Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Romney
- Thread starter BDBoop
- Start date
- Aug 4, 2011
- 81,129
- 14,024
- 2,190
Business acumen is not all bad.
Mitt Romney's business acumen is.
His entire basis for running is, "I made a fortune. I'm a huge success. I'm gonna teach this country to do the same".
Ok, so let's look a little deeper than that.
He says that painful American taxation policy forces American companies to do business in cheaper labor markets. However, Mitt Romney's own tax rate was just 13.9% for the one year of returns he has put forward.
The reason why he won't give up any previous years is that it looks like he paid even less than that amount in 2009.
My tax rate is 25%. Mitt Romney's is 13.9%.
The reason why that is is because the country is under a right wing tax policy that says, "Taxes are too high on the Mitt Romneys of the world. Lower their tax burden, and they'll shower us with jobs and prosperity".
But if the Mitt Romneys of the world are taxed at close to nothing already because of all the breaks they qualify for, but all their money is in Swiss bank accounts, offshore island accounts, or being used to create jobs for Communists in China, than the right wing economic philosophy is not working.
"Hi, I'm rich, but because I'm burdened with taxes, I can't invest in my own country."
That's the whole basis of why Romney is running. However, the truth is that he probably paid nothing in 2009, and is still creating jobs for Communists.
I'm a Republican who has now been excluded from that party because they don't care about common sense anymore.
I make a fraction of what Romney makes, but pay a higher tax rate.
I hope for the day when the average American sees that the only redistribution of wealth going on is from hard-workin' folks like me who are subsidizing the Mitt Romneys of the world so they can turn around and stab us in the back by not creating the jobs and prosperity here that they said would happen if we made it possible for them to pay hardly anything back in a country that allows them to make untold billions.
Not all business acumen is good, my friend.
If tax rates are the problem, why didn't Obama and his congress fix it when they had total control for two years?
They never did have total control for two years. Not by a long shot.
Who had control?
Yup. In those first two years, the Democrats passed the most unconscionable, bloated, pork laden appropriations bill in history, passed the stimulus package that busted the budget wide open, raised the debt ceiling, and passed Obamacare without a single GOP vote.
But how many of us have seen our fellow Obama-supporting members whine that Obama couldn't do anything to fix the economy or the tax system because the eeeeeeeevul Republicans blocked everything?
But how many of us have seen our fellow Obama-supporting members whine that Obama couldn't do anything to fix the economy or the tax system because the eeeeeeeevul Republicans blocked everything?
- May 20, 2009
- 144,559
- 66,974
- 2,330
Because Senator Kennedy had a seizure, and Franken had not yet arrived. So. they only had 58, not the necessary 60.
You're welcome.
That's "not by a long shot"?
LOL (Am I allowed to laugh?)
BDBoop
Platinum Member
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #149
Because Senator Kennedy had a seizure, and Franken had not yet arrived. So. they only had 58, not the necessary 60.
You're welcome.
That's "not by a long shot"?
LOL (Am I allowed to laugh?)
It's like being pregnant. You either are, or you aren't. There was no "super majority for two years" as alleged.
Buford
Rookie
- Banned
- #150
Because Senator Kennedy had a seizure, and Franken had not yet arrived. So. they only had 58, not the necessary 60.
You're welcome.
That's "not by a long shot"?
LOL (Am I allowed to laugh?)
It's like being pregnant. You either are, or you aren't. There was no "super majority for two years" as alleged.
Why didn't your President and congress fix taxes and immigration when they had a "super majority"? Did the dog eat their homework?
- May 20, 2009
- 144,559
- 66,974
- 2,330
Because Senator Kennedy had a seizure, and Franken had not yet arrived. So. they only had 58, not the necessary 60.
You're welcome.
That's "not by a long shot"?
LOL (Am I allowed to laugh?)
It's like being pregnant. You either are, or you aren't. There was no "super majority for two years" as alleged.
But Dems did have a vetoproof majority for some period of time, no?
BDBoop
Platinum Member
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #152
That's "not by a long shot"?
LOL (Am I allowed to laugh?)
It's like being pregnant. You either are, or you aren't. There was no "super majority for two years" as alleged.
Why didn't your President and congress fix taxes and immigration when they had a "super majority"? Did the dog eat their homework?
Please quote me what dates Obama had a super majority.
And also, tell me why in eight years, Bush didn't fix taxes and immigration.
- Jul 5, 2012
- 20,128
- 4,978
- 280
"Is dividend reinvestment bad? evil?"
What dividend re-invested in what? If it's re-invested into a factory to make it more productive or in its workers to improve their skills, that's wealth.
What dividend re-invested in what? If it's re-invested into a factory to make it more productive or in its workers to improve their skills, that's wealth.
Dot Com
Nullius in verba
Because Senator Kennedy had a seizure, and Franken had not yet arrived. So. they only had 58, not the necessary 60.
You're welcome.
That's "not by a long shot"?
LOL (Am I allowed to laugh?)
It's like being pregnant. You either are, or you aren't. There was no "super majority for two years" as alleged.
true. lets not forget about the "blue dogs" as well
- Aug 4, 2011
- 81,129
- 14,024
- 2,190
Because Senator Kennedy had a seizure, and Franken had not yet arrived. So. they only had 58, not the necessary 60.
You're welcome.
That's "not by a long shot"?
LOL (Am I allowed to laugh?)
It's like being pregnant. You either are, or you aren't. There was no "super majority for two years" as alleged.
We have 60 votes on paper, Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, said Wednesday in an interview."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/politics/02cong.html
That was 2009...
"Obamacare is the product of a brief moment of total Democratic dominance in Washington. Key to that dominance was a 60-seat, filibuster-proof Senate majority."
The Democrats’ 134-Day Supermajority | PoliPundit.com
- Aug 4, 2011
- 81,129
- 14,024
- 2,190
"But health care had been passed. Later, without a decisive Senate majority, Democrats were forced to use procedural maneuvers to put the final touches on Obamacare. But they were just tweaking what had only been possible with a 60-vote majority."
The Democrats’ 134-Day Supermajority | PoliPundit.com
The Democrats’ 134-Day Supermajority | PoliPundit.com
- Aug 4, 2011
- 81,129
- 14,024
- 2,190
Please provide specific info on the harm Romney has done by applying his business acumen.
"Any examples that you use should be relevant to the topic at hand."
http://www.actdu.org.au/archives/actein_site/basicskills.html#matter
"Any examples that you use should be relevant to the topic at hand."
http://www.actdu.org.au/archives/actein_site/basicskills.html#matter
Last edited:
It's like being pregnant. You either are, or you aren't. There was no "super majority for two years" as alleged.
Why didn't your President and congress fix taxes and immigration when they had a "super majority"? Did the dog eat their homework?
Please quote me what dates Obama had a super majority.
And also, tell me why in eight years, Bush didn't fix taxes and immigration.
Bush didn't fix immigration because he was so out of step with most of the members in his party that it wasn't going to get done at least by his doing. He was pro amnesty which is one of the issues I personally had with him.
Bush didn't fix taxes because he and the GOP Congress thought they had plenty of time before the ten years was up. They did not anticipate losing the House and Senate in 2006 and then the Democrats were absolutely opposed to fixing the tax problem, at least as President Bush wanted it fixed.
- Aug 4, 2011
- 81,129
- 14,024
- 2,190
What Romney will bring to the Presidency:
1. Executive decision making skills. Romney has experience making tough decisions that affect people and jobs, as a businessman in the private sector and as the governor of Massachusetts. He's an experienced legislator and businessman.
2. He has experience leading turnarounds. He turned around the Salt Lake City Olympics, taking that chaotic organization that was rocked by the spectre of financial ruin and scandal, and re-created it as a vibrant diplomatic and economic success. He did it by working with diverse groups, applying sound financial principles, and inspiring those involved with a sound, clear vision.
3. He's lived a life of committment to his faith and to his family. This isn't to say he's perfect, but he certainly has maintained himself and promoted himself as a strong family man as well as a devoted Mormon, despite the fact that Mormons are not treated with respect or consideration by the press or the left leaning public. Instead of distancing himself from his faith, he has maintained it, and continued to contribute financially and through service to his church, and that is an admirable trait.
4. He understands economics and how to increase productivity and income. Romney knows how jobs are created, he has a history of creating jobs.
1. Executive decision making skills. Romney has experience making tough decisions that affect people and jobs, as a businessman in the private sector and as the governor of Massachusetts. He's an experienced legislator and businessman.
2. He has experience leading turnarounds. He turned around the Salt Lake City Olympics, taking that chaotic organization that was rocked by the spectre of financial ruin and scandal, and re-created it as a vibrant diplomatic and economic success. He did it by working with diverse groups, applying sound financial principles, and inspiring those involved with a sound, clear vision.
3. He's lived a life of committment to his faith and to his family. This isn't to say he's perfect, but he certainly has maintained himself and promoted himself as a strong family man as well as a devoted Mormon, despite the fact that Mormons are not treated with respect or consideration by the press or the left leaning public. Instead of distancing himself from his faith, he has maintained it, and continued to contribute financially and through service to his church, and that is an admirable trait.
4. He understands economics and how to increase productivity and income. Romney knows how jobs are created, he has a history of creating jobs.
To be honest not much which is the same way I felt when Obama was sworn in.Aside from "He's not Obama." What do you seriously believe that he will bring to the Office of the President that will help America.
Specifics would be greatly appreciated.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 70
- Views
- 515
- Replies
- 80
- Views
- 812
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 9
- Views
- 24
- Replies
- 189
- Views
- 914
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8088
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-