Without a job, Romney made $57,000.00 a DAY for last two years.

[Dr.Drock]

Tell that to the deficit.

Yes.. because the only reason we have a deficit is that the rich are allowed to keep "too much" of their money.
:roll:

The two sides of fiscal activity are spending and taxes. Well, we saw what happens when we cut taxes and increase spending! We get what's known as a deficit.

Shouldn't reducing the deficit include both sides of fiscal activity? After all, monkeying with both at once drove us into this ditch! Perhaps adjusting both to levels which produced balanced budgets will correct our current problems.

I know that here isn't enough tax revenue to get us out of the ditch. I also know that continuing to screw the middle class in favor of the ultra rich makes as much sense as cutting taxes and fighting two wars on borrowed money.

So you're against people who abide by the Bush tax cuts and increase spending?


So that means you're on board with me, and hate both parties, correct?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Tell that to the deficit.

Yes.. because the only reason we have a deficit is that the rich are allowed to keep "too much" of their money.
:roll:

The two sides of fiscal activity are spending and taxes. Well, we saw what happens when we cut taxes and increase spending! We get what's known as a deficit.

Cutting taxes and increasing spending in no way necessarily leads to deficits.

As soon as you start talking about wholesale cuts in spending, especially in entitlements, I'll entertain the possibility of raising taxes.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Romney's a hard-working American Citizen. Nothing wrong with that. Kudos to him.

Not hard working. The folks making $40,000 work hard. Romney never breaks a sweat. His income is from investments, not hard work.

Ahh, yes. The peculiar liberal conceit that only ditch diggers and others who sweat "really work".

How about we put YOUR ass on the floor of the NYSE for a bit, and see how much YOU sweat?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes.. because the only reason we have a deficit is that the rich are allowed to keep "too much" of their money.
:roll:

The two sides of fiscal activity are spending and taxes. Well, we saw what happens when we cut taxes and increase spending! We get what's known as a deficit.

Cutting taxes and increasing spending in no way necessarily leads to deficits.

As soon as you start talking about wholesale cuts in spending, especially in entitlements, I'll entertain the possibility of raising taxes.

That would be the problem. No matter whether the tax rates go up or down, no matter whether the tax REVENUE goes up or down (and no, liberals, tax rates and tax revenues are NOT the same thing), the spending only ever seems to go one way: Up, up, up.

I refuse to trust the government that if we JUST let them raise taxes, they'll cut spending. Cut the spending first, and THEN we'll talk taxes.

 

[Nosmo King]

Yes.. because the only reason we have a deficit is that the rich are allowed to keep "too much" of their money.
:roll:

The two sides of fiscal activity are spending and taxes. Well, we saw what happens when we cut taxes and increase spending! We get what's known as a deficit.

Shouldn't reducing the deficit include both sides of fiscal activity? After all, monkeying with both at once drove us into this ditch! Perhaps adjusting both to levels which produced balanced budgets will correct our current problems.

I know that here isn't enough tax revenue to get us out of the ditch. I also know that continuing to screw the middle class in favor of the ultra rich makes as much sense as cutting taxes and fighting two wars on borrowed money.

So you're against people who abide by the Bush tax cuts and increase spending?


So that means you're on board with me, and hate both parties, correct?

I don't hate either party. I find that self defeating. I do not understand why one party believes that cutting spending alone can reduce the deficit. I don't understand how some folks think that if we allow the most money to flow into the fewest hands we can get economic growth.

 

[Intense]

Romney's a hard-working American Citizen. Nothing wrong with that. Kudos to him.

Not hard working. The folks making $40,000 work hard. Romney never breaks a sweat. His income is from investments, not hard work.

You are an Idiot.

 

[Intense]

The two sides of fiscal activity are spending and taxes. Well, we saw what happens when we cut taxes and increase spending! We get what's known as a deficit.

Shouldn't reducing the deficit include both sides of fiscal activity? After all, monkeying with both at once drove us into this ditch! Perhaps adjusting both to levels which produced balanced budgets will correct our current problems.

I know that here isn't enough tax revenue to get us out of the ditch. I also know that continuing to screw the middle class in favor of the ultra rich makes as much sense as cutting taxes and fighting two wars on borrowed money.

So you're against people who abide by the Bush tax cuts and increase spending?


So that means you're on board with me, and hate both parties, correct?

I don't hate either party. I find that self defeating. I do not understand why one party believes that cutting spending alone can reduce the deficit. I don't understand how some folks think that if we allow the most money to flow into the fewest hands we can get economic growth.

It's not your money.

 

[Nosmo King]

Romney's a hard-working American Citizen. Nothing wrong with that. Kudos to him.

Not hard working. The folks making $40,000 work hard. Romney never breaks a sweat. His income is from investments, not hard work.

Ahh, yes. The peculiar liberal conceit that only ditch diggers and others who sweat "really work".

How about we put YOUR ass on the floor of the NYSE for a bit, and see how much YOU sweat?

Calling an investment banker "hard working" is like calling someone playing a slot machine "hard working".

 

[Nosmo King]

So you're against people who abide by the Bush tax cuts and increase spending?


So that means you're on board with me, and hate both parties, correct?

I don't hate either party. I find that self defeating. I do not understand why one party believes that cutting spending alone can reduce the deficit. I don't understand how some folks think that if we allow the most money to flow into the fewest hands we can get economic growth.

It's not your money.

After that accumulation has filtered through the tax system, I'd say it's my money.

 

[Nosmo King]

Romney's a hard-working American Citizen. Nothing wrong with that. Kudos to him.

Not hard working. The folks making $40,000 work hard. Romney never breaks a sweat. His income is from investments, not hard work.

You are an Idiot.

No. I am HARD WORKING.

 

[Jarhead]

Not hard working. The folks making $40,000 work hard. Romney never breaks a sweat. His income is from investments, not hard work.

You are an Idiot.

No. I am HARD WORKING.

And I am sure Romeny was as well before he retired from the private sector.
Thus why he has such an impressive portfolio.

 

[paulitician]

Romney's a hard-working American Citizen. Nothing wrong with that. Kudos to him.

Not hard working. The folks making $40,000 work hard. Romney never breaks a sweat. His income is from investments, not hard work.

Nah, he works hard too. You're just a dimwitted bitter Democrat Dummy, so you don't know any better. The man worked for his money. You should try that for a change. Good luck.

 

[Dr.Drock]

The two sides of fiscal activity are spending and taxes. Well, we saw what happens when we cut taxes and increase spending! We get what's known as a deficit.

Shouldn't reducing the deficit include both sides of fiscal activity? After all, monkeying with both at once drove us into this ditch! Perhaps adjusting both to levels which produced balanced budgets will correct our current problems.

I know that here isn't enough tax revenue to get us out of the ditch. I also know that continuing to screw the middle class in favor of the ultra rich makes as much sense as cutting taxes and fighting two wars on borrowed money.

So you're against people who abide by the Bush tax cuts and increase spending?


So that means you're on board with me, and hate both parties, correct?

I don't hate either party. I find that self defeating. I do not understand why one party believes that cutting spending alone can reduce the deficit. I don't understand how some folks think that if we allow the most money to flow into the fewest hands we can get economic growth.

Are you against the idea of continuing the Bush tax cuts while increasing spending?


Si o No?

 

[paulitician]

Not hard working. The folks making $40,000 work hard. Romney never breaks a sweat. His income is from investments, not hard work.

Ahh, yes. The peculiar liberal conceit that only ditch diggers and others who sweat "really work".

How about we put YOUR ass on the floor of the NYSE for a bit, and see how much YOU sweat?

Calling an investment banker "hard working" is like calling someone playing a slot machine "hard working".

You are hardly qualified to make such an assessment. Turd-wrangling Janitors like you don't know shite about Investment Banking. So, just shut up and get back to your turd-wrangling. Those toilets aint gonna clean themselves.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The two sides of fiscal activity are spending and taxes. Well, we saw what happens when we cut taxes and increase spending! We get what's known as a deficit.

Shouldn't reducing the deficit include both sides of fiscal activity? After all, monkeying with both at once drove us into this ditch! Perhaps adjusting both to levels which produced balanced budgets will correct our current problems.

I know that here isn't enough tax revenue to get us out of the ditch. I also know that continuing to screw the middle class in favor of the ultra rich makes as much sense as cutting taxes and fighting two wars on borrowed money.

So you're against people who abide by the Bush tax cuts and increase spending?


So that means you're on board with me, and hate both parties, correct?

I don't hate either party. I find that self defeating. I do not understand why one party believes that cutting spending alone can reduce the deficit

Because... well... it can.
Cutting spending to the same level as revenue -always- eliminates a deficit.

 

[Nosmo King]

You are an Idiot.

No. I am HARD WORKING.

And I am sure Romeny was as well before he retired from the private sector.
Thus why he has such an impressive portfolio.

My Dad didn't own Nash Motors and served as Governor of Michigan.

Perhaps if I had such a leg up, I could afford to sneer at genuine hard working Americans just as you are.

 

[Jarhead]

The two sides of fiscal activity are spending and taxes. Well, we saw what happens when we cut taxes and increase spending! We get what's known as a deficit.

Shouldn't reducing the deficit include both sides of fiscal activity? After all, monkeying with both at once drove us into this ditch! Perhaps adjusting both to levels which produced balanced budgets will correct our current problems.

I know that here isn't enough tax revenue to get us out of the ditch. I also know that continuing to screw the middle class in favor of the ultra rich makes as much sense as cutting taxes and fighting two wars on borrowed money.

So you're against people who abide by the Bush tax cuts and increase spending?


So that means you're on board with me, and hate both parties, correct?

I don't hate either party. I find that self defeating. I do not understand why one party believes that cutting spending alone can reduce the deficit. I don't understand how some folks think that if we allow the most money to flow into the fewest hands we can get economic growth.

if you owed money, and you started to spend less than you brought in...would you not be able to oay off your debt?

As for part two of your post...

If such is true then why did the administration cherry pick the few to get the stimulus money? How would that help economic growth for their thousands of competitors?

 

[Nosmo King]

Romney's a hard-working American Citizen. Nothing wrong with that. Kudos to him.

Not hard working. The folks making $40,000 work hard. Romney never breaks a sweat. His income is from investments, not hard work.

Nah, he works hard too. You're just a dimwitted bitter Democrat Dummy, so you don't know any better. The man worked for his money. You should try that for a change. Good luck.

I do work hard. Do you? Or do you just enjoy belittling and sneering with contempt at those of us who do work hard?

Could you loan me a million from your account? I'd pay 3 points over prime!

Or are you not rich either? Perhaps you don't work any harder than me or the 349,000,000 other Americans just like me?

 

[kwc57]

No, the system is rigged all wrong. If politics and a narrow ideological template were removed and simple honesty was used, any thinking person would agree that it ain't jealousy, it ain't hard work, it ain't smarts. It's a system designed and exploited exclusively for and by the richest Americans to retain and accumulate more wealth than ever before.

Romney made his money on his own so he should be able to keep and accumulate it as much as he wants.

Tell that to the deficit. The same folks who designed this system of accumlative wealth for the very few are ready willing and able to lustily cut benefits which help the least fortunate. They'll make those cut. they'll feel justified and all warm and fuzzy inside. Meanwhile, some family, someone's grandmother, some child will have to struggle more, cut back more, decide on which necessity is really affordable.

So kudos to Romney! He gamed the system and won! Who needs a vibrant middle class? We got a few rich folks who we can idolize. We're Popeye Doyle eating cold pizza and coffee and Romney and the rich are the heroin smugglers eating in a five star restaurant.

Please tell me you aren't one of those pie guys? You know, the guy who thinks wealth is a finite pie that has to be divided infinitely and that some people are getting more pie than others. Say it ain't so. You are aware that there is not a limited amount of wealth in the world that just changes hands aren't you? You do realize that when Romney accumulates more wealth, he isn't taking it from poor old widows and orphans don't you? Tell me, who did Warren Buffet and George Soros steal their wealth from? How many homeless children starved to death because of their greed? Or Bill Gates and Steve Jobs? Here is the dirty little secret that liberals don't seem to grasp. When the pie has been divided and X number of people get a slice, you just bake another pie. Works that way for wealth too. People can actually accumulate their own wealth without having the government confiscate it from those who worked for it and redistributing it to those who didn't out of "fairness".

 

[Nosmo King]

So you're against people who abide by the Bush tax cuts and increase spending?


So that means you're on board with me, and hate both parties, correct?

I don't hate either party. I find that self defeating. I do not understand why one party believes that cutting spending alone can reduce the deficit. I don't understand how some folks think that if we allow the most money to flow into the fewest hands we can get economic growth.

if you owed money, and you started to spend less than you brought in...would you not be able to oay off your debt?

As for part two of your post...

If such is true then why did the administration cherry pick the few to get the stimulus money? How would that help economic growth for their thousands of competitors?

Yes, I could start to pay off my debt. It would go easier and quicker if I could get a raise in income!

And who got the stimulus? The Bush administration stimulated the bankers and the Wall Street speculators. Was that cherry picking?