No Way Obama Loses

[exiledbuckeye]

Yes, those working poor [who don't pay income taxes because guys like Romney fight tooth and nail to pay them dick, yet still pay payroll taxes, etc. and end up with a higher effective tax rate than -- you guessed it -- Mitt Romney] really want to stay "victims". Because being poor in this country is AMAZING! Nevermind the hilarity of 47% of people paying "no income tax" because they don't make enough money(real % is more like 7%, but don't let that get in the way of a good story) is due to the Reagan and Bush tax cuts.

Just another attempt by the 1% in this country to shift the focus off of the fact that they are the ones who play victim more than anyone else.

Uh, since most poor get back those fed and state income taxes, sometimes in excess of what they paid (EIC), they effectively pay SS and Medicare. Then add in food stamps and other aid and well, try again.

You're right, it's terrible that these moochers aren't taking any "personal responsibility" by, you know, having a fucking job. They have zero federal tax liability because of the tax code, not because they're skirting the law.

Highly ironic for a fucking millionaire to slam the working poor for following the same tax code that he exploits the loopholes in mercilessly. Also highly ironic to call the working poor entitled moochers when the 1% are demanding tax breaks, loopholes, corporate welfare, etc.

[exiledbuckeye]

I'd really like to see Mitten's tax returns. There's a very likely chance he's one of the 47% who doesn't pay any...so he must be one of these "victims" who will vote Obama.

/What a total hypocritical asshole.

http://www.mittromney.com/learn/mitt/tax-return/main

"A full copy of their final 2011 return will be made public as soon as it is filed in the upcoming weeks"

Still not released, five months after the filing deadline?

[Ziner]

So, is that why you aren't going to vote for him? Because he hasn't released his completed tax returns.

The tax return discussion is as equally stupid as the GOP focusing on Social Issues they are on the wrong side of history on. Just distracts from a disaster of an economy.

Taxes, schmaxes. Everyone wants to pay as little as they can under the existing laws. Everyone wants to change the laws to help their situation. Fuck, I pay a higher tax rate than Mitt Romney does. Tax reform should happen, but it won't. Neither side is honest about it. Fuck, Obama immediately dismissed Simpson Bowles because of their tax proposal.

Just because it may require explanation doesnt mean that lower tax rates = lower tax revenue. Just as Mitt Romney lowering tax rates on the rich doesnt mean they pay less tax if deductions are eliminated. Its all a joke anyway.

Before I got rid of anything I'd do away with the Mortgage Deduction and Child Tax Credit. Always smart to subsidize things we dont need more of.

[General]

I don't think it matters one way or another. Any change will be incremental and agonizingly slow. The gov'mint is too fragmented and special interest driven to make real and effective change.

[Commodore Perry]

I didn't think anyone could run a worse campaign than McCain. Sweet mother of Christ. God damn country is coming apart at the seams economically and Romney is down 7 points in OH and 11 points in PA.

Long way from the Karl Rove days. Guy won two elections with George Bush, one against Cliton's VP.

Obama could get caught with strippers and coke on Halloweeen night and still win this thing.

Agree. Horribly run. All I've seen Romney do is backtrack, explain statements, answer criticism. And over minor points. He's chum in the water for the media and the Obama campaign.

And the thing is there are plenty of disappionted Obama voters who probably would stay home in November if they they thought Romney was a basically likeable guy that could turn the economy around. I mean look at what the liberals on this board post, its all full of hate for Romney, and nothing positive at all for Obama.

If I was Romney's campaign manager, every commercial would be Romney shaking hands with someone he just hired then rolling around in some green grass with a bunch of excited puppies.

[swerb]

You'd have to be a god damn moron to pay more than a penny than you legally owe in taxes.

One of the only things Romney has done right in the last 18 months.

[e0y2e3]

I don't think paying more than you owe is the point, I think calling out the lower 47% while clinging to a tax code that let's you cheat your way out of paying what you *should* owe is hypocritical.

If this country wasn't beyond broke some candidate would show up and have tax law reform as a key part of his/her platform, but that'll never happen.

And I'm sure Obama pays a lower effective tax rate than he should as well.

[jerryroche]

If this country wasn't beyond broke some candidate would show up and have tax law reform as a key part of his/her platform, but that'll never happen.

Sweet Mother of Mary! If e0y can figure this out, why can't any of the so-called political brains in Washington?

[Orenthal]

Yes, those working poor [who don't pay income taxes because guys like Romney fight tooth and nail to pay them dick, yet still pay payroll taxes, etc. and end up with a higher effective tax rate than -- you guessed it -- Mitt Romney] really want to stay "victims". Because being poor in this country is AMAZING! Nevermind the hilarity of 47% of people paying "no income tax" because they don't make enough money(real % is more like 7%, but don't let that get in the way of a good story) is due to the Reagan and Bush tax cuts.

Just another attempt by the 1% in this country to shift the focus off of the fact that they are the ones who play victim more than anyone else.

Uh, since most poor get back those fed and state income taxes, sometimes in excess of what they paid (EIC), they effectively pay SS and Medicare. Then add in food stamps and other aid and well, try again.

I know. It's terrible with all of these poor people living like fucking kings off the govmint teet. LIKE KINGS I SAYS!!!

I say fuck 'em. We shouldnt do shit for those people. They want food, health care, and decent schools?! What do they think this is, a first world country?

I don't have time for their shit. I got my own problems. For example, I just had to walk all the way out to the patio to get a beer because there was none left in the regular fridge. I could have been rainy for Chrissakes! And some lazy prick wants me to help pay for his kid's immunizations!? Fuck that noise.

Merica

Fantastic read, but ignores the fact that more and more has been spent on the war on poverty without improvement. Just keep throwing money at the ignorant slobs though, makes us all feel like we are doing our part, right? That's what really matters that we look and feel good.

IOW, yes, fuck the poor. How about we concentrate on productive assets and stop throwing money into a hole.

[Orenthal]

Yes, those working poor [who don't pay income taxes because guys like Romney fight tooth and nail to pay them dick, yet still pay payroll taxes, etc. and end up with a higher effective tax rate than -- you guessed it -- Mitt Romney] really want to stay "victims". Because being poor in this country is AMAZING! Nevermind the hilarity of 47% of people paying "no income tax" because they don't make enough money(real % is more like 7%, but don't let that get in the way of a good story) is due to the Reagan and Bush tax cuts.

Just another attempt by the 1% in this country to shift the focus off of the fact that they are the ones who play victim more than anyone else.

Uh, since most poor get back those fed and state income taxes, sometimes in excess of what they paid (EIC), they effectively pay SS and Medicare. Then add in food stamps and other aid and well, try again.

You're right, it's terrible that these moochers aren't taking any "personal responsibility" by, you know, having a fucking job. They have zero federal tax liability because of the tax code, not because they're skirting the law.

Highly ironic for a fucking millionaire to slam the working poor for following the same tax code that he exploits the loopholes in mercilessly. Also highly ironic to call the working poor entitled moochers when the 1% are demanding tax breaks, loopholes, corporate welfare, etc.

Guy talks of lowering taxes, you pay 0 effective tax. You know which party will keep that going, and it ain't Mittens party. He simply states that he will never get their support since you can't go any lower (though the code does allow that).

Keep talking like that Mitt.

[FUDU]

First off define poor.

[Orenthal]

Poor = anyone on long term government assistance for reasons other than health/not being able to work.

ETA
Obviously not Social Security... Or other "earned" benefit.

[jfiling]

Yes, those working poor [who don't pay income taxes because guys like Romney fight tooth and nail to pay them dick, yet still pay payroll taxes, etc. and end up with a higher effective tax rate than -- you guessed it -- Mitt Romney] really want to stay "victims". Because being poor in this country is AMAZING! Nevermind the hilarity of 47% of people paying "no income tax" because they don't make enough money(real % is more like 7%, but don't let that get in the way of a good story) is due to the Reagan and Bush tax cuts.

Just another attempt by the 1% in this country to shift the focus off of the fact that they are the ones who play victim more than anyone else.

Uh, since most poor get back those fed and state income taxes, sometimes in excess of what they paid (EIC), they effectively pay SS and Medicare. Then add in food stamps and other aid and well, try again.

You're right, it's terrible that these moochers aren't taking any "personal responsibility" by, you know, having a fucking job. They have zero federal tax liability because of the tax code, not because they're skirting the law.

Highly ironic for a fucking millionaire to slam the working poor for following the same tax code that he exploits the loopholes in mercilessly. Also highly ironic to call the working poor entitled moochers when the 1% are demanding tax breaks, loopholes, corporate welfare, etc.

Somewhere in this is an incredible argument against the minimum wage.

[FUDU]

I agree, in regards to your definition for the context of your post to mo.

[Orenthal]

I agree, in regards to your definition for the context of your post to mo.

I have ZERO sympathy for those people, and one party wants to increase their number. Mittens was foolish to say that ALL 47% behave as he described, but its getting closer and closer to that absolute everyday. I've worked and lived in that environment. It may not be a King's lifestyle, but they know they are "flat ass gettin' it" and working the system.

Like the kid living with his parents too long, at some point you just gotta say GTFO and make it happen.

[leadpipe]

I agree, in regards to your definition for the context of your post to mo.

I have ZERO sympathy for those people, and one party wants to increase their number. Mittens was foolish to say that ALL 47% behave as he described, but its getting closer and closer to that absolute everyday. I've worked and lived in that environment. It may not be a King's lifestyle, but they know they are "flat ass gettin' it" and working the system.

Like the kid living with his parents too long, at some point you just gotta say GTFO and make it happen.

"You don't work, you don't eat."

-John Smith

Expansion of the welfare state has gotten us nowhere. Further expansion of the welfare state will get us the same.

Clearly.

There's so much evidence of this coast to coast it ain't funny.

The reason we should stop the continued enabling is the very same reason we should cut our expenses in defending other countries.

WE CAN'T AFFORD IT ANYMORE.

And really, we're all capable of understanding true need and those playing the system. Receiving a check for your 7th kid, would be an example of the latter.

By the way, none of this political talk matters. BOTH parties are tied to the major corporations, many of which SPEND MORE IN LOBBYING THAN TAXES. The party seperation is beyond a joke, and it is powerful enough to keep someone who might run under zero party out of the mix.

Doesn't matter which figurehead gets in, things are gonna continue to go downhill. This is very easy to see.

My advice is just to lookout for numder one.

[dmiles]

Does anyone hear think this was a good week for Obama? Romney's 47% stuff could even back-fire to help him out. Meanwhile, the covering up about Libya being a terrorist act doesn't look too good at this point.

It could well be that the economy is so poor than nobody is really paying attention to what's going on in the middle east and north africa. I just can't see how this is seen as a good week for Obama that's all he looks amazingly inept with respect to US Policy in that region. Mitt might come off looking like, well, Mitt, but I just don't see how Obama looked good this week. Most of the bounce from the convention is gone, and the most recent polling data is neck and neck.

And I am not disagreeing that Mitt is a bad candidate proof of that is that this race is even close. We have the 2nd coming of Jimmuh Carter in office and the pubbie is losing?

[Orenthal]

^^Uncaring bastard. Even though "cutting it off" is probably the best thing that could happen to their lives (after the initial shock).

Your last line is the money line. Looking out for #1 is right. Given the two option choice I'll go with the one that allows me to keep even just a bit more of my money.

Mitt just needs to stop acting, and speak freely. Stay with it...

[dmiles]

The real trouble for the dems right now shows in the Rasmussen mood tracker or Party affiliation tracker. Right now people identifying as Republican have hit an all-time high in their polling, at 37.6%. At the same time those identifying as Dems are at 33% which is one of their lowest ever scores. The other problem for dems is that in all of these polls Willard seems to be ahead in independents no matter what the overall poll reports.

Based on this if you ran a poll and made sure that those responding fit what this data shows you'd probably have different results out there. According to Rasmussen's mood tracker over 41% of those polled identified themselves as democrat in 2008. If you look at where they were in 2010, it was down to 33-34% range when they lost. In short, they might actually be in big trouble right now if they don't get this turned around. The GOP has never led the mood tracker by this many points, not in 2004 (earliest tracked) and not in 2010 when they took over the house.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/partisan_trends

The link to the monthly tracking and I am not sure how this can be spun positively for dems ->
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/archive/mood_of_america_archive/partisan_trends/summary_of_party_affiliation

[e0y2e3]

Gawd partisan hacks a fucking atrocious.

This is simple, the Welfare system in this country doesn't need to be abolished, it needs to be redesigned. The Welfare Act of 1996 was a small step in the right direction toward pushing Welfare away from being a crutch and more toward being a work education system, however, it needed follow-up and refinement and evolution over time.

Instead (because, 1996 was the last time Dems and Republicans had strong enough individuals leading them to work together for the sake of the country) what we have now is a bunch of democrats that throw money at problems to keep voting groups in their back pockets, to keep the non-profit sector's vote, to keep their interest groups, etc.

And the Republicans, instead of coming up with actual welfare reform, scream about the wasted money as they tell their interest groups and corporate liaisons, "don't worry, as soon as we fuck the poor we'll get you that tax break you so desperately don't need!"

As long as the two party system lives and people refuse to fight for social and economic advancing change the rich will keep getting richer, the poor will keep getting poorer and the young will keep getting saddled with neverending debt.

This is what happens when you let the fucking Baby Boomers run shit.

[e0y2e3]

It spins far worse for Republicans who are (when factoring in actual race polling) looking to get their asses kicked in the Senate and Presidential races.

So good for them! Blowing this opportunity is HILARIOUS.

Oh and the one thing I won't question Obama on and think he has done an excellent job is foreign policy, Libya or no Libya. The guy has earned that much and if Mitt tries to go after him all he has to do is say "Bin Laden" and the masses will vote for him.

[motherscratcher]

^^Uncaring bastard. Even though "cutting it off" is probably the best thing that could happen to their lives (after the initial shock).
.

Yeah, I'm sure after a few months they'd all be falling all over themselves to thank you.

[dmiles]

I am going against the tide here, no biggie. It's just way too damn early to call this especially with no momentum for Obama. Romney not exciting people is a factor, but this ain't 2008 the bloom is off the rose. Besides the Rasmussen polling, another pundit out there is pointing out that since 1998 the mid-term elections have a pretty good bellwether for the next prez election.

My point is there is news out there that should at least make those booking the talent for the election night party, stop and think. This thing is not in the bag by any stretch...

Bill Clinton came right out and said "The Era of Big Govt. is over". That's why they worked together and why he pretty much implemented Newt's contract with America. Nothing in Obama's 4-year record convinces me he'll do that. I agree that partisan hacks are pretty much all we are left with these days, but that's the game as it's played.

[leadpipe]

^^Uncaring bastard. Even though "cutting it off" is probably the best thing that could happen to their lives (after the initial shock).
.

Yeah, I'm sure after a few months they'd all be falling all over themselves to thank you.

After a few months of no cigarettes and lottery all bets are off.

[FUDU]

The other problem when talking about the poor is, just exactly who considers themselves poor. Anymore people consider themselves poor if they don't have everything their neighbors have.

It works the other way as well in that some of those people don't realize just how much trouble their neighbor is in b/c of all that stuff, b/c that stuff isn't paid for and ain't gonna be paid for anytime soon. The numbers don't lie.

Again, as I'm sure it has been stated already here, poor in this country is usually pretty good compared to poor on 95% of the rest of the planet.

[Orenthal]

Gawd partisan hacks a fucking atrocious.

This is simple, the Welfare system in this country doesn't need to be abolished, it needs to be redesigned. The Welfare Act of 1996 was a small step in the right direction toward pushing Welfare away from being a crutch and more toward being a work education system, however, it needed follow-up and refinement and evolution over time.

Instead (because, 1996 was the last time Dems and Republicans had strong enough individuals leading them to work together for the sake of the country) what we have now is a bunch of democrats that throw money at problems to keep voting groups in their back pockets, to keep the non-profit sector's vote, to keep their interest groups, etc.

And the Republicans, instead of coming up with actual welfare reform, scream about the wasted money as they tell their interest groups and corporate liaisons, "don't worry, as soon as we fuck the poor we'll get you that tax break you so desperately don't need!"

As long as the two party system lives and people refuse to fight for social and economic advancing change the rich will keep getting richer, the poor will keep getting poorer and the young will keep getting saddled with neverending debt.

This is what happens when you let the fucking Baby Boomers run shit.

Sure as shit I agree with all that... Key, "Strong Leaders."

[Orenthal]

^^Uncaring bastard. Even though "cutting it off" is probably the best thing that could happen to their lives (after the initial shock).
.

Yeah, I'm sure after a few months they'd all be falling all over themselves to thank you.

Sure don't get any thanks now for footing the bill.

More like in a few years I would thank my parents, not hate them for taking away my "lifestyle". Lead its the "numbers"...

[e0y2e3]

I don't know how a president is a strong leader when he comes into an office where Pelosi and Harry Reid have a death grip on his party.

Fuck, I don't know how he is allowed to do anything in the manner he wants with those two around.

Similar to how I don't know how a president is a strong leader when he comes into office in bed with oil companies, defense companies and spending money all the while listening to Dick Cheney and talking about evil aliens based out of Iraq.

It's a gawd damn joke, burn them all and leave the Supreme court free of a religious majority.

[Orenthal]

Pro-Romney, but reasoned in its approach...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 15500.html

[e0y2e3]

As someone that works in the Syndication of Affordable Housing Tax Credits (our portfolio has ~10Billion of affordable properties in it), I don't want to read someone that talks about Welfare as a part of our budget problems before I first read about fixing the tax code.

I honestly believe that Affordable housing is one of roughly two tax breaks that actually benefits everyone involved, the rest of the shit that the Republicans enable corporations (and people) to do is a FAR larger problem than Welfare in terms of the budget.

Do I need to post the Lauder piece from last year's New York Times again?

Both are problems, addressing one when talking about the budget without acknowledging the other is partisan bullshit.

[e0y2e3]

And there is a huge load of horseshit in that article and the numbers, unemployment is paid by employers (the tax is funded, at least in Mass, entirely by companies that lay off people and their tax rate goes up according to the number of people they lay off).

Even flirting with calling student loans gov't aid when the interest rate my brother is paying is roughly INSANITY is hilarity.

And then to start lumping social security, Medicaid, etc together with "Welfare" is a nice tricky little misuse of terms to present about a large a Redd Herring argument as one can imagine.

So after all of that complete and utter-bullshit, fallacious arguments and ridiculousness he makes a single good point, Obama can't risk losing voters so he can't say or do anything and Mitt could be radical and try to.

HUZZAH!!! GENIUS!!!

What a piece of shit piece. Thanks for wasting my time.

[Hikohadon]

I have ZERO sympathy for those people, and one party wants to increase their number. Mittens was foolish to say that ALL 47% behave as he described, but its getting closer and closer to that absolute everyday. I've worked and lived in that environment. It may not be a King's lifestyle, but they know they are "flat ass gettin' it" and working the system.

Like the kid living with his parents too long, at some point you just gotta say GTFO and make it happen.

It's strange that so many people supposedly live this way and yet I don't know a single one.

If the percentages were this high, you'd think you couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting one.

To be clear - we all know that there are people that live this way. I just think it's a bit absurd when people make it out to sound like every third person is on the govmint teat.

It seems to me 47% of American just make shit up to support their agenda.

[FUDU]

As someone that works in the Syndication of Affordable Housing Tax Credits (our portfolio has ~10Billion of affordable properties in it), I don't want to read someone that talks about Welfare as a part of our budget problems before I first read about fixing the tax code.

I honestly believe that Affordable housing is one of roughly two tax breaks that actually benefits everyone involved, the rest of the shit that the Republicans enable corporations (and people) to do is a FAR larger problem than Welfare in terms of the budget.

Do I need to post the Lauder piece from last year's New York Times again?

Both are problems, addressing one when talking about the budget without acknowledging the other is partisan bullshit.

I get your point on the tax code (and agree) but the current status of our welfare system & the tax code can be two entirely different discussions.

They get separated by one major point, personal responsibility.

The current day welfare system virtually destroys any incentive to go back out and earn a living (and live life by what you make of yourself). Obama certainly didn't create this system but he's accelerated it for sure. His party is as much to blame as he is to be fair. Admittedly, "true" welfare fraud is surprisingly low, but the problem is that the system is set up to allow virtual fraud by its very existence. It's kind of hard to "prove" someone isn't really looking for work (or interested in working period), and by God as a society we're certainly not allowed to question it either.

As far as the tax code, as long as people are abiding by the legal parameters it is hard to fault them for their use of the respective system (the non-rich might not see it as the most Utopian/modest way to go about things), but it doesn't reek of the lack of personal responsibility as questionable uses of the welfare system does.

...and yes there are earned benefits to be had in our welfare system.

[e0y2e3]

Not charging the rich, while talking about removing support for the poor is bullshit.

Either make the rich pay their taxes and correct welfare, or STFU.

Period.

Not making the rich pay their taxes by giving them loopholes just further pushes them to avoid providing gov't income, the same as not providing incentive to get off of welfare makes the gov't keep spending. It's the exact same fucking problem.

[FUDU]

I get that, and I'm with you for the most part, I'm no fan of the loophole taxation only some of us get to enjoy.

But you're coming from more of a bottom line perspective where I'm coming from the perspective of integrity. It's hard to fault somebody who is wealthy for not taking care of the rest of us. If they've earned what they have, and follow the law in how they pay into the system then so be it (the system being broke isn't necessarily on them). That's quite a bit different from the person OJ describes, who pays $25 worth of an $800/month obligation for rent b/c of our housing subsidies. If you can drive yourself to the grocery store, drive yourself to the bank, and drive yourself to hair salon then you can drive yourself to a job and pay way more than 3% of your housing costs. THAT system being broke isn't on that person either, but the fact they live off of society and can yet do more IS on them.

Both systems are no doubt self perpetuating but only one is a conscious decision that comes from inside oneself.

[leadpipe]

I have ZERO sympathy for those people, and one party wants to increase their number. Mittens was foolish to say that ALL 47% behave as he described, but its getting closer and closer to that absolute everyday. I've worked and lived in that environment. It may not be a King's lifestyle, but they know they are "flat ass gettin' it" and working the system.

Like the kid living with his parents too long, at some point you just gotta say GTFO and make it happen.

It's strange that so many people supposedly live this way and yet I don't know a single one.

If the percentages were this high, you'd think you couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting one.

To be clear - we all know that there are people that live this way. I just think it's a bit absurd when people make it out to sound like every third person is on the govmint teat.

It seems to me 47% of American just make shit up to support their agenda.

In the city that I was born and raised in, and at my wife's place of employment (University Hospitals main campus) if you swung that dead cat, you'd hit more than one.

It's not that every third person is on the governments tab, it's the percentage of those on the government tab that have no right to be on it.

[e0y2e3]

Wrong, both are conscious manipulations of out of touch laws.

[FUDU]

Wrong, both are conscious manipulations of out of touch laws.

No they're not.

What you're suggesting is that the rich are required to do more just b/c. Hey if they're unethical then fuck em, I agree with sending them to the wolves. But if they're doing it ethically with the intentions of simply looking out for themselves then they simply cannot be held to some BS standard of ethics. What you're describing is nothing more than charity.

Think of it this way. If everyone could pick where they'd rather be financially in life, in a position of ethically earned wealth (with our current tax structure in place) or in a position of the less fortunate (per OJ's definition*, with our current welfare system in place) nobody is going to choose the latter. It's just plain stupid.

Because at the end of the day we ALL look out for ourselves, first, and there's nothing wrong with that.


* = as opposed to the truly needy, b/c I think it's safe to assume we ALL agree the truly needy in this country are deserving of the help we are more than able to provide.

[e0y2e3]

This is where your complete and utter disconnect in terms of reality comes into play.

What you have with legal tax evasion and legal welfare abuse are two sides of the exact same coin.

Just because it is legal to create ghost LLC's to hide your money and ship it off to foreign countries, or to float your money behind the mask of being an investment in your company when it isn't, or to deed all of your money into untaxable estates doesn't make it some great noble good because you are just looking out for number one. Especially when you consider the cunning investments made to lawyers, accountants and politicians inorder to do this. The rich have paid a bunch of really smart people to find really fucking slimy ways to avoid paying what they owe (dems and Repubs) and they own the politicians through fundraising and what not so it won't change. It's a self fulfilling prophecy driven by pure, unadulterated greed. And it should be noted, not all rich do this. Warren Buffett has called out the assholes raping this country of what they owe it many times.

On the other side of the coin you have an uneducated mother of two who has two options:

1) Figure out ways to manipulate welfare into keeping her really shitty life afloat

and

2) Work really fucking hard at McDonald's for a slightly less shitty life.

The same concept comes into play, the obvious choice for many is option one because they are greedy selfish fucks. However, in this instance instead of bribing the politicians financially to protect them they do it with votes (see Youngstown and Trafficant, Jim). Again, you have a self fulfilling prophecy of shit where one group is raping America for their own greed.

If you want to differentiate between a serial rapist and a serial killer be my guest.

[FUDU]

What you just described for the rich guy does not fit the definition of ethical though.

We are essentially on the same page, just looking at the participants with a differing view of some details.

EOD, which do you think has the more significant, positive impact on the bottom line, the rich being held more accountable (to the tax system) by paying more, or a wider tax base by forcing the bad % of the welfare state to up their game and work (to pay their own way), also increasing their tax contributions? Admittedly the latter would be more difficult, IMO.

[e0y2e3]

The rich need to pay what they should pay, then we can start talking about what % they should be taxed at, until then who in the fuck knows.

That said, I'd bet my ass corporate and personal bullshit tax shelter's have a very comprable impact on the deficit to welfare abusers.

[FUDU]

The rich need to pay what they should pay, then we can start talking about what % they should be taxed at, until then who in the fuck knows.

That said, I'd bet my ass corporate and personal bullshit tax shelter's have a very comprable impact on the deficit to welfare abusers.

IMO the greater short term benefit would be from the former, long term I think the latter is key.

[Orenthal]

BTW I did say that Mittens was wrong to say all 47%, and e0 nails the rich angle in his large paragraph up there...

When I was still doing Public Accounting it made me sick the loopholes these assholes create. EOD they still hire people to move that shit around, but eh I'm all for closing down the entire stinking business. 5%, 10%, and 15% flat tax rates no deductions...

[mattvan1]

This is where your complete and utter disconnect in terms of reality comes into play.

What you have with legal tax evasion and legal welfare abuse are two sides of the exact same coin.

Just because it is legal to create ghost LLC's to hide your money and ship it off to foreign countries, or to float your money behind the mask of being an investment in your company when it isn't, or to deed all of your money into untaxable estates doesn't make it some great noble good because you are just looking out for number one. Especially when you consider the cunning investments made to lawyers, accountants and politicians inorder to do this. The rich have paid a bunch of really smart people to find really fucking slimy ways to avoid paying what they owe (dems and Repubs) and they own the politicians through fundraising and what not so it won't change. It's a self fulfilling prophecy driven by pure, unadulterated greed. And it should be noted, not all rich do this. Warren Buffett has called out the assholes raping this country of what they owe it many times.

On the other side of the coin you have an uneducated mother of two who has two options:

1) Figure out ways to manipulate welfare into keeping her really shitty life afloat

and

2) Work really fucking hard at McDonald's for a slightly less shitty life.

The same concept comes into play, the obvious choice for many is option one because they are greedy selfish fucks. However, in this instance instead of bribing the politicians financially to protect them they do it with votes (see Youngstown and Trafficant, Jim). Again, you have a self fulfilling prophecy of shit where one group is raping America for their own greed.

If you want to differentiate between a serial rapist and a serial killer be my guest.

Dig deeper - why is she uneducated and why does she have 2 kids?

Yes, we as a society need to help her, but at the same time we MUST try to make sure her kids don't end up in the same situation. The problem is so complex and so multi-faceted that simply writing "fix the tax code" or "end welfare" is grossly over-simplistic.

And neither the red bozo nor the blue bozo are going to fix that.

[dmiles]

My question has nothing to do with either Bozo but the general incompetence seen in Washington amongst all of the pols... I purposely quit paying attention so closely to all this stuff around 2009, just to take care of home stuff/career stuff and figured cutting time spent following politics was the best choice. Something I missed out on a few years ago and figured I'd ask in this thread.
- What is the deal behind not passing a budget for three consecutive years?
- Why is apparently not that big of a deal out there in tv-shout-fest land?

[e0y2e3]

No shit matt, but people crying about budget deficits being because of welfare need to open up their eyes and realize this is anything but just a welfare abuse problem, which is my core problem.

But when talking about all of this budget shit, fact is you have to take both sides of the equation into consideration at least.

[mattvan1]

No shit matt, but people crying about budget deficits being because of welfare need to open up their eyes and realize this is anything but just a welfare abuse problem, which is my core problem.

But when talking about all of this budget shit, fact is you have to take both sides of the equation into consideration at least.

Yes. Agreed. Just pointing out (the obvious) that reforms on both sides are a nice first step, but the societal issues run so much deeper.

[e0y2e3]

I get it, I've seen The Wire, matt

- motherscratcher and Bill Simmons

[jerryroche]

Romney needed to win the conventions and win the debates to have a chance. He just lost the conventions.

Three important weeks have passed since Swerb originated this thread, and the situation hasn't changed. Time is running out on Mittens.

I'd personally like him to make mincemeat of Obama in the debates, but—even then—his chances of becoming president appear slim.

What most disturbs me: (1) way-left coverage in respected national media like the N.Y. Times and the Washington Post, among many others; (2) Romney's comparatively ineffective television ads. If Obama's ads can make ME think twice, they've got to have a profoundly positive effect on fence-sitters.

It becomes obvious that the nation is poised on the edge of not only a fiscal cliff but also a moral one. Do we become a nation of takers, a nation that not only envies success but despises it?

America is all about creating a society where people, based on their decisions, get what they deserve. No matter who wins in November, we WILL get what we deserve.

[Hikohadon]

America is all about creating a society where people, based on their decisions, get what they deserve. No matter who wins in November, we WILL get what we deserve.

Congressional deadlock?