Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Handyman
    replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    Originally posted by Kepler View Post
    Your second sentence answers your first. The economy is working for the people Romney cares about.
    Yeah...because your lord and savior cares nothing for business. Every action he takes is so Anti-Business it stinks!

    It is to the point that even the Dems are starting to believe the rhetoric of Faux News and use it to justify their love a guy who they should loathe. Obama has become a linchpin in showing the hypocrisy of both parties. The GOP hates him because he forces them to dislike all their old standbye policies and the Dems love him despite the fact that he is nothing more than Bush in Black Face.

    I know the two guys I am not voting for...

    Leave a comment:


  • Craig P.
    replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    Originally posted by Kepler View Post
    The only frequent poster on these threads who might actually change his vote depending on the candidate may be Scooby, who seems to treat the entire thing as a battle royale between Cthulhu and Yog-Sothoth. Everybody else is obvious in their red or blue leotard.
    I split my ticket at the local level, and I did not cast a vote for John Culberson's opponent back in ~'04 because he was a loon (I was rooting for the meteor in that race).

    Then again, I'm rather more frequent reader than frequent poster, although I'd probably post more often if Kepler didn't repeatedly post exactly what I was thinking, but more eloquently than I'm capable of doing.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    Originally posted by LynahFan View Post
    Well, duh. It's not like McSame and Caribou Barbie are going to pull out a surprise nomination from a brokered convention...
    "That would be completely unexpected."

    "And that is why we MUST expect it!"

    Leave a comment:


  • Bob Gray
    replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    Originally posted by LynahFan View Post
    Well, duh. It's not like McSame and Caribou Barbie are going to pull out a surprise nomination from a brokered convention...
    Exactly.

    Leave a comment:


  • geezer
    replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    Originally posted by huskyfan View Post
    had the exact opposite feeling than you Geezer. if I were betting I'd lay odds on Romney. disaster last two weeks for Obama. if Wisconsin and Michigan are truly "in play" states, electorally there is no way Obama wins. still early though. the Supremes health care ruling later this month will be big. and I'm getting the feeling even Dems aren't into Obama.
    That's kind of why I think this is the bottom of the trough for Barry. The news the last two weeks couldn't get any worse, and Romney's bounce still didn't get him to 50%. Obama will gain momentum throughout the summer... especially with continued drop in gas prices and accompanying mini-recovery in certain prices, etc. (saw a recent story about how our oil supplies are starting to exceed demand, which I don't think you can overstate the importance of, politically).

    After the Walker bounce, MI and WI will no longer be "in play." Give it about two weeks.

    Leave a comment:


  • pirate
    replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    Originally posted by Kepler View Post
    Your second sentence answers your first. The economy is working for the people Romney cares about.
    Right, Obama doesn't care anything about business...he doesn't know anybody that benefits from a robust economy so all he cares about is the middle class and lower class unemployed. And Romney doesn't know anybody that would benefit if unemployment was down, people had more income etc. He only cares about the 1,000 or so CEO's at the top. And those CEO's don't need consumers, they like huge federal deficits and they want to further the current situation.

    And Romney wants to invade every country and Obama wants to give the US over to the Muslims and all the other mindless drivel.

    You know the answer is in the middle, you know both guys care about business and neither wants to see people experience hardship. Yeah, their methods will differ, and that is the question...they both want the country to succeed and they both are willing to make tradeoffs...not to absolutes, as you state, but to a position they each feel is the best path. It is so easy to explain it all away as romney only cares about the rich...you know it isnt that simple...but of course it would mean departing from your democratic party talking points to ever utter such a thing.

    If you are in the "anything done to spur private business is equal to Trickle Down" camp then what is the solution? Only grow the public sector?

    Leave a comment:


  • LynahFan
    replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    Originally posted by Bob Gray View Post
    Same here.
    Well, duh. It's not like McSame and Caribou Barbie are going to pull out a surprise nomination from a brokered convention...

    Leave a comment:


  • Bob Gray
    replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
    I can say for 100% certainty that I will be voting for someone different this year than I did in 2008..
    Same here.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
    I'd really like to hear how Romney (Bush all over again) is going to get the economy going again.

    Corporate profits are at all time highs.
    Your second sentence answers your first. The economy is working for the people Romney cares about.

    Leave a comment:


  • ScoobyDoo
    replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    I'd really like to hear how Romney (Bush all over again) is going to get the economy going again.

    Corporate profits are at all time highs. Trickle down DOES NOT WORK, and the last 4 years of that policy have proven it.

    Leave a comment:


  • pirate
    replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    Originally posted by Kepler View Post
    The partisanship on all of these boards ensures that people who are truly open minded go elsewhere. We who remain have declared our allegiances. I don't know why FF feels he has to hide that he drinks the righty Kool Aid. Maybe he's embarrassed. But from his posts he's obvious.

    The only frequent poster on these threads who might actually change his vote depending on the candidate may be Scooby, who seems to treat the entire thing as a battle royale between Cthulhu and Yog-Sothoth. Everybody else is obvious in their red or blue leotard.
    Nope, I have voted both parties and will continue to do so every time i enter the polling place. I have concerns with Obama's plan for the economy and whether he really is able to lead us out of this situation. I don't know enough about Romney's 'non-economic' stance to know if I'd think he would be a better overall president, I do think he'd be better at getting the economy going. If he selects Sarah Palin as his VP (for example) then he clearly can't be president, even if he might improve the economy...then the question is do I vote Obama, a third candidate or nobody. It won't be blank.

    I really don't care what party the candidate is, some of them fail my test for different reasons. Sometimes I'm right and sometimes I'm disappointed that I chose somebody and they didn't do what I expected. But that is true for all of us...many liberals are disappointed with Obama. That doesn't mean they are republicans.
    In my book, an honest anything is better than a dishonest R or D or some party stooge put in there just to get the straight ticket votes.

    Having sat in a debate in Maine in 1993 and listened to a crazy green candidate, Susan Collins, Joe Brennan and Angus King (I) go through their capabilities and platforms, i realized that being an independent was the best choice...let them all speak, read as much as possible and then make the selection. King was clearly the best choice and did a very good job...one of the few.

    So, from POTUS to dog catcher, I cross party lines on almost every selection based on what research I have, editorials etc.



    edit; the majority of you refuse to read or listen to the other guy or only do so to 'prove' they are wrong....you make up your mind based on party and then fill in the blanks to reassure yourselves you are right. That this board is 99% left wingers leaves me arguing the center or right positions often, mostly just to point out the blind partisanship that prevents most of you from thinking rationally
    Last edited by pirate; 06-08-2012, 09:52 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
    Love Lovecraft.

    I can say for 100% certainty that I will be voting for someone different this year than I did in 2008..
    Well, duh. Osama's dead.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    Originally posted by huskyfan View Post
    had the exact opposite feeling than you Geezer. if I were betting I'd lay odds on Romney. disaster last two weeks for Obama. if Wisconsin and Michigan are truly "in play" states, electorally there is no way Obama wins.
    They're just as in play as South Carolina and Arizona...

    Leave a comment:


  • FreshFish
    replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    Originally posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post
    Explain how you get dividends taxes up to 43.4%
    These are ordinary conventional dividends, the quarterly payout per share kind.


    39.6% + 3.8% = 43.4%

    PPACA applies a 3.8% medicare tax to investment income starting in 2013.

    That's also how capital gains tax gets to 23.8%: 20% + 3.8%.

    Leave a comment:


  • FlagDUDE08
    replied
    Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

    Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
    I found a table that shows what income tax rates are currently, and to what level they are scheduled to increase in 2013.


    Income level:

    Over $388,350: 35% / 39.6%

    $217,450-388,350: 33% / 36%

    $142,700-217,450: 28% / 31%

    $70,700-142,700: 25% / 28%

    $17,400-70,700: 15% / 15%

    Dividends: 15% / 43.4%

    Capital gains: 15% / 23.8%

    Estate tax: 35% / 55%


    Notice that, on a percentage bases, the increases are higher as you move down the scale until you get to the lowest bracket. Or to paraphrase, when the existing tax rate structure was implemented, the tax cuts favored middle income people over highest income people.
    Explain how you get dividends taxes up to 43.4%. Currently, taxes on unqualified dividends (which all dividends would essentially become) are actually taxed at the individual's traditional rate, NOT the rate you specify. Unqualified dividends would include qualified dividends where you did not hold the stock for 61 days during a period from 60 days before to 60 days after the ex-dividend date.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X