2012 Elections in the USA

[QUOTE=Esten;425076]My only concern is you not paying up.[/QUOTE]You really dissapoint me Esten! Unlike you and your precious vacation, I am self employed, and can come to Argentina whenever I want. Thought this was a friendly bet! Ok. Game on. You are sadly a classless jerk! I have only met you once and thought that you were an ok guy. Ooops. My bad! We are ON B*TCH! Let me make it really simple for you! You are supposedly coming to BA in the fall. I am coming at the end of September. We are both coming to BA before the election. I suggest we both give either Jackson or El Queso 2000 pesos when in BA. I would hate you to think that I don't have the means of paying or the credibility of following through on my word. I will be in BA first, so you can determine that I have fullfilled my part of the deal before you cough up your stake in the bet. You pick the money holder (El Queso or Jackson). Does this make you happy? After your last comments I wouldn't have dinner with you if you were the last american left in Argentina. Hope this makes you happy. You really dissapoint me dude. BUT we are on like Donkey Kong. Just pick the stake holder (El Queso or Jackson). I assume we are ON you sad socialist fool. Taking your pesos is like taking candy from a baby! I hope this now clears up any concerns you might have! Toymann

[QUOTE=Black Shirt; 425077]No, he is just an immigrant from a former socialist country. If you ever had to queue alongside them at the airport, you know what I mean!

Just joking, Toymann, don't get a seizure.[/QUOTE]That was funny BS. Us republicans do have a sense of humor. Wish the prickly wild-ass liberals followed suit. Monger On BS. Toymann

[QUOTE=Toymann;425083]You really dissapoint me Esten! Unlike you and your precious vacation, I am self employed, and can come to Argentina whenever I want. Thought this was a friendly bet! Ok. Game on. You are sadly a classless jerk! I have only met you once and thought that you were an ok guy. Ooops. My bad! We are ON B*TCH! Let me make it really simple for you! You are supposedly coming to BA in the fall. I am coming at the end of September. We are both coming to BA before the election. I suggest we both give either Jackson or El Queso 2000 pesos when in BA. I would hate you to think that I don't have the means of paying or the credibility of following through on my word. I will be in BA first, so you can determine that I have fullfilled my part of the deal before you cough up your stake in the bet. You pick the money holder (El Queso or Jackson). Does this make you happy? After your last comments I wouldn't have dinner with you if you were the last american left in Argentina. Hope this makes you happy. You really dissapoint me dude. BUT we are on like Donkey Kong. Just pick the stake holder (El Queso or Jackson). I assume we are ON you sad socialist fool. Taking your pesos is like taking candy from a baby! I hope this now clears up any concerns you might have! Toymann[/QUOTE]It looks like undiagnosed Aspergers Syndrome AND complete disconnect from reality!

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 425070]A poll of "adults" (not likely voters, not even registered voters, adults?) which over sampled democrats by 9.

You can believe whatever you want.

OK, I'll face it. On November 7th.

Meet you at Archibald's for a drink, after you get out of work. I imagine your cubicle isn't too far from there.[/QUOTE]I don't know of any place called Archibald's in Buenos Aires, but you can easily find me while I'm working at the Burger King on the corner of Santa Fe and Ayacucho (usually the first shift). There is a bar a block and a half down the street called The Spot where you can buy me a drink after my shift is over. I might be a little greasy and smell of fast food but I'll be more than happy to let you tell me how wrong you were about your anticipated results of the election.

[QUOTE=SnakeOilSales;425067]Toymann, do you have an undiagnosed case of Aspergers Syndrome?[/QUOTE]Just what is the point that you are trying to make with this question? One of my family members has Aspergers and I don't see how it could possibly be relevant to the discussion. If you mean that as an insult to Toymann, it is further confirmation of your intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy. I guess I would have to hope that people like you are not appointed to Obama's death squads, I mean death panels.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;425081]Walleye, I hope you don't get pissed. I actually do get a kick out of your posts and agree with you most of the time. But this was too good to pass up.[/quote]It takes a lot to get me pissed. You're not even remotely close, yet.

[quote=]I understand now. Actually I always understood, honestly, that capital gains and dividends from businesses, including public corporations, should be subject to no or low rates of tax, for reasons of fairness and so capital will be allocated efficiently. But now I understand that the work of hedge funds and private equity funds is so important that part of the fees they charge should be taxed at lower rates than landlords, utility companies, administrative assistants, computer networking companies, and all other vendors.[/quote]You seem like a decent fellow, however, you seem to have blinders on. Why should the capital gains be different (higher) for hedge fund managers than for people from other walks of life?

[quote=]This is fantastic financial engineering! I don't think even old Bernie* could have come up with something like this. It's money for nothing! Now if we can only get the chicks for free.[/quote]Are you nuts? How could the starting point for a newly formed corporation be anything else? Have you ever started a company? Essentially, you file with the state (first), then get a TIN (from the Feds) and off you go. The entity has zero value on day one, I am at risk for $450, basically my 'paid in capital' for my stock. If, after the allotted time period, that company becomes worth $10MM and I sell 100%, I owe long-term capital gains taxes on $10MM of capital gains.

[quote=]Can I do this too? If I pay off a few Congressmen, will they change the law so that part of the income generated from the sweat equity I'm putting into my new business will be treated as capital gains?[/quote]No need to pay off anyone, it is the law of the land. When I set up a new corporation (like I did recently) , I own 100% (unless I have partners). What am I supposed to do? Give the government a carried interest? They already have one.

[quote=]This is so true. Loopholes, government subsidies, different tax rates applied to different businesses, these are the sorts of things that drive the economy and help all the tax lawyers and accountants working for the large corporations that know how to take advantage of these things.

*Pick your Bernie, Madoff, Cornfield or Sanders. Assets = Liabilities + Equity. You can't create an entity with +$450 in equity and no assets. FYI, if you've been waiting 18 months for long term capital gains treatment you don't need to. You only have to hold for 12 months and one day.[/QUOTE]It costs me about $450 to set up a new LLC (I can do it cheaper, but that isn't important) out of pocket (not out of the corporate coffers, because there are none, at first). You have to incorporate before you can open a bank account (need both a TIN and a corporate resolution, typically). So on "day one" you have zero assets. Unless you count the out of pocket expense to be an IOU, which then would be offset 100% by the contra-asset (-$450) , since the money has been paid and is not available to be of benefit to the corporation. Further, you could argue that there is some de minimus value to the corporate entity, however, at this stage of development, the act of incorporating is as much a compulsory regulatory act and the $450 a cost of doing business as opposed to the purchase of a good or service with actual fungible value, therefore, it has an accounting value of zero. I don't recall seeing too many balance sheets carrying "Legal corporate entity" as an asset. So yes, you have zero assets.

Assets = Liabilities + Shareholders' equity $0 = ($450) + $450

[QUOTE=SnakeOilSales;425090]I don't know of any place called Archibald's in Buenos Aires, but you can easily find me while I'm working at the Burger King on the corner of Santa Fe and Ayacucho (usually the first shift). There is a bar a block and a half down the street called The Spot where you can buy me a drink after my shift is over. I might be a little greasy and smell of fast food but I'll be more than happy to let you tell me how wrong you were about your anticipated results of the election.[/QUOTE]I am certain that Archibald's is much closer to your proximity than Sante Fe and Ayacucho. Seeing as you're in that neighborhood, what is the color of the front door of the closest privado? Which side of the street is it on, when you are facing west? What is the name of the handbag store one block east of your Burger King? Would you go east or west, from your Burger King, to get to the big, sidewalk flower stand?

[QUOTE=Toymann;425082]I like this ticket for what it says! Romney-Ryan = the Romney crowd must figure Florida is in the bag (I also agree with this) , no need for Rubio (he's too green anyway and the latino vote is meanless anyway). Wisconsin is now in the bag. I am liking what I see. BIG TIME. Monger On All Toymann[/QUOTE]I repeat. Really like this ticket! Happy Mongering All. Toymann

[QUOTE=Toymann;425095]I repeat. Really like this ticket! Happy Mongering All. Toymann[/QUOTE]Great pick in my opinion. I always admired Ryan for actually putting on a paper an actual plan. Now we can have a thoughtful discussion. It immediately shifts the debate from Romney's 2009 tax return and Obama being born in Indonesia and onto what kind of America do we want. I have always anticipated the medicare cuts. In my retirement planning I budget $10k for medical costs and inflate it at 3% a year. I do believe that Ryan's plan will raise my taxes either by making me pay tax on my medical insurance, reducing the mortgage interest deduction, reducing the state and and local income tax reduction. However if the Ryan's deficit plan reduces the deficit after the austerity period I think I will make a shit load on money in the financial markets which is my primary income source. The capital gains and dividend reduction does not help me as much because half of my investment portfolio is in tax-deferred accounts and in ten years I will be subject to RMD.

I am definitely to the left of Ryan but I believe working on a plan is better than what we have now which is no plan. As Branch Rickey said,"Luck is the residue of design." In 1998, my company was in trouble. A new leader was hired and we put together a plan. Our assumptions and forecast turned out to be wrong but we came out smelling like a rose anyway

I will be able to adapt to the tax changes and minimize my tax burden. For example, if the mortgage interest deduction goes I have the flexibility to pay off my mortgage which will lower my income and lower my tax.

I will vote for Romney-Ryan but I do not think it will make a difference in California. I do not think Romney is even campaigning here. I have not seen one ad that I can recall. If Romney wins California the Ryan budget is a done deal and I would advise seeing your tax advisor in the next few months to get your strategies aligned. We now know the tax code is changing either way the election goes which is great piece of information.

[QUOTE=Big Boss Man;425098]Now we can have a thoughtful discussion. It immediately shifts the debate onto what kind of America do we want.[/QUOTE]Mitt's team, within minutes of the Ryan announcement, stated that Romney will NOT run supporting the Ryan's economic plan! Guess the first thoughtful discussion on what kind of America we want will be between Mitt and Paul! Too funny. Ryan may do for Romney what Palin did for McCain!

Very good Toymann. The bet is on. It's a friendly bet, but it's no fun if it doesn't have some teeth. I had to get you to agree the winner can collect whether or not we are in town at the same time. Now that you've agreed, I trust you. I don't care how / who you leave the money with.

As I said before my plan is to come down end of November. Since you are so free to travel, why don't you come down then? If not, your idea to leave the funds in BA in September is a good one, so I can use them in November.

Of all the names you called me (idiot, be*tch, socialist fool, home boy, tight-ass) , I liked the "classless jerk" one best. Yes, I am sure based on your posting history on this board you are widely regarded as a classy gentleman yourself. LMAO!

[QUOTE=Esten; 425104]Very good Toymann. The bet is on. It's a friendly bet, but it's no fun if it doesn't have some teeth. I had to get you to agree the winner can collect whether or not we are in town at the same time. Now that you've agreed, I trust you. I don't care how / who you leave the money with.

As I said before my plan is to come down end of November. Since you are so free to travel, why don't you come down then? If not, your idea to leave the funds in BA in September is a good one, so I can use them in November.

Of all the names you called me (idiot, be*tch, socialist fool, home boy, tight-ass) , I liked the "classless jerk" one best. Yes, I am sure based on your posting history on this board you are widely regarded as a classy gentleman yourself. LMAO![/QUOTE]Very Good, going forward I will refer to you on the board as "classless jerk". We are agreed. Leave your 2000 pesos with El Queso the end of November. I will enjoy them when I return in March. Can't come in novemeber as thats my college football sec vacation time. God it's great to be a 1%er! No comment on the future US VP? My cheesehead buddy? Monger on Dude. Toymann

[QUOTE=Tiny12; 425080]Good Point Esten. Federal revenues in 2009 were only 2. 1 trillion though. And the top 10% do pay payroll taxes too.

Without going into detail, the top 10% actually only paid about $830 billion to the federal government, instead of the $1. 5 trillion you calculated. The federal deficit in 2009 was 3. 5 trillion. 2.1 trillion = 1. 4 trillion, which you can confirm on the usgovernmentrevenue. Com web site.[/QUOTE]No no no. The $1.5T I calculated was how much income tax revenue would be needed (assuming it is 42% of all tax revenue) to generate a grand total of $3.5T which would match spending and balance the budget. If total revenues were only $2.1T, then I agree with your number of the top 10% paying about $830B. BTW, that's a 0.8/3.3 = 24% tax rate. That's very low, it should be more like 35-40%.

Your point about picking up the slack to balance the budget is a separate question. I have never said all the burden of balancing the budget should fall on the wealthy. My formula to balance the budget would be:

(1) Allow payroll tax deductions to expire.
(2) Go back to the Clinton tax rates (perhaps in steps).
(3) Implement the Buffet Rule.
(4) Cut Defense.
(5) Other spending cuts as needed (should be minimal after #1-4).

[QUOTE=Tiny12;425081]Walleye, I hope you don't get pissed. I actually do get a kick out of your posts and agree with you most of the time. But this was too good to pass up.[/QUOTE]If I got pissed at you for expressing your opinions, that would mean that I am a liberal.

[QUOTE=Big Boss Man;425098]I always admired Ryan for actually putting on a paper an actual plan.[/QUOTE]It's called "Leadership", something that BO has demonstrated he sorely lacks.

[QUOTE=Esten; 425108]No no no. The $1. 5T I calculated was how much income tax revenue would be needed (assuming it is 42% of all tax revenue) to generate a grand total of $3. 5T which would match spending and balance the budget. If total revenues were only $2. 1T, then I agree with your number of the top 10% paying about $830B. BTW, that's a 0. 8/3. 3 = 24% tax rate. That's very low, it should be more like 35-40.

Your point about picking up the slack to balance the budget is a separate question. I have never said all the burden of balancing the budget should fall on the wealthy. My formula to balance the budget would be:

(1) Allow payroll tax deductions to expire.[/QUOTE]So far, bleating sheep.

[quote=](2) Go back to the Clinton tax rates (perhaps in steps).[/quote]Then you should have no problem going back to the Clinton spending levels, too. We can adjust them upward for the nominal increase in the population.

[quote=](3) Implement the Buffet Rule.[/quote]Right after BO implements Simpson Bowles.

[quote=](4) Cut Defense.[/quote]Have you been keeping up with current events? Any idea what has been happening to defense spending? Considering that defending the nation is one of the few federal powers explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, I think that there are plenty of other programs to cut, prior to doing more damage to our national security.

[quote=](5) Other spending cuts as needed (should be minimal after #1-4).[/QUOTE]Why should they be minimal? Eliminate the Dept of Energy, Dept of Commerce and Dept of Eduction and every czar, and their related bureaucracies, created by Clinton, Bush & Obama. Cut EPA funding by 50. That ought to get things rolling.

He's burnishing his AP creds with generic, non-chica-specific posts. I guess he is hoping that my post, requesting specific corroborating information. Which should be extremely easy for him to obtain (given his location in Recoleta). Will fall off the first page and he can try to return without anyone noticing.

According to his own posts, he's been mongering in Bs As since '04/'05, so he shouldn't have any trouble getting the rest of us comfortable with that issue.

Maybe he just isn't big enough to admit the error in his ways in making fun of disabled people.

[QUOTE=Toymann;425105]Very Good, going forward I will refer to you on the board as "classless jerk". We are agreed. Leave your 2000 pesos with El Queso the end of November. I will enjoy them when I return in March. Can't come in novemeber as thats my college football sec vacation time. God it's great to be a 1%er! No comment on the future US VP? My cheesehead buddy? Monger on Dude. Toymann[/QUOTE]Toymann, what is your sec school? My school is the one that just fired the best coach we ever had because the AD got his panties in a wad about be lied to.

[QUOTE=Dccpa;425149]Toymann, what is your sec school? My school is the one that just fired the best coach we ever had because the AD got his panties in a wad about be lied to.[/QUOTE]The Razorback firing was a classic example of horsesh$t liberalism driven by feminazi media bitchs. Clinton didn't lose his job for lying about a trist (IN THE OVAL OFFICE NO LESS). That said, as a cocks fan I couldn't help a rye smile as your program has given us fits the last couple of years. It's a shame your teams' administration bowed to liberal media pressure. Since when does being a bad husband, mean you should be fired from your job (that he was doing an amazing job at, I might add). The whole incident fell under the "no harm no foul" approach as far as I was concerned. Us cocks fans will take it any way we can in the hyper-competitive SEC though. I do send my condolences out to RazerBack fans. I just HATe feminazis and the ***** driven culture they have instilled in the US over the past 30 years. GO SEC DUDE. Toymann

[QUOTE=Toymann;425150]Us cocks fans will take it any way we can[/QUOTE]very interesting....

I predicted awhile back that Romney would pick Ryan or Rubio. The selection of Ryan is being described by some as both bold and risky. I would agree. He's a smart guy and is to be commended for fighting for what he believes in. The problem is that his budget proposals are on the wrong side of the polls, by wide margins. Poll after poll has shown that most Americans support raising taxes on higher incomes, support cuts to defense over social programs, and will support minor but not major cuts to social programs.

Simpson-Bowles had a balanced approach to addressing the deficit, both raising revenues and cutting spending. While Obama didn't endorse it, neither did Congress. Paul Ryan was on the committee and actually voted against it. But at a high level, Obama favors a balanced approach and most Americans do as well. The Republican approach is unbalanced and relies on deep spending cuts. When you get to the specifics of the Republican approach, even Tea Party supporters reject it.

Republicans gave away Trillions to the wealthiest Americans. Now they say the only option to avoid a debt crisis is to accept drastic cuts to programs that benefit the poor and middle class. You have to be a sucker to accept this argument. And that is why Romney selected the slickest proponent of this false argument to be his VP.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;425143]Then you should have no problem going back to the Clinton spending levels, too. We can adjust them upward for the nominal increase in the population.[/QUOTE]So we do acknowledge that the last time Republicans and Romney's economic team where in command they fucke3d up even if Hubbard is your best friend.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;425143]Have you been keeping up with current events? Any idea what has been happening to defense spending? Considering that defending the nation is one of the few federal powers explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, I think that there are plenty of other programs to cut, prior to doing more damage to our national security.[/QUOTE]I think reversing the Defense cuts is the dumbest thing in Romney's plan. Obama actually used a Republican thinker Robert Gates to make the decisions on where the military should be cut. Then he sent Panetta, the Democrats budget cutter, to do the work. I also think he should keep the 2014 date for withdrawing from Afghanistan just like Bush gave Obama cover for retreating from Iraq. Romney and Ryan have no military experience even though they would have been of age during Vietnam and Desert Storm respectively.

The reason we need change is that Obama has underperformed relative to expectations. Many of Romney's and other Republican policies are screwy. Luckily we all know how to adapt to bad government.

[QUOTE=Esten;425152]very interesting.[/QUOTE]You did truncate my words. Why did you leave out "in the hyper-competitive SEC". Please elaborate. Inquiring minds want to know. Toymann.

Ps. Just so we can be clear we are talking about college football. Just in case you didn't notice. LMAO

I couldn't resist Toymann, I guess conservatives just don't have any sense of humor.... ;)

[QUOTE=Esten;425153]Poll after poll has shown that most Americans support raising taxes on higher incomes.[/QUOTE]Smart liberals like Esten know that this is a specious argument. Given that 50% of the poll respondents don't pay any income taxes, what they hear is the pollster asking them "Do you support taxing other people so the government can give the money to you?", and so of course they answer "Yes, I support raising taxes on the other guy".

Try taking a poll of people who actually pay income taxes and see if you get the same results.

[QUOTE=Esten;425153]Republicans gave away Trillions to the wealthiest Americans.[/QUOTE]Once again you're turned it around backwards. The Republicans didn't give away trillions to anyone because it was in fact the individual citizen's money to begin with. Only in liberal la-la land does a decision not to take somebody's money from them by force equal giving them money.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 425147]He's burnishing his AP creds with generic, non-chica-specific posts. I guess he is hoping that my post, requesting specific corroborating information. Which should be extremely easy for him to obtain (given his location in Recoleta). Will fall off the first page and he can try to return without anyone noticing.

According to his own posts, he's been mongering in Bs As since '04/'05, so he shouldn't have any trouble getting the rest of us comfortable with that issue.

Maybe he just isn't big enough to admit the error in his ways in making fun of disabled people.[/QUOTE]It was pouring rain here (in Buenos Aires, where I live, and YOU DON"T) all day and night yesterday so it wasn't particularly convenient for me to walk / drive over to the corner of Ayacucho and Santa Fe just to look at the location of a flower stand. How about this: if you are standing outside of the "monger mansion" looking at the street there is a Colombian restaurant "Los recuerdos" (as you enter "los recuerdos" the bar is on the right and the tables are on the left) to your right, a university directly in front and to the left, and a Subway directly to the left and on the corner. A half a block down to the right on the corner there is a new coffee place opening up where "drink stop" used to be. Any more irrelevant questions?

I certainly was not making fun of disabled people; Toymann appears to have an undiagnosed case of Asperger's Syndrome and if it is indeed the case it would explain his repetitive personal attacks and borderline erratic behavior.

[QUOTE=Toymann;425150]The Razorback firing was a classic example of horsesh$t liberalism driven by feminazi media bitchs. Clinton didn't lose his job for lying about a trist (IN THE OVAL OFFICE NO LESS). That said, as a cocks fan I couldn't help a rye smile as your program has given us fits the last couple of years. It's a shame your teams' administration bowed to liberal media pressure. Since when does being a bad husband, mean you should be fired from your job (that he was doing an amazing job at, I might add). The whole incident fell under the "no harm no foul" approach as far as I was concerned. Us cocks fans will take it any way we can in the hyper-competitive SEC though. I do send my condolences out to RazerBack fans. I just HATe feminazis and the ***** driven culture they have instilled in the US over the past 30 years. GO SEC DUDE. Toymann[/QUOTE]Long has been busy bending over so that A&M could screw Arkansas. My understanding is that A&M will replace Arkansas as your permanent SEC West opponent. A&M will replace Arkansas against LSU for the Black Friday game. And A&M has apparently gotten out of its 10 game commitment vs. Arkansas at Jerry World. This year or next is the last one between our 2 teams until they meet on a rotating basis. So, Long probably fired Petrino because he was feeling emasculated by A&M and needed to feel like a big boy again.

It's too bad I have enjoyed our rivalry.

[QUOTE=Jackson;425157]Smart liberals like Esten know that this is a specious argument. Given that 50% of the poll respondents don't pay any income taxes, what they hear is the pollster asking them "Do you support taxing other people so they government can give the money to you?", and so of course they answer "Yes, I support raising taxes on the other guy".

Try taking a poll of people who actually pay income taxes and see if you get the same results.

Once again you're turned it around backwards. The Republicans didn't give away trillions to anyone because it was in fact the individual citizen's money to begin with. Only in liberal la-la land does a decision not to take somebody's money from them by force equal giving them money.[/QUOTE]What liberals seem to forget is how well our economy functioned when government was smaller and people were more self-sufficient. It would have been nice to see what our country could have been like if you took the government of Thomas Jefferson and added in the technology improvements of today. But Roosevelt started the government dependency trend and we have been living beyond our collective means ever since. And the Federal Reserve has hidden the decline in our standard of living through inflation.

[QUOTE=Dccpa;425168]It's too bad I have enjoyed our rivalry.[/QUOTE]You not lying fella. Been some killer games over the years. Damn Feminazi's! Hate them all. Good luck with the new coach, you'll be good next year with those players coming back. Monger On Dude. Toymann

[QUOTE=Dccpa;425169]What liberals seem to forget is how well our economy functioned when government was smaller and people were more self-sufficient. It would have been nice to see what our country could have been like if you took the government of Thomas Jefferson and added in the technology improvements of today. But Roosevelt started the government dependency trend and we have been living beyond our collective means ever since. And the Federal Reserve has hidden the decline in our standard of living through inflation.[/QUOTE]Your statement about the decline in the standard of living going as far back as Roosevelt is intriguing. You also alluded to the possiblity of "utopia" had Jeffersonian governments continued. Please elaborate given human nature's tendency to self-destruct.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt;425179]Your statement about the decline in the standard of living going as far back as Roosevelt is intriguing. You also alluded to the possiblity of "utopia" had Jeffersonian governments continued. Please elaborate given human nature's tendency to self-destruct.[/QUOTE]I'll let DCCpa answer for himself. However, the decline, in my opinion dates to Theodore Roosevelt and his progressive ideals and his misguided vision and belief that man should be the arbiter of fairness. The began the encroachment upon our rights and freedoms and the decay of self-reliance and rugged individualism (ironic, given TR's image).

[QUOTE=Dccpa;425169]What liberals seem to forget is how well our economy functioned when government was smaller and people were more self-sufficient.[/QUOTE]
What time period are you talking about ?
How were standard of living metrics better then, vs. more recently (eg. under Clinton) ?
How were seniors better off without Social Security and Medicare ?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Thanks

[QUOTE=Jackson;425157]The Republicans didn't give away trillions to anyone because it was in fact the individual citizen's money to begin with. Only in liberal la-la land does a decision not to take somebody's money from them by force equal giving them money.[/QUOTE]Your ideological arguments are always entertaining Jackson, but make little sense in the real world.

There is a legal obligation to pay for services rendered, whether services are provided by a company or a government. In the case of a government, the services and obligations are ultimately determined by the people themselves, through our democratic election process. A government must be paid for. The Bush Tax Cuts contributed to subsequent deficits, meaning the government was not paid for.

What do you want, free government?

With the Ryan pick to boost his struggling campaign, Romney is hoping for a boost in the polls. People will be watching the polls, especially the electoral college to detect any shifts. If they shift in Obama's favor, it's all but over.

I am really shaking my head at what Romney has done. Lagging in the polls, what does he do? He makes scaling back Medicare an election focus. I thought the plan was to make it a referendum on Obama? This could turn quite badly for Republicans. We will see.

Electoral College 8/13/2012 (realclearpolitics) (270 to win)
Obama 237
Romney 191
Toss Ups 110

Toss Up States (Electoral Votes) :
Colorado (9) Obama +1.2
Florida (29) Obama +1.4
Iowa (6) Obama +1.0
Nevada (6) Obama +5.3
New Hampshire (4) Obama +2.6
North Carolina (15) Romney +1.0
Ohio (18) Obama +4.8
Virgina (13) Obama +3.2
Wisconsin (10) Obama +5.4

[QUOTE=Esten;425198]There is a legal obligation to pay for services rendered, whether services are provided by a company or a government. In the case of a government, the services and obligations are ultimately determined by the people themselves, through our democratic election process. hat do you want, free government?[/QUOTE]You wrote "Republicans gave away trillions to the wealthiest Americans." You're starting to sound like Walleye on carried interest. Not only is the logic in your first post nonsensical, as Jackson pointed out, but the Bush tax cuts made the income tax system more progressive, according to the Congressional Budget Office and even the Citizens for Tax Justice.

[QUOTE=Esten; 425200]With the Ryan pick to boost his struggling campaign, Romney is hoping for a boost in the polls. People will be watching the polls, especially the electoral college to detect any shifts. If they shift in Obama's favor, it's all but over.

I am really shaking my head at what Romney has done. Lagging in the polls, what does he do? He makes scaling back Medicare an election focus. I thought the plan was to make it a referendum on Obama? This could turn quite badly for Republicans. We will see.

Electoral College 8/13/2012 (realclearpolitics) (270 to win)

Obama 237.

Romney 191.

Toss Ups 110.

Toss Up States (Electoral Votes) :

Colorado (9) Obama +1. 2.

Florida (29) Obama +1. 4.

Iowa (6) Obama +1. 0.

Nevada (6) Obama +5. 3.

New Hampshire (4) Obama +2. 6.

North Carolina (15) Romney +1. 0.

Ohio (18) Obama +4. 8.

Virgina (13) Obama +3. 2.

Wisconsin (10) Obama +5. 4[/QUOTE]Romney will easily win Florida (29) , Iowa (6) , Nevada (6) , North carolina (15). Wisconsin (10) and Ohio (18). Game Over. Look forward to enjoying your pesos dude. I also expect at least three more states you didn't mention (like virginia and new hampshire at the least). Like taking candy from a baby! Make sure those pesos are in Argentina when I arrive in March dude. Toymann

[QUOTE=Toymann;425209]Romney will easily win Florida (29) , Iowa (6) , Nevada (6) , North carolina (15). Wisconsin (10) and Ohio (18). Game Over. Look forward to enjoying your pesos dude. I also expect at least three more states you didn't mention (like virginia and new hampshire at the least). Like taking candy from a baby! Make sure those pesos are in Argentina when I arrive in March dude. Toymann[/QUOTE]On what grounds could you possibly come to this conclusion? Ohio and Florida are full of registered voters who are dependent upon the very programs that Ryan is promising to decimate; Romney choosing Ryan as his running mate was like an early Christmas present for the Obama campaign. Your analysis just goes to show that a self-described "1%er" such as yourself is so completely out of touch with the US voting public as to make any predictions you come up with totally irrelevant.

[QUOTE=Toymann;425209]Romney will easily win Florida (29) , Iowa (6) , Nevada (6) , North carolina (15). Wisconsin (10) and Ohio (18). Game Over. Look forward to enjoying your pesos dude. I also expect at least three more states you didn't mention (like virginia and new hampshire at the least). Like taking candy from a baby! Make sure those pesos are in Argentina when I arrive in March dude. Toymann[/QUOTE]Toymann, this is something I will celebrate. I too will be in BA in March and if you are right, the drinks are on me. Rocky2

[QUOTE=Esten;425198]What do you want, free government?[/QUOTE]No, a smaller government.

[QUOTE=Toymann;425209]Romney will easily win Florida (29) , Iowa (6) , Nevada (6) , North carolina (15). Wisconsin (10) and Ohio (18). Game Over. Look forward to enjoying your pesos dude. I also expect at least three more states you didn't mention (like virginia and new hampshire at the least). Like taking candy from a baby! Make sure those pesos are in Argentina when I arrive in March dude. Toymann[/QUOTE]Toymann, this is something I will celebrate. I too will be in BA in March and if you are right, the drinks are on me. Rocky2