wait. actually Obama didn't lose. The lame stream media just said he lost but they have no idea what they're talking about.

/only watched half hour of debate and it was pretty close IMO, but I'm amused watching the liberal butthurt excuse train chugging around today.
 
2012-10-04 10:39:50 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Bucky Katt: You guys and your facts and stuff. Everyone in the MSM said Mitt won the debate and that's all that counts.

It was lehrer's fault. Yeah, obama got his ass kicked because the moderator let Romney talk all over him.

No, wait. Obama only lost because he was playing rope a dope. It was all a trap to get quotes for ads. Hehe, stupid Romney falling for obama's trap.

No, wait. actually Obama didn't lose. The lame stream media just said he lost but they have no idea what they're talking about.

/only watched half hour of debate and it was pretty close IMO, but I'm amused watching the liberal butthurt excuse train chugging around today.



You sound really tired
 
2012-10-04 10:40:03 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: /only watched half hour of debate and it was pretty close IMO, but I'm amused watching the liberal butthurt excuse train chugging around today.


No, it's clear that Romney was the winner.

But he was all style and no substance. And definitely didn't offer anything new in terms of policy.
 
2012-10-04 10:40:34 PM

Raharu: shotglasss: An Obamabot website...no thanks, I can do the math a lot better.

Well don't be a threadshiatting little shiat, you shiat.

Show us some farking math.


That's funny...it's gone.
 
2012-10-04 10:41:56 PM

BorgiaGinz: 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.


He was correct in the sense that our closer proximity to the sun in the winter of the Northern Hemisphere tempers the winter season, making it slightly warmer and makes the summer slightly cooler due to the Northern Hemisphere's greater distance.

The opposite is true for the same latitudes for the Southern Hemisphere, hotter summers and colder winters.
 
2012-10-04 10:43:29 PM

Raharu: shotglasss: An Obamabot website...no thanks, I can do the math a lot better.

Well don't be a threadshiatting little shiat, you shiat.

Show us some farking math.


Ever notice how the liberals start using profanity at conservatives?

First show me the budget that Romney is going to propose that has a $1,300,000,000,000 deficit. That's the starting point that this Obamabot website used. I have not seen Romney's budget where he overspends like Obama. Have you?
 
2012-10-04 10:44:47 PM

Gyrfalcon: Raharu: shotglasss: An Obamabot website...no thanks, I can do the math a lot better.

Well don't be a threadshiatting little shiat, you shiat.

Show us some farking math.

That's funny...it's gone.


It's back. And waiting for you to show me Romney's 1.3 trillion dollar deficit budget.
 
2012-10-04 10:46:04 PM

shotglasss: Ever notice how the liberals start using profanity at conservatives?



CRY MOAR

shotglasss: First show me the budget that Romney is going to propose that has a $1,300,000,000,000 deficit. That's the starting point that this Obamabot website used. I have not seen Romney's budget where he overspends like Obama. Have you?



You said you can do the math a lot better, now you're just making sad excuses
 
2012-10-04 10:50:44 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: /only watched half hour of debate and it was pretty close IMO, but I'm amused watching the liberal butthurt excuse train chugging around today.


Yes, sure, 'impartial' poster amused but lieberal butthurt. That's a new one. 

/so vote Romney
 
2012-10-04 10:54:15 PM

Solid Muldoon: I've yet to hear how a President can actually create jobs, from either candidate. Unless you are talking about the WPA, the Prez has very little to do with it. You can't do the WPA today because you can't send a bunch of guys into the desert to live in tents and sling shovels with no Union rules and no OSHA, even if they might be happy to have those jobs.

The only way to create jobs at home is to limit foreign products. And that will never happen. Not when our leaders are deep in bed with foreign companies and foreign banks and foreign kingdoms. And Walmart.

You want to create a million jobs? Ban foreign cars.


Many foreign cars are built here. My Scion was made in Maryland.

Incidentally, my previous car was a Ford, and was built in Mexico. So much for "buying American."
 
2012-10-04 10:54:51 PM

cabbyman: 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?

Nothing new? He introduced America to the real MItt Romney, not the one that the left has been babbling about in the papers. He showed his leadership meddle which was a stark contrast to Obama's coy fumbling. America saw that there was an alternative to the status quo. Two more debates like this and Romney has a puncher's chance!


Meddle. Good word for Romney, especially considering he was an interrupting douchebag.
 
2012-10-04 10:56:39 PM
Wow Mitt, I had no idea! You a pretty cool guy make rich people and not afraid

shotglasss: I have not seen Romney's budget.....Have you?

 
2012-10-04 10:57:32 PM
ugh
 
2012-10-04 10:58:30 PM

shotglasss: Gyrfalcon: Raharu: shotglasss: An Obamabot website...no thanks, I can do the math a lot better.

Well don't be a threadshiatting little shiat, you shiat.

Show us some farking math.

That's funny...it's gone.

It's back. And waiting for you to show me Romney's 1.3 trillion dollar deficit budget.


I and several others asked nicely, without profanity, and are still waiting to see some math, not some deflection... you brought it up, own it.
 
2012-10-04 11:07:01 PM

shotglasss: Raharu: shotglasss: An Obamabot website...no thanks, I can do the math a lot better.

Well don't be a threadshiatting little shiat, you shiat.

Show us some farking math.

Ever notice how the liberals start using profanity at conservatives?

First show me the budget that Romney is going to propose that has a $1,300,000,000,000 deficit. That's the starting point that this Obamabot website used. I have not seen Romney's budget where he overspends like Obama. Have you?


Can you address the question without making a false equivilency? No of course you can't, because you, like almost all Republicans have the critical thinking skills of a 1st grader.

Here's a tip. Romney himself said "NO NEW REVENUE." Well, when you lower taxes, increase military spending, and don't raise revenue via taxes, you AUTOMATICALLY are creating a deficit, by definition.

If you want to make the false assertion that the economy will grow and thus tax revenue will increase, you need to either prove it with numbers, or show how it worked in the past. The difficulty is that we did it in the past, from 2001-2009, and we can PROVE that it didn't work. So you really have no argument, and you know that, but you can't reconcile it with your party first mentality.

Grow the fark up.
 
2012-10-04 11:10:04 PM

shotglasss: Gyrfalcon: Raharu: shotglasss: An Obamabot website...no thanks, I can do the math a lot better.

Well don't be a threadshiatting little shiat, you shiat.

Show us some farking math.

That's funny...it's gone.

It's back. And waiting for you to show me Romney's 1.3 trillion dollar deficit budget.


And just to pile on even more on you, because you really need to be thoroughly embarrased so you don't come back here again without thinking first, your ignorance on the subject of the deficit is not as good as other people's economic knowledge. There is no automatic equality in ideas. Some ideas, like lowering taxes while increasing spending, are stupid ideas, for stupid people. Especially since we just tried it in the last Presidency, and it failed miserably.

So just go slink away now and get some cream for the raping you just received.
 
2012-10-04 11:13:17 PM
Nate Silver updated his forecast a few minutes ago and it's UP to 86.4% chance of Obama winning.
 
2012-10-04 11:21:37 PM
Mitt Romney was so full of shiat last night he had mushrooms growing out of his ears.
 
2012-10-04 11:24:56 PM
FTA: If you have a $1.3 trillion annual deficit...

Now, Howie here is assuming that Romney's budget is going to be 1.3 trllion dollars. The task for you liberal dummies is to show me where Romney's budget is going to be borrowing 1.3 trillion dollars from China, as Obammer has done every year.

There's also this problem that this is a static analysis, which does not take into account anything that will happen once Obammy is booted (economy will get better and deficits will go down by 80% or more), tax rates go down (economy will get better), (assuming the Dems lose the Senate, which it looks like they will) Senate passes a budget for the first time in four years (economy will get better). In fact, the one thing keeping the economy from getting better is....Obama. Not one single promise he made regarding the economy has been kept, yet you all are worried that Romney is lying? What a joke.

Howie, and the rest of you libs, are mad because of the way Romney spanked your savior, Jesus Hussein Obama. get over it. It's going to happen twice more before the election, and then Obama can start packing his stuff up.
 
2012-10-04 11:33:16 PM

shotglasss: which does not take into account anything that will happen once Obammy is booted (economy will get better and deficits will go down by 80% or more)


I'm sure you have the citations to prove this will happen.
 
2012-10-04 11:33:53 PM

12349876: Nate Silver updated his forecast a few minutes ago and it's UP to 86.4% chance of Obama winning.


It's because the Rams have killed Arizona's chances of an undefeated record.
 
2012-10-04 11:43:38 PM

Mrtraveler01: I'm sure you have the citations to prove this will happen.


The U of Hannity or the O'Reilly Economic Council, it was one of those, though I thought the number was 180%.
 
2012-10-04 11:56:28 PM

soy_bomb: www.investors.com

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


Notice how that first graph of 'total US jobs' only goes up to 2008, completely cutting off 2008 itself. If one showed 2008 -- up to 2009 when Obama actually became president (since Bush was still in office in 2008) -- and the fact that something like half that job growth had already vanished:

static8.businessinsider.com

Similarly, the graphic omits 2008 and 2009 for the deficit chart; 2008 had the 3rd largest Bush-still-in-office deficit at 3.19%, and 2009's deficit -- remember, 2009 was funded by budgets proposed in 2008 -- was over 10%GDP.

Also notice how none of the graphs compare Obama and Bush, merely showing really select bits from each.

Obama's deficits as %GDP?

2010 8.90
2011 8.61
2012 8.51
2013 5.52



/note: the author of this graph wrote '08' twice instead of '08' and '09'
 
2012-10-05 12:06:59 AM

shotglasss: Gyrfalcon: Raharu: shotglasss: An Obamabot website...no thanks, I can do the math a lot better.

Well don't be a threadshiatting little shiat, you shiat.

Show us some farking math.

That's funny...it's gone.

It's back. And waiting for you to show me Romney's 1.3 trillion dollar deficit budget.


I never promised to show you one. You, however, promised to show me that Romney was going to solve the deficit. I'd still like to see it. You said you could do the math better. Since I can't do math at all, I'd have to take your word for it. Show me some math...ANY math.
 
2012-10-05 12:14:06 AM

Introitus: When you don't think, it's easy to say Mitt Rmoney won.


That's why no one is saying he won today. The emotions are over, and the light has gone on.
 
2012-10-05 12:18:46 AM

ArcadianRefugee: Notice how that first graph of 'total US jobs' only goes up to 2008, completely cutting off 2008 itself. If one showed 2008 -- up to 2009 when Obama actually became president (since Bush was still in office in 2008) -- and the fact that something like half that job growth had already vanished:


And the second graph is deficits as a percentage of GDP.
 
2012-10-05 12:19:55 AM

cretinbob: That's why no one is saying he won today. The emotions are over, and the light has gone on.


He did win, but to do so he had to pivot hard to the center, repute everything he's said for the last 18 months, and lie his ass off. We'll see if last night was a Pyrrhic victory.
 
2012-10-05 12:21:16 AM

Mentat: cretinbob: That's why no one is saying he won today. The emotions are over, and the light has gone on.

He did win, but to do so he had to pivot hard to the center, repute everything he's said for the last 18 months, and lie his ass off. We'll see if last night was a Pyrrhic victory.


It may be....he's already completely repudiated the 47% remark.
 
2012-10-05 12:21:51 AM

cretinbob: That's why no one is saying he won today. The emotions are over, and the light has gone on.


Yeah, I likened Romney last night to that kid everyone knew in middle school that claimed he knew ninja fighting and demonstrated for everyone during recess. It looks impressive at first, then you realize he's just flailing around like a kid with cerebral palsy who'd dropped one too many tabs of acid, and accidentally kicked himself in the balls.
 
2012-10-05 12:22:57 AM

AdolfOliverPanties: Romney's plans are the very definition of pie in the sky. There is no way they can work,even if he had 100% cooperations from Congress and was able to enact every plan he wants.


That's true of almost every government proposal and projection. But, guess what: nobody gets elected unless they make impossible promises, 'cuz nobody would vote for a realist.

Reality: the government is broke, and unless we cut local, state, and federal spending by at least 50%, we're going to bankrupt the country and bring on the greatest depression the world has ever seen. This will entail cutting the military and SS/Medicare by at least 50%. BTW, even if we do cut spending by 50%, we're going to bring on the greatest depression the world has ever seen, but it won't last as long or be as severe as it would if we continue all the spending. Do I have your vote?
 
kab
2012-10-05 12:51:23 AM

shotglasss: Sorry guys, I actually can't do the math on my own. Brb, logging onto another alt.


Yep, we get it.
 
2012-10-05 01:01:09 AM

Somacandra: impaler: 12 million new jobs paying $433,333 per year? Sign me up!

The catch is that all these jobs consist of taking it in the ass from China.


For $433,333 a year, I'd take it up the ass from Chyna.
 
2012-10-05 01:04:17 AM

intelligent comment below: violentsalvation: Yeah sorry, I try to get my political info, analysis, and news from websites that aren't openly shilling for one of the candidates and launching popups.


So go ahead and prove the math is wrong. We're waiting


I vaguely recall he once said in a thread that he struggled to figure out algebra and still hates math.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Violentsalvation.
 
2012-10-05 01:09:02 AM

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.


I've got a better one. Some total farking moron I know posted some shiat about "Barry Soetoro". This was apparently some birther bullshiat that this idiot firmly believes regardless of it having been debunked three years ago by snopes, and it was all based on a fake AP article released on April 1st, 2009...April Fool's day of all things.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/occidental.asp

So of course in response he posts some article that in the first sentence says that snopes is ran by democrats. He never tries to refute that it had been debunked, just that the site was biased. But then it goes on to say in the next paragraph that several fact checking organizations have found snopes to be neutral and non partizan...wtf.
 
2012-10-05 01:09:30 AM

FuryOfFirestorm: Somacandra: impaler: 12 million new jobs paying $433,333 per year? Sign me up!

The catch is that all these jobs consist of taking it in the ass from China.

For $433,333 a year, I'd take it up the ass from Chyna.


encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2012-10-05 01:15:16 AM

Smackledorfer: intelligent comment below: violentsalvation: Yeah sorry, I try to get my political info, analysis, and news from websites that aren't openly shilling for one of the candidates and launching popups.


So go ahead and prove the math is wrong. We're waiting

I vaguely recall he once said in a thread that he struggled to figure out algebra and still hates math.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Violentsalvation.


I don't know if I've ever said that, or what relevance it has in this thread, I'm not arguing the math, I'm not really arguing anything. The link and the popup thing bothered me several hours ago. Now I'm home, wearing shorts, drinking beer, and using a browser that doesn't piss me off.

I had to retake some basic algebra when I went to a local community college, years ago, because it had been years since high school and it really is "use it or lose it".
 
2012-10-05 01:27:38 AM

coyo: TheMysteriousStranger:
And the GOP wants to lower corporate taxes anyways.


This has always puzzled me, since so many of the huge corporations pay nothing at all in taxes.


Exactly. How much more not than nothing do you want to pay!?
 
2012-10-05 01:58:06 AM

BMulligan: Serious question here - why the fark does anyone give two rat turds about the deficit? Real bond yields are negative right now. The government is obligated to pay back something like 97 cents for each dollar it borrows. This situation won't last forever, but as long as it remains the case, we should be borrowing every penny we can without borking the credit market and make some overdue investments in our future.


No shiat. It's infuriating.
 
2012-10-05 01:58:27 AM

Nadie_AZ: I hate those floating things. I don't care if it was some hot chick asking me for a hot night on the beaches in Hawaii all expenses paid.


i.imgur.com
 
2012-10-05 01:59:05 AM

grinnel: Did Romney say he was "going to reduce the deficit"? Or, did he say he was "going to reduce the deficit to zero"?

If the first is true, the statement under scrutiny may be true as well.


I know it's a short post in a sea of wall o' texts and funny line pictures, but it is what this thread is based upon...
 
2012-10-05 02:42:03 AM

violentsalvation: Smackledorfer: intelligent comment below: violentsalvation: Yeah sorry, I try to get my political info, analysis, and news from websites that aren't openly shilling for one of the candidates and launching popups.


So go ahead and prove the math is wrong. We're waiting

I vaguely recall he once said in a thread that he struggled to figure out algebra and still hates math.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Violentsalvation.

I don't know if I've ever said that, or what relevance it has in this thread, I'm not arguing the math, I'm not really arguing anything. The link and the popup thing bothered me several hours ago. Now I'm home, wearing shorts, drinking beer, and using a browser that doesn't piss me off.

I had to retake some basic algebra when I went to a local community college, years ago, because it had been years since high school and it really is "use it or lose it".


I think the point is that if you can't handle basic algebra then how can you possibly run around the politics tab all the time with such strongly locked in beliefs about economics?

I don't intend this directed solely at you. This is a nationwide problem and the evidence is what our politicians (including Obama who stretches the numbers as well - though going by factcheck.org not anywhere near as much as Romney) are able to get away with. The nation just judged a discussion of our domestic econ policy based on attitudes, facial expressions, etc.

/cue farnsworth.
 
2012-10-05 02:54:51 AM
So Romney really doesn't have much of a plan and is utterly full of shiat.

Oh, but Obama was DESTROYED in the debates last night.

Derp.
 
2012-10-05 03:02:15 AM
No takers? Ok, that's fine; a simple google will not show quotes saying Romney will reduce the deficit to zero with these propositions. We will find words like 'trim', 'reduce', and 'cut'. The author of the article, upon which this thread is based, decided to add his own preposition to Romney's words in order to make an incredulous statement.

Truth is, y'all are all full of shiat. A little over four years ago, the elephants showed their dislike for Romney and the donkeys blindly supported a nobody that the media made the grand poobah. In my opinion, admittedly conservative, this is how I saw the last election:
You can be progressive, and open minded, and educated, and not be embarrassed by your decisions when talking to your neighbors at your bbq, and support a nobody senator from corrupt chi-town; a guy no media ever questioned after important senatorial decisions (hell, I never even heard his name before he was a nominee). Or, you can settle for mccain; some old white guy with funny jaw movemet, ho-hum. It was Tigger vs eeyore.

Deja vu. Nine months ago, Obama had one of the lowest approval ratings of all times. Now, here we are again. We have a candidate, the incumbent, that no one really likes and a puppet created from the media. A schism is created upon emotion and nothing else. With all of the "fact findings", it has been shown that each party's candidate's policies feeds off the other. But, we cannot overcome our extremists views that only fall in line with our partition boundaries.

This country is being led not by our leaders, because we truly have none, but by only our disagreements being volleyed upon one another. Drop your political mascot. Nutritionist have shown that food with mascots is unhealthy, it is the same for our nation.
Don't vote out of hate or love or your neighbor. Take the power away from the media; a swinging pendulum keeps those lazy bastards in business. Vote with your own mind for the betterment of tomorrow regardless of stigma. The truth behind democracy is that if everybody was blindfolded, popular opinion is not
 
2012-10-05 03:03:18 AM

Corvus: The derp squad will be in here in a sec to try to pretend this is wrong, but the thing that needs to be focused on is this:

Never mind that there's a problem lowering the top tax rate to 28 percent from 35 percent, which will cost $250 billion in revenues. Plugging that hole by taking away the $165 billion in deductions used by top earners simply doesn't work.

If taking away the deduction from the rich doesn't pay for this rate cut WHO WILL PAY THE DIFFERENCE?

The middle class, that's who!!!


No, probably the poor. Conservatives hate the poor more than the middle class.
 
2012-10-05 03:05:32 AM

grinnel: No takers? Ok, that's fine; a simple google will not show quotes saying Romney will reduce the deficit to zero with these propositions. We will find words like 'trim', 'reduce', and 'cut'. The author of the article, upon which this thread is based, decided to add his own preposition to Romney's words in order to make an incredulous statement.

Truth is, y'all are all full of shiat. A little over four years ago, the elephants showed their dislike for Romney and the donkeys blindly supported a nobody that the media made the grand poobah. In my opinion, admittedly conservative, this is how I saw the last election:
You can be progressive, and open minded, and educated, and not be embarrassed by your decisions when talking to your neighbors at your bbq, and support a nobody senator from corrupt chi-town; a guy no media ever questioned after important senatorial decisions (hell, I never even heard his name before he was a nominee). Or, you can settle for mccain; some old white guy with funny jaw movemet, ho-hum. It was Tigger vs eeyore.

Deja vu. Nine months ago, Obama had one of the lowest approval ratings of all times. Now, here we are again. We have a candidate, the incumbent, that no one really likes and a puppet created from the media. A schism is created upon emotion and nothing else. With all of the "fact findings", it has been shown that each party's candidate's policies feeds off the other. But, we cannot overcome our extremists views that only fall in line with our partition boundaries.

This country is being led not by our leaders, because we truly have none, but by only our disagreements being volleyed upon one another. Drop your political mascot. Nutritionist have shown that food with mascots is unhealthy, it is the same for our nation.
Don't vote out of hate or love or your neighbor. Take the power away from the media; a swinging pendulum keeps those lazy bastards in business. Vote with your own mind for the betterment of tomorrow regardless of stigma. The truth behind democracy is that if everybody was blindfolded, popular opinion is not


Drugs are a helluva drug.
 
2012-10-05 03:08:54 AM

Markoff_Cheney: yup, romney willingly lied his ass off to win the debate.
gished. 
i am so shocked right now, this has shattered my reality.


Yeah, but Obama let him get away with it. Romney may well have a chance to win the election if the next debate is like this.
 
2012-10-05 03:20:53 AM

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???


There was an economic resurgence in the Reagan years despite a recession in the middle. As well as the end of the horrible, seemingly never ending stagflation of the 1970s. Inflation dropped from double digits to 3%, unemployment fell from about 7% to 5%. From memory this all seemed to happen remarkably quickly as well.

But there was much criticism that the jobs created were low quality dead end jobs that didn't pay well. This is supported by data that showed the gap between rich and poor really took off during the Reagan years like never before. And of course there was a stunning blow out in the federal budget. But it matters not - the apparent resurgence made Reagan look good.

I think Romney is hoping to pull off a similar trick. He might be able to, but it's just a short term solution like putting saw dust in the gear box of a clapped out car you want to sell. It will still make him look good though, and too bad for his successor who will have to pay the price.
 
2012-10-05 03:32:07 AM

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

Are you farking high?

Reagan left office in '88 having doubled the deficit he inherited from Carter.

This cult of Reagan crap is out of control.


Yes, and that is after he won the election by campaigning to balance the budget. Carter is a very good man, Reagan was a shameless liar. Reagan won. I get the feeling that Obama is also a very good man and Romney is a shameless liar. Deja Vu.

The Lord: Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the Earth.

Someone in the Audience: Well let's face it, it won't be worth having once we've finished with it.

Life of Brian. I think.
 
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