• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

I've decided to vote for Romney!.......IF

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
When did college kids get paid to get falling down drunk? I didn't get paid. Man, I always missed the good deals when I was in college.....uh, maybe cuz I was drunk all the time and missed the memo.

The same way the shooter did in Co theater, he bought ammo, guns, bomb making material with discretionary funds provided by THE US GOVERNMENT.
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
Actually a flat dollar amount is the opposite of "fair". Take your $1,000.00 example: If you only make $20,000 a year that's 5% of your income, but when your income is expressed in millions, that thousand dollars is a rounding error. Even though I support it, a sales tax is regressive as well. Families with lower income tend to have less discretionary income. You're taxing them on money that they have no choice but to spend. There's ways around that with a consumption tax, but not with your "flat amount" example.

A flat dollar amount is the only fair tax. If you use a method that causes people to pay different dollar amounts then you penalize some and reward others... unfairly.

Why should I pay a higher or lower dollar amount for the exact same government services? I shouldn't

Worring about people with lower income is a socialist/communist idea and the excuse used to steal our money and give it to others while the government, of course, gets it's cut.
 

Brimstone Baritone

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
786
Location
Leeds, Alabama, USA
Worring about people with lower income is a socialist/communist idea and the excuse used to steal our money and give it to others while the government, of course, gets it's cut.
Sorry. I didn't realize the fact that I could do math made me a socialist. I never said I gave two ***** about poor people, I said you were wrong when you called a flat amount "fair". Obviously we're operating on different definitions of the word.

Why should I pay a higher or lower dollar amount for the exact same government services? I shouldn't
Why stop there? Why should you pay at all for government services you're not using?
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
SNIP I said you were wrong when you called a flat amount "fair". Obviously we're operating on different definitions of the word.

No. You're offering no logic to your argument. Two people paying different amounts for the same service, especially when the payment for that service is mandatory, is unfair by anyone's definition.

Why stop there? Why should you pay at all for government services you're not using?

Not relevant to the point.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Yea. A number of people on this forum have seen my Beretta. I get it though, you are implying that I likely don't even own a gun, right.

Here's you a bone:

Nice gat.....but, there seems to be a bunch of little black dots all over the holster. You might wanna try to wipe those off. There are some very good leather cleaning agents and conditioners on the market these days.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
The fact that you relate Moderation with Socialism and Fascism tells a lot about the unfortunate position your ilk have entrenched yourselves in; enjoy your trench, you are going to be there a long time. I have stated before that Americans are Moderate people, and although they vote for tea party types out of frustration, they will always come back to the middle; Romney is a poor attempt at making Republicans appear Moderate, poor attempt; hell, Romney doesn't even know who Romney is. Voting Third Party is a waste of time. There are no viable Third Party candidates, unfortunately, yet!

A false illusion of a middle created by the two factions of the same socialist/fascist/nationalist two part system, it really isn't a moderate any more than an individualist is labeled an extremist.

Romney's statement is a fact. Seems the only people who are upset are the Obama freeloaders. Nice diversion that will backfire and then we will be back to fiasco in the Middle East that Obooboo created. It is very sad that half the population does not pay income tax, and the burden is put on those few that do.

No one should pay income tax, it's immoral. Supreme court even ruled on this. It hasn't been overturned.

Individuals on Social Security are freeloaders?--that's part of the 47% he is speaking about, the elderly, which, last I checked, vote Republican. Romney keeps playing the election this way, Obama will glide into office.

Yes when you receive a lot more than you pull out and burden the younger working generation with a higher tax than you had to pay into the system so you can "retire" it is wrong.

Disabled veterans are freeloaders too. Is there a group left that Romney hasn't dissed?

This is a loaded question meant to obfuscate the real issues.

It has been recognized since the founding of the country that veterans hurt in defending the country should be helped, by those enjoying the country they defended. Yet we shouldn't have very many disabled veterans because we shouldn't be involved in the foreign wars we are in.

But this still has nothing to do with "entitlements".

I would prefer a sales tax only. Income tax strikes me as wrong.

It is our government with the help of federal judges has changed the definition of Income to rationalize the immoral thievery of it. But hey they also changed the meaning of "regulate", "commerce", "militia", etc. to fit a statist agenda.
 

Brimstone Baritone

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
786
Location
Leeds, Alabama, USA
Sorry. I didn't realize the fact that I could do math made me a socialist. I never said I gave two ***** about poor people, I said you were wrong when you called a flat amount "fair". Obviously we're operating on different definitions of the word.
No. You're offering no logic to your argument. Two people paying different amounts for the same service, especially when the payment for that service is mandatory, is unfair by anyone's definition.

If I walk up to you and take half of your stuff at gunpoint, that's not "fair" because it's your stuff. If I then walk up to Bill Gates and take half of his stuff, it's still not "fair" for the same reason. But we're in a society where we've decided not to fight back, to let the government have as much of our stuff as they ask for. That being the case, it is more "fair" for the government to take half of each of your stuff, than to only take $1000.00 from each of you. Half your stuff impacts you similarly whether you make $20,000 per year or are Bill Gates. (Actually, Bill Gates still has an easier time of coping with you taking half his stuff, that's why the rich are asked to pay a larger percentage of their stuff.) I don't have to agree with taxation to believe that progressive taxation is the most equitable way to do it.

Why stop there? Why should you pay at all for government services you're not using?
Not relevant to the point.

It is exactly relevant to your point. You are saying that you shouldn't pay more than someone else. I'm pointing out that the more wealth you have, the less likely you are to need those services at all. So, using your logic, why should the wealthy pay at all for services they are never going to use? That's where your idea of "fair" leads you.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Nice gat.....but, there seems to be a bunch of little black dots all over the holster. You might wanna try to wipe those off. There are some very good leather cleaning agents and conditioners on the market these days.

I wanted a cheetah pattern. The holster will get nothing. Actually, I hate this particular holster--it is a Crossbreed, but I hate the damn thing, in so many ways.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Jobless Romney 2011 tax...

Romney finally came-out with his 2011 return:

Mr. Romney’s return for 2011 showed that he paid an effective federal income tax rate of 14 percent last year, or a little more than $1.9 million on adjusted gross income of about $13.7 million.

Poor guy. And he's been jobless for a while now.

[video=youtube_share;TgGXKA43WY4]http://youtu.be/TgGXKA43WY4[/video]

Mingling with the unemployed. The irony isn't wasted on a business man who's unemployed, running for President.

Romney jabs, Romney jabs, uppercutting Romney...the crowd cheers:

Republican running mate Paul Ryan drew boos at an AARP convention in New Orleans when he said Romney would repeal Obama's health care law, which closed a gap in coverage for seniors' prescription drugs. http://seattletimes.com/html/politics/2019217390_apuspresidentialcampaign.html

There is no way Republicans are serious about winning this election. Wait, is this Romney/Ryan's new job...are they starting a political circus?

Let Republican cannibalism begin, ladies and gentlemen:

But for now, Romney's troubles have sent shudders down ballot, where Republicans are in tough races that will settle the outcome for the struggle for control of the Senate this fall. Tommy Thompson, dropping in the polls in Wisconsin, said "the presidential thing is bound to have an impact on every election."
That produced a quick retort from John Sununu, a top Romney surrogate. "My good friend Tommy Thompson sounds like Barack Obama, blaming it on somebody else," he said on CNN.
But Thompson wasn't alone. Rep. Rick Berg, running for the Senate in a closer-than-expected race in North Dakota, became the latest in a string of Republican candidates to say they disagreed with Romney's 47 percent remarks.
http://seattletimes.com/html/politics/2019217390_apuspresidentialcampaign.html

I wonder how many Republicans are going to jump Romney's ship, in order to save themselves.

I wonder how many people have hit Ignore on me LOL.

I look forward to the debates; it's going to be exciting, watching President Obama casually wipe the floor with Romney.

Tax breakdown of the four:

ax rates and charitable giving in 2011 President Barack Obama:
Income: $790,000
Federal taxes: $162,000
Tax rate: 20.5 percent
Charitable donations: $172,000
Percentage of income: 22 percent
Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney:
Income: $13.7 million
Federal taxes: $1.94 million
Tax rate: 14.1 percent
Charitable donations: $4 million
Percentage of income: 29.35 percent
Vice President Joe Biden:
Income: $379,178
Federal taxes: $87,900
Tax rate: 23 percent
Charitable donations: $5,500

Percentage of income: 1.46 percent
Vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan:
Income: $323,416
Federal taxes: $64,764
Tax rate: 20 percent
Charitable donations: $12,991
Percentage of income: 4 percent
Comparisons:
2011_income.png
2011 income
2011_taxrate.png
2011 tax rate
2011_charitable.png
Percent of income donated to charity
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...-candidate-gave-more-193618325--election.html
 
Last edited:
Top