2012 Elections in the USA

[QUOTE=Tiny12; 424810]Tres, a question, since you believe it's appropriate to include social security and medicare contributions in a person's total federal tax rate. Do you believe people who make over $250, 000 a year should pay for the retirement and medical expenses of those less fortunate? And how do you expect this would work, since increasing their taxes enough to do this would potentially bankrupt many of them?

Please note in my reply below, I did include social security and medicare contributions in the total federal tax rate, and even then the federal system is steeply progressive.[/QUOTE]As I said earlier, an income tax is still an income tax. It does not matter what you call it. If you wish to call the tax that an employed person, his employer, or the self-employed a "contribution" call it what you want, but it still walks like a duck, talks like a duck, flies like a duck, swims like a duck, etc, etc. The tax "contribution" is levied, by statute, as a percentage of a person's INCOME, with a statutory limit on the amount of income on which the "contribution" is assessed. This limit is what makes the "contribution" regressive.

I noted with interest that your CBO quote: 1) Neglected to mention the percentage of total Federal tax revenue paid by each group, only the effective rate; and. 2.) That none of the groups you mentioned paid more than 30% of their income in Federal income taxes. How "steep" is 30% It still leaves 70% of income untaxed at the Federal level. Do you remember when the top Federal bracket was 90% of taxable income?

You brought a new argument to the table with your $250, 000 per year question, and I will not argue a hypothetical question. I posted only the facts as stated in existing law. What I personally believe with regard to proposed law is not material. It is not yet law, and may never become law. The fact is, under present law, an individual making more than $250, 000 per year exceeds the statutory limit on that person's "contributions" to Social Security and Medicare.

Tres3

[QUOTE=Black Shirt;424812]Let me volunteer my despicable self as the "liberal hate American numskull".[/quote]I don't think that most democrats and / or liberals hate America. I do think that there is a significant core that is bent on destroying many of the things that have contributed to making America great. I have no idea if they are motivate by hate or any other emotion. I also hope that you recognize that my harshest, sharp-tongued commentaries are reserved mostly for SOS / MOPD, his prior handle Move On and Esten. Although, I respect the fact that Esten personally subscribes to a Marxist / socialist philosophy and is not an operative just here to distribute propaganda.

[quote=]So Conservatives are all righteous and will all go to heaven. It is a relief to know, as I consider myself a conservative.[/quote]Much of that depends on whether or not you see it coming. I know that I will need a little lead time, since I'll probably have some explaining to do.

[quote=]Vietnam, like the Cultural Revolution for China, is a chapter in our history that tends to embarass us and is best forgotten. This is not intended to disparage any Vietnam Vets.[/QUOTE]I think that the subject of Vietnam has been so politicized, since LBJ was in office, that it is difficult to reconcile the millions of different agenda-driven snippets into any form of discernible mosaic. However, it is a very important part of our recent history replete with crucial lessons, many of which we forgot long ago. It is also the figurative birthplace of the contemporary leftist movement. That element is very interesting, yet rarely discussed. Who were we fighting in French Indochina? Was Charlie the enemy or a proxy for our true enemy. The true enemy, had a history of nearly 50 years of trying to infiltrate and destabilize the US. That true enemy found very fertile ground to sow its seeds of dissent and to grow dreams of Marxist utopia. After all, in the wake of McCarthyism a Marxist was nearly untouchable. What was it that I was saying about that Alinsky guy? I feel like I am going in circles, I'm getting dizzy. I think I am going to lie down.

[QUOTE=Tres3;424820]1) Neglected to mention the percentage of total Federal tax revenue paid by each group, only the effective rate; and. 2.) That none of the groups you mentioned paid more than 30% of their income in Federal income taxes. How "steep" is 30% It still leaves 70% of income untaxed at the Federal level. Do you remember when the top Federal bracket was 90% of taxable income?[/QUOTE]Tres,

1.) That's irrelevant to progressivity, but it doesn't paint a pretty picture for your side. The top 1% pay 35% to 40% of total federal income taxes. Admittedly that doesn't include social security and medicare contributions, but irregardless you'll find higher income groups pay far more in federal taxes per capita, however you define taxes.

2.) Add state and local income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes and you're probably getting to 40% to 50%. I don't understand your argument. Are you proposing to increase the Federal tax rate to 100%? Do you think certain people should be milked for every dime they've got? Or only 90%?

Is not about de jure rate for "taxable" income. It is about a ratio of tax paid to de facto income, which includes income in tax heaven.

[QUOTE=Tiny12; 424809]What you wrote above is absolutely not true. This is from a recent study by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, and shows the average tax rate paid by people in various income groups. If you want to check me, go to.

[url]http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43373[/url]

And click on the first supplemental table. The figures below include ALL federal taxes, including social security tax:

Top 1%: 28. 9% average federal tax rate.

Top 5%: 24. 1% average federal tax rate.

Top 20%: 23. 2%

Fourth Quintile: 15. 1%

Third Quintile: 11. 1%

Second Quintile: 6. 8%

Bottom 20%: 1. 0%

Your belief is common. I believe it stems from two things:

1. Democrats like Obama knowingly lie because they think it will get them more votes. This is why Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer favor only raising taxes on those making more than $1 million per year. Because they realize the "tax the rich" thing is populist bull shit, and a $1 million threshhold gets them more votes than a $250, 000 threshhold. There are a lot of people who make in the $250, 000 to $1, 000, 000 range in San Francisco and Manhattan, and Nancy and Chuck want their votes.

2. The desire of the majority to steal from the minority. People bend the truth to suit their beliefs and desires. They don't realize there are unintended consequences (on businesses, savings and investment) of stealing a large share of income from the wealthy.

If you download the Excel table I describe above on the CBO's web site, you'll see that your argument that the federal tax system would be regressive if not for the 2% reduction in social security tax doesn't wash. There's data there from 1979 to 2009, and the federal tax system is steeply progressive in all years.[/QUOTE]

I think there was a poll on AP members last year. Surprisingly, majority of respondents were liberal. I cannot locate the post of the poll results. If somebody could, please repost the poll results. Thanks.
BTW, why the name of Black Shirt? Reminds me of the Italian facist party.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt;424817]Politically, AP is a conservative think tank?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Matt Psyche; 424825]I think there was a poll on AP members last year. Surprisingly, majority of respondents were liberal. I cannot locate the post of the poll results. If somebody could, please repost the poll results. Thanks.

BTW, why the name of Black Shirt? Reminds me of the Italian facist party.[/QUOTE]When registering, my designated nick "blackshirt" failed the name-check requirements, so it became Black Shirt. I have to thank the Honorable, Sir Jackson, OBE, VC, BOAC, SPCA, AARP, YWCA for that correct intervention.

No, I am not one of Mussolini's dandy boys. For you guys that follow college football, the blackshirts are the famed Cornhusker defense that terrorizes and maimed a whole host of great & mediocre offenses. No, I do not go around wearing a black shirt, I think I only have 1 black t-shirt.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;424803]I must have missed the part where he describes the regressive nature of the potential reforms. I know Glenn, so I will give he a call and ask.[/QUOTE]I would very surprised if Romney came out with a tax program that is more progressive than the current tax system. If his tax plan is more progressive then the one we currently have then I really do not understand the tenor of his campaign. Progressive and regressive are relative terms not defining terms. They do not inform if the tax policy is good or bad. The terms just explain the relative tax burden of different income classes. I think it is fair to say that Romney's tax plan is more regressive than Obama's. The purpose is to reward the job creators to give them incentive to work harder which will improve the economy. I read "Atlas Shrugged." I get it. Wild Walleye give me some love.

It has been a topic of discussion how Hitler, in a few short years, was able to convince Germany to become openly anti semitic, condone armed conflicts with neighboring countries and plunge the world into WWII.

In the future we will be wondering how Obama was able to convince his goose stepping supporters to support class warfare and declare that entrepreneurs are despicable and should be ostracized for their success.

Obama is a known quantity. A moron and there is nothing Obama can do about that. What I don't understand is how seemingly rational people support this moron. Whoops, need to be careful. Don't want Obama to send his Brown Shirts after me.

Hitler plunged his country into a world war and Obama is plunging our countrry into economic chaos.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt; 424826]When registering, my designated nick "blackshirt" failed the name-check requirements, so it became Black Shirt. I have to thank the Honorable, Sir Jackson, OBE, VC, BOAC, SPCA, AARP, YWCA for that correct intervention.

No, I am not one of Mussolini's dandy boys. For you guys that follow college football, the blackshirts are the famed Cornhusker defense that terrorizes and maimed a whole host of great & mediocre offenses. No, I do not go around wearing a black shirt, I think I only have 1 black t-shirt.[/QUOTE]I thought that you were Johnny Cash.

What do you mean by a known "quantity"? Thanks.

[QUOTE=El Alamo;424828]Obama is a known quantity. A.[/QUOTE]

Known quantity.

Someone whose character, personality, and behavior are recognized and understood. We need not worry about how John will behave. He is a known quantity. Lisa is a known quantity and I am sure she will not surprise us by voting with the opposition.

See also: known, quantity.

I am available for english lessons, for free, if english is not your native language. Of course, you need to catch me when I am sober

[QUOTE=Big Boss Man;424827]I would very surprised if Romney came out with a tax program that is more progressive than the current tax system. If his tax plan is more progressive then the one we currently have then I really do not understand the tenor of his campaign.[/quote]I agree completely. I probably wasn't clear in my point. Romney is not proposing a regressive tax regime, which would have lower income earnings paying a higher percent of their income than higher wage earners. I believe that the point of his campaign vis a vis taxes, is to reduce taxes on all taxpayers and particularly on companies (whose taxes are paid by their customers, not by the corporation). Reducing taxes on everyone, or making taxes more fair (like a flat tax) and therefore less progressive, in my opinion, does not necessarily make those alterations regressive (although the Left would want us to believe that is true).

[quote=]Progressive and regressive are relative terms not defining terms. They do not inform if the tax policy is good or bad. The terms just explain the relative tax burden of different income classes.[/quote]I think that progressive taxation is bad and unAmerican. I also do not believe that we have a caste system in the US.

[quote=]I think it is fair to say that Romney's tax plan is more regressive than Obama's. The purpose is to reward the job creators to give them incentive to work harder which will improve the economy.[/quote]You've probably noticed that I like to split hairs. I would agree that any Romney tax plan is likely to be less progressive (and less radical) than anything that Obama proffers.

[quote=]I read "Atlas Shrugged." I get it. Wild Walleye give me some love.[/QUOTE]Was it good? I'm functionally illiterate. I've got lots of love for everyone.

[QUOTE=Matt Psyche;424823]Is not about de jure rate for "taxable" income. It is about a ratio of tax paid to de facto income, which includes income in tax heaven.[/QUOTE]I know this wasn't directed at me, but I figured I throw in that the numbers from my post came directly from the IRS website, including the percentage of income paid by level of income stats. There is very little opportunity for US citizens to legally avail themselves of tax havens, as perceived by most of the public. Regardless of where the money is, US citizens are required to report every penny of income, except those types explicitly exempted from taxation. Any corporate tax filing requires disclosing if the company has any foreign accounts, regardless of whether or not there is foreign income.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;424829]I thought that you were Johnny Cash.[/QUOTE]Yes, I knew we had to have something in common, Folsom Prison. Something to talk about in the future, right!

Walleye, That is indeed grasping at straws. Faced with irrefutable proof that the USA federal tax system is progressive, the best Psyche and Tres can come up with is that the wealthy must be hiding income in "tax heavens". Except for politicians, I've been inclined to give the left the benefit of the doubt. But I'm starting to think that Jackson is right.

Thanks for copying and pasting from the freedictionary. Com, and representing it as your answer.
I will take English lessons from you.

[url]http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/known[/url]+quantity.

[QUOTE=El Alamo; 424831]Known quantity.

Someone whose character, personality, and behavior are recognized and understood. We need not worry about how John will behave. He is a known quantity. Lisa is a known quantity and I am sure she will not surprise us by voting with the opposition.

See also: known, quantity.

I am available for english lessons, for free, if english is not your native language. Of course, you need to catch me when I am sober[/QUOTE]

I have been too busy watching Americans trying to do their best for our Country at the Olympics.

It is too bad our Republicans you voted for can't do the same for You and Us, I am saying US.

The Republicans don't help Us or the unemployed. The Rich Republicans have not created ANY JOBS. Since the 1950s.

Trickle Down Has Proven Not to Work.

Romney said he will create 12 million new jobs. But in What Country?

It says that Mormons don't do Alcohol as part of their Religion.

George Bush had more sense, Have a few drinks and keep your mouth shut about Foreign Policy.

ROMNEY put His Foot Into His Mouth on His Europe, African Tour.

Are You Really Sure You Want Him As YOUR PRESIDENT?

I know from talking to You that You Have More BRAINS than That?

New Jobs Went Up Last Month.

Romney made a great first impression on our most valuable ally, Great Britain. Questioning the readiness of the London Games? Way to step in it. Not surprisingly he got hammered in the British press, with headlines that have made him a laughing stock:

"Mitt the Twit"

"Who invited party-pooper Romney?"

"'Nowhere man' Romney loses his way with gaffe about the Games"

Some papers called him a "wazzock", which has variously been defined as "a daft know-it-all", or less flattering "a fool, esp. One who makes gross mistakes by negligence or incompetence".

What a phuck-up! Even Krauthammer agrees!

Don't want to rain on your parade but Romney has about a 2 to 1 edge on handling the economy over Obama. Of course my dog Rocky would have a 2 to 1 edge over Obama on handling the economy.

Until recently, Obama had an edge over Romney in foreign affairs but after Romney's impressive visits to England, Isreal and Poland this has changed. Now it is 44% Obama. 44% Romney. Guess we are getting used to our new President.

Obama has a big problem. Without a telepromptor Obama meets every criteria of a moron. On the other hand we have Romneys college transcripts. Impressive. Summa cum laude at the Harvard Law School. Quite a contrast with Obama's 1.7 GPA and Obama being on academic probation numerous times for lack of intelligence. I can see it now. In the upcoming debates we will have to lob softballs to Obama such as " in what country is London, england" or " does a $3 BigMac cost more or less than $100 dollars" or "is our round world round or flat". We wouldn't want to expose Obama's IQ which is about the same IQ as a potted plant - and in an IQ test Obama would run a close second to a table top.

[QUOTE=El Alamo; 424853]Obama has a big problem. Without a telepromptor Obama meets every criteria of a moron. On the other hand we have Romneys college transcripts. Impressive. Summa cum laude at the Harvard Law School. Quite a contrast with Obama's 1. 7 GPA and Obama being on academic probation numerous times for lack of intelligence. I can see it now. In the upcoming debates we will have to lob softballs to Obama such as " in what country is London, england" or " does a $3 BigMac cost more or less than $100 dollars" or "is our round world round or flat". We wouldn't want to expose Obama's IQ which is about the same IQ as a potted plant. And in an IQ test Obama would run a close second to a table top. [/QUOTE]Obama graduated from Harvard Law Magna Cum Laude, which, according to Harvard's own website cites a minimum GPA requirement of 3.756.

This is a BookTV program where Hewitt makes the case against Obama. For all you fence sitters I think this will pull you over to Romney. [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWY1tgqelPk[/url] I also think that Hewitt is honest about how a Romney administration could fail. It's going to be a real high wire act. Conservatives want to reverse all the Defense cuts that that Obama has already made. Of course he wants to get deficit down to 20% of GDP while he is increasing military spending. Even though some of us are ready for change, we are not as enthused about Romney as the the true blue Conservatives seem to be. Hewitt admits that the Republicans failed in 2004. If they get a second chance Hewitt thinks that they have only a small window to succeed. [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWY1tgqelPk[/url]

Romney has proven time and time again, he the one who needs a Teleprompter.

It was Obama that was Magna cum Laude at Harvard.

[url]http://www.eduinreview.com/blog/2008/10/barack-obamas-gpa-and-college-records/[/url]

You have been listening to Rush too much.

[QUOTE=El Alamo; 424853]Don't want to rain on your parade but Romney has about a 2 to 1 edge on handling the economy over Obama. Of course my dog Rocky would have a 2 to 1 edge over Obama on handling the economy.

Until recently, Obama had an edge over Romney in foreign affairs but after Romney's impressive visits to England, Isreal and Poland this has changed. Now it is 44% Obama. 44% Romney. Guess we are getting used to our new President.

Obama has a big problem. Without a telepromptor Obama meets every criteria of a moron. On the other hand we have Romneys college transcripts. Impressive. Summa cum laude at the Harvard Law School. Quite a contrast with Obama's 1. 7 GPA and Obama being on academic probation numerous times for lack of intelligence. I can see it now. In the upcoming debates we will have to lob softballs to Obama such as " in what country is London, england" or " does a $3 BigMac cost more or less than $100 dollars" or "is our round world round or flat". We wouldn't want to expose Obama's IQ which is about the same IQ as a potted plant. And in an IQ test Obama would run a close second to a table top.[/QUOTE]

Interesting that Obama graduated from Harvard Law School magna cum laude. Information straight from the journal of irreproducible results. Nobody, and I mean nobody has seen Obama's transcipts from Harvard and nobody, absolutely nobody has seen Obama's diploma from Harvard. The idea that Obama graduated magna cum laude is an urban myth. An urban myth is a completely false notion that gains credibility from countless repeating of the urban myth. Guess what, let's see Obama's Harvard transcripts or Obama's diploma from Harvard. Shouldn't be that hard, should it.

In is also interesting why Obama is so modest about his so called achievements at Harvard. In fact, Michelle as well as Obama never want to talk about their time at Harvard. Why, because Obama's time and accomplishements at Harvard were a complete fabrication. Starting with him being Magna Cum Laude.

However, some of Obama's professors at Harvard have comments about Obama such as 'dumber than a doorknob' 'How does this moron Obama cross the street by himself' and ' this miserable student Obama was able to do D level work after he reduced his drug dealing and reduced his personal dependence on drugs'

[QUOTE=Big Boss Man; 424858]This is a BookTV program where Hewitt makes the case against Obama. For all you fence sitters I think this will pull you over to Romney.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWY1tgqelPk[/url]

I also think that Hewitt is honest about how a Romney administration could fail. It's going to be a real high wire act. Conservatives want to reverse all the Defense cuts that that Obama has already made. Of course he wants to get deficit down to 20% of GDP while he is increasing military spending. Even though some of us are ready for change, we are not as enthused about Romney as the the true blue Conservatives seem to be. Hewitt admits that the Republicans failed in 2004. If they get a second chance Hewitt thinks that they have only a small window to succeed.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWY1tgqelPk[/url][/QUOTE]Really good post and link BBM. Maybe one of the best posts in the political thread of all time. Loved the link and enjoyed the speakers presentation. The wild-ass moon howling liberals like SnakeBoy, WT69 and especially Esten will hate this link. Esten especially, because he is by far the smartest of the three and has already figured out whats coming in November. I realized long ago when Esten didn't take me up on the same bet we made in the October primaries two years ago. That was a push because the senate stayed democrat. I know you are out there fella. I've already asked to renew our bet of two years ago, LONG AGO on this thread and NO RESPONSE. Like Clint Eastwood used to say " do you feel lucky"! The bet is still out there dude. Why not pony up? I am betting on Romney plus a GOP controlled senate after the November elections. If I am right on both I win. If you are right and the senate and Obomantion stay in place, YOU WIN. If it's a split decision either way, IT'S A PUSH. What say you dude, at the end of the day we can both afford to treat the other to a night at Madahos (lets say 2000 peso max). At the current blue rate, hell thats less than a 300 dollar bet. Come out, come out, where ever you are! I am waiting and looking forward to you repeating our bet of 2010. Enough said. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

[QUOTE=Big Boss Man;424858]Hugh Hewitt attacks Obama[/QUOTE]Hewitt was Nixon's ghostwriter back when the all time evil snake oil salesman was screwing the country, shredding the constitution and living large on the taxpayer's dime. He is as biased as el Jefe isn't! Get ready all you O'haters and rejoice. You may have 4 more years to keep pulling your hair out (those of you who have any left!

[QUOTE=SnakeOilSales;424870]One of the links was to a story CRITICIZING Obama for (more than likely) sending the DOJ after Sheldon Adelson (who is an outspoken Romney supporter).[/QUOTE]It was interesting, that the Department of Justice is looking at criminal charges against Adelson's company. But they're not looking at Stephen Wynn or Kirk Kerkorian or any other casino companies.

This is a potential way of bankrupting Adelson's company. At least that's what happened when Arthur Anderson, the accounting firm, was convicted of criminal charges.

The primary charge is that the Chinese owner of a Mexican pharmaceutical firm gambled at the Venetian. What the Venetian didn't know is that in addition to selling legitimate pharmaceuticals, the guy was also selling raw materials to narcotraficantes who were manufacturing methamphetamines. When he got busted Guadalajara police discovered $200 million in cash in his swimming pool.

While the DOJ is probably going to charge Adelson's company with money laundering, apparently the gambler ended up owing money to the Venetian. He lost more than he ran through the casino. The Venetian extended a line of credit to him and got burned. How's that money laundering? Only if you're a supporter of a political opponent of Barrack Obama. By the way, the DOJ has dropped the charges against the pharmaceutical owner for lack of evidence for money laundering, but they're still going to pursue Adelson! The DOJ can't come up with enough evidence to show he was laundering money, but somehow the Venetian should have seen that was happening and stopped it!

Snake, the web site owner has graciously provided this playground to us free of charge. Respectfully, you might want to think about that, and edit your post.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;424872]Snake, the web site owner has graciously provided this playground to us free of charge. Respectfully, you might want to think about that, and edit your post.[/QUOTE]SnakeBoy's frustration appears to be peaking! Similar to many of his wild-ass liberal buddies, as their mesiah Obomanation reveals his true colours and heads towards his slaughter in November. Tick. Tick. Tick. Monger on Tiny. Toymann.

Ps. STILL WAITING ESTEN

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 424863]Romney has proven time and time again, he the one who needs a Teleprompter.

I hope this quote by WT is supposed to be humorous. If not, we might need some intervention.

Obama uses a telepromptor because Obama cannot put sentences together that have both a subject and a verb without a telepromptor. In fact, telepromptors were more or less unknown in politics until we wound up Obama with Duracell batteries and put a telepromptor in front of him. Take out the batteries and remove the telepromptor and what are left with. A moron who makes the Duracell bunny look like Einstein.

In fact, there is a rumor that Obama requires a telepromptor to ask if he may go to the bathroom. Things get pretty messy when Obama's telepromptor is not working.

Snake, you don't go to a dinner party where the host has provided dinner and drinks then slap the host as you eat his food and drink his booze. Jackson is pretty tolerant of knot heads on this site, myself included, if you are having such a problem with the site, I invite you to leave and find a site more to your liking. This site and thread are voluntary no one makes you post here and if the moderator deletes anything, it's his site and his rules.

Maybe you can find something wrong with this one.

[url]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/choice2008/obama/harvard.html[/url]

[QUOTE=El Alamo; 424864]Interesting that Obama graduated from Harvard Law School magna cum laude. Information straight from the journal of irreproducible results. Nobody, and I mean nobody has seen Obama's transcipts from Harvard and nobody, absolutely nobody has seen Obama's diploma from Harvard. The idea that Obama graduated magna cum laude is an urban myth. An urban myth is a completely false notion that gains credibility from countless repeating of the urban myth. Guess what, let's see Obama's Harvard transcripts or Obama's diploma from Harvard. Shouldn't be that hard, should it.

In is also interesting why Obama is so modest about his so called achievements at Harvard. In fact, michelle as well as Obama never want to talk about their time at harvard. Why, because Obama's time and accomplishements at Harvard were a complete fabrication. Starting with him being magna cum laude.

However, some of Obama's professors at Harvard have comments about Obama such as 'dumber than a doorknob' 'How does this moron Obama cross the street by himself' and ' this miserable student Obama was able to do D level work after he reduced his drug dealing and reduced his personal dependence on drugs'[/QUOTE]

WT I am beginning to worry about you more and more.

Where are the college transcripts? Where is the diploma? You are propogating unfounded urban myths.

Besides, any nitwit can tell Obama would have a hard time ordering french fries much less being magna cum laude at Harvard.

I hope you have not lost all your money listening to financial advisors who probably know less about the economy than a shoe shine boy. Whoops, forgot, the shoe shine boy isn't that bad. The shoe shine boy probably knows a lot more about the economy than Obama

[QUOTE=SnakeOilSales;424857]Obama graduated from Harvard Law Magna Cum Laude, which, according to Harvard's own website cites a minimum GPA requirement of 3.756.[/QUOTE]"Just because he graduated from Harvard Law School magna cum laude doesn't mean BO had a high GPA. It just means that after subtracting the students who graduated summa cum laude, of the remaining students, he graduated in the top 10% of his class. Theoretically, he could have had a C average. [url]http://www.law.harvard.edu/ocs/employers/HLS_Grading_System.htm[/url]"

[url]http://www.law.harvard.edu/academics/handbook/2011-12handbookofacademicpolicies.pdf[/url]

All magna cum laude means is that he he was in the 10% of his class below summa cum laude. No specific grade point is a requirement. So, a C student could be a magna cum laude. Since summa cum laude have to have a 4. 75 grade or higher, HLS does not use the standard 4. 00 grade scale, so a 3. 75 would be above average, but nowhere near an A.

I have said it before and I will say it again. This election is over. The toss up states will be Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Nevada, New Jersey and New Mexico. Obama will lose all the so called tossup states. Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Iowa, Colorado.

Obama is an election day nightmare. Hillary beat his butt in all the final primaries in 2008. An incarcerated prisoner beat Obama's butt in the primaries this year.

This is not 2008 when Obama was hope and change and outspent the opposition 10 to 1.

Anyway, Obama is a miserable person plunging our country into economic chaos. Obama barely won in 2008 when he should have won by a landslide.

Read it and weap, this election is over.

I could be dead wrong but I doubt it.

Toyman, Do you want to do a three way with Esten? I'd bet on Obama and a Republican Senate. I hope Romney wins. But I don't think the American public is smart enough to recognize we need someone like him to restructure the federal government before we go bankrupt,

I hope you woke up tonight and watched it.

Better yet buy the Series and Judge for Your self, Not these dumb f__kers BSers on this Site. Exon Where Are You?

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnArJ76iZo8[/url]

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=XPzfLoV08Ok&NR=1[/url]

[url]http://cartermatt.com/28509/the-newsroom-review-a-picture-of-osama-bin-ladens-demise/comment-page-1/[/url]#comment-50989.


Bush did not get him. He actually said to forget about him, because he did not know where he and Intelligence department knew where he was.

I heard that Obama has not paid taxes for over 10 years. However, Obama has no income. Obama doesn't know how to cash his welfare checks and Obama doesn't know how to fill out his food stamp application.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 424888]I hope you woke up tonight and watched it.

Better yet buy the Series and Judge for Your self, Not these dumb f__kers BSers on this Site. Exon Where Are You?[/QUOTE]I'm open minded. I'll make a deal with you. I'll watch 3 episodes of the Newsroom if you'll watch 3 episodes of Stossel on Fox Business News network.

Do you seriously believe Romney didn't pay taxes for 10 years? Do you believe anything a politician (like Harry Reid) tells you, as long as he's a democrat? If it comes out that Romney paid less than $10 million in taxes over the last 10 years, I'll contribute $1,000 to the Democratic National Committee.

[QUOTE=Tiny12; 424899]I'm open minded. I'll make a deal with you. I'll watch 3 episodes of the Newsroom if you'll watch 3 episodes of Stossel on Fox Business News network.

Do you seriously believe Romney didn't pay taxes for 10 years? Do you believe anything a politician (like Harry Reid) tells you, as long as he's a democrat? If it comes out that Romney paid less than $10 million in taxes over the last 10 years, I'll contribute $1, 000 to the Democratic National Committee.[/QUOTE]Stossel rocks, one of my favorite shows. He is an awesome communicator for individual libery, and free markets. If you like Stossel, Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party) is likely the candidate closest to your views. Much better choice for those who want change than Romney, who is a country club Republican, and is for big government on so many issues (pro gun control, pro tarp, and the father of Romney / Obamacare)

[url]www.garyjohnson2012.com[/url]

Fred

[QUOTE=El Alamo;424853]Don't want to rain on your parade but Romney has about a 2 to 1 edge on handling the economy over Obama. Of course my dog Rocky would have a 2 to 1 edge over Obama on handling the economy.[/QUOTE]
USA Today/Gallup poll
July 19-22, 2012
n=1030
Candidate perceived as better on the economy:
Romney 51%
Obama 41%

Pew Research Center poll
June 28–July 9, 2012
n=2973
Which candidate would do the best job of improving economic conditions?
Obama 48%
Romney 42%

CNN poll
June 28-July 1, 2012
n=1517
Who would better handle the economy?
Obama 48%
Romney 47%

El Alamo "facts" turn out to be just more crap. Romney has usually led on this question, but not by a 2:1 margin. Some recent polls show Obama catching up. This trend will likely be sustained with the report of 172,000 private sector jobs created last month. El Alamo should stick to his Dennis Miller imitation, even his dog Rocky would agree.

[QUOTE=Big Boss Man;424858]Conservatives want to reverse all the Defense cuts that that Obama has already made.[/QUOTE]CORRECTION:

Congress (mainly House Republicans) are responsible for the defense cuts.

They're required by the Budget Control Act, which came about because Republicans insisted that any increase to the debt limit be matched dollar-for-dollar in spending cuts and reforms. I give them credit for that. Boehner was in talks with Obama on a grand $4 Trillion debt deal, but House Republicans pulled him away over their objections to any tax increases. Then the "Supercommittee" failed to negotiate a deal, triggering sequestration (automatic cuts), again due to Republican opposition to any tax increases. The cuts are actually a good, but small step (~ 10%) in reducing our bloated $700 Billion annual defense spending.

When you hear Republicans speak of "Obama's defense cuts", they are lying. When Romney refers to "Obama's massive defense cuts", he is telling a double lie.