Barack Obama, our next President

[fred]

sonicfilter wrote:

<quoted text>
Rosen finds that Romney's plan could work if tax reform causes the economy to grow 3 percentage points more over a given period of time than it would have grown without tax reform.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/princeton...
I think I've heard the like before. Must have been in 2001.
And how did that work out?
I only trust one economist. Bruce Bartlett.
If Romney Wins, Will His Tax Plan Survive?
One big problem in analyzing the Romney tax plan is that he hasn’t put enough specifics on the table to allow it to be properly evaluated.
Read more at http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/10...

"AP Fact-Checker Bulldozes Through Biden Falsehoods - Associated Press - Fox Nation" ( http://bit.ly/Tdd4LU )

BIDEN, when asked who would pay more taxes in Obama's second term: "People making a million dollars or more."

THE FACTS: Obama's proposed tax increase reaches farther down the income ladder than millionaires. He wants to roll back Bush-era tax cuts for individuals making over $200,000 and couples making more than $250,000.

[shinningelectr0n]

From CNN: http://tinyurl.com/9lo79a5

"The mission came under attack by armed militants on the 11th anniversary of the September 2001 al Qaeda attacks on New York and Washington.

However, State Department officials told a congressional hearing on Wednesday that they requested more security but were turned down by headquarters in Washington.

"When the vice president directly contradicts the sworn testimony of state department officials ... the American people deserve to know what happened," Romney told a campaign event in the battleground state of Virginia."

So if the Boy Messiah and Hair-Plug Joe are unaware of America's security concerns abroad then why is the Jerk-In-Chief referred to as the Commander-In-Chief?

Or should it be the Forever Golfing Fund-Raiser-In-Chief visiting Liberal Talk Shows?

[Gunner]

Phil wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL...suppose this happens or suppose that happens, that would mean x amount in 10 years.
It takes a lot of imagination for his plan to add up as well a more than 2 terms in office.

Obama said he'd cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term.

[Gunner]

dem wrote:

<quoted text>
You couldn't afford to live there.

Only an idiot would choose to live in Illinois.

[fred]

leosnana wrote:

<quoted text>Paul Ryan finally had enough time to go through the math of the Romney tax plan during the vice-presidential debate. He didn't use it. Ryan filibustered instead. About the most specific he got was citing "six studies" he said vindicate the plan's mathematical plausibility.
Except they don't.
Romney's tax plan is a three-legged stool that doesn't stand. Here's how it works -- or doesn't. Romney wants to 1) cut tax rates across the board by 20 percent, 2) cut tax expenditures to pay for these tax cuts, and 3) maintain progressivity. The problem, as the Tax Policy Center pointed out, is there aren't enough tax expenditures for the rich to pay for all the tax cuts for the rich. Romney's plan only works if he cuts out the tax cuts for the rich, raises taxes on the middle class, or explodes the deficit. In other words, Romney can pick two, and only two, of his tax goals -- what Matt Yglesias of Slate calls the "Romney Trilemma".
That sound you hear is the three-legged stool falling down.

Liberal ...projection...mental defect...widespread....hate

America is sick of liberals

WHY DEMS LOVED BIDEN’S BOORISH BEHAVIOR: Commentary’s Jonathan S. Tobin writes:

The problem here is not just that presidents and would-be commanders-in-chief must appear presidential. It is that the liberal base of the president’s party is so filled with anger and contempt for Republicans that they can’t abide even a show of civility from their champions.

[Eman]

flack wrote:

<quoted text> Aircraft carrier, submarine?

Curiosity? Lol

[Eman]

sonicfilter wrote:

<quoted text>
What did the rest of it say?

Something about you being an azzwipe. Welcome to the club, my friend.

[shinningelectr0n]

leosnana wrote:

<quoted text>Paul Ryan finally had enough time to go through the math of the Romney tax plan during the vice-presidential debate. He didn't use it. Ryan filibustered instead. About the most specific he got was citing "six studies" he said vindicate the plan's mathematical plausibility.
Except they don't.
Romney's tax plan is a three-legged stool that doesn't stand. Here's how it works -- or doesn't. Romney wants to 1) cut tax rates across the board by 20 percent, 2) cut tax expenditures to pay for these tax cuts, and 3) maintain progressivity. The problem, as the Tax Policy Center pointed out, is there aren't enough tax expenditures for the rich to pay for all the tax cuts for the rich. Romney's plan only works if he cuts out the tax cuts for the rich, raises taxes on the middle class, or explodes the deficit. In other words, Romney can pick two, and only two, of his tax goals -- what Matt Yglesias of Slate calls the "Romney Trilemma".
That sound you hear is the three-legged stool falling down.

That sound you hear is your naively childish argument falling flat on its face.

American voters' eyes glaze over when a speaker begins getting into numbers. That's #1.#2 is that you cannot possibly present an hour's worth of data and structure to an audience in under 2 minutes. If you try, you fail.

Hair-Plug Joe presented physical antics with arm waving, laughing smugly, talking over his opponent's responses and even pounding the desk. This is standard Liberal MO. Loud, sneering, disruptive and with unwarranted condescension. He then lied through his teeth while carefully not getting too specific so as to leave some doors open for later escape if confronted.

This morning, Romney put both feet into Hair-Plug Joe's mouth concerning his Libya lies during the debate. Supposedly, neither he nor the Jerk-In-Chief knew about America's security breaches abroad? Are we to believe this and, if true, are we to accept the fact that the Boy Messiah hasn't a clue about dangers to Foreign Service Personnel overseas? We are in grave danger if what the pair of laughing teeth said in that debate.

[Eman]

FREEDOM TO SPEAK wrote:

<quoted text>
I think that is why she uses other women's pictures, and say she looks like them, she knows this too! LOL

The only pic thst looked like her was the dog.

[shinningelectr0n]

is true

[Gunner]

The Bishops Speak: Joe, You Lied

Joe Biden got away with a number of whoppers last night, one of them on the enormities committed against religious institutions by Obamacare. Today the Catholic Bishops have issued a statement putting the lie to Biden’s whopper:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/10...

[Gunner]

leosnana wrote:

<quoted text>In other words, Romney can pick two, and only two, of his tax goals -- what Matt Yglesias of Slate calls the "Romney Trilemma".

Matt who of where?

[shinningelectr0n]

fred wrote:

<quoted text>
MICHAEL WALSH:“The lefty sneer was on full display last night during the vice-presidential debate.... In perhaps the most personally disgraceful performance in the history of debates, Joe Biden smirked, mugged, snorted, and sneered his way through 90 minutes of heckling his opponent, Paul Ryan — often aided and abetted by the moderator, Martha Raddatz, who was every bit as bad as we all feared the ex-wife of president Obama’s Harvard Law School classmate, Julius Genachowski, would be.”
UPDATE: Lanny Davis: Ryan Hit Home Run in Debate Against Biden.

Radditz was despicably horrible.

Radditz was in Liberal collusion.

What I am learning in particular from these debates is this: many Americans no longer fall for the Liberal Media's propaganda. You can read it in blogs, among friends and family and see it in poll results. For example, after the 1st Presidential debate, I personally listened to the Liberal talking heads immediately afterwards and was surprised to hear them giving the win to Obama. Later, polls showed that majorities gave the win to Romney. Last night, right after the VP debate, I watched more of the same where the studious, educated, smart journalists of the Left all gave the win to Biden. Afterwards, a CNN poll gave a huge win to Ryan.

America doesn't like the Liberal media anymore. The game is up.

[Ron Paul]

Biden was laughing during the debate because he knows there's still many stupid people out there who believes that he and Obama are for the middle class.
The last 4 years the rich got richer and the poor got poorer, while the middle class shrank. So yeah, we should just take Joe's word for it when he says the democrabs support the middle class?

[O no the boogy man]

strip all America of there Rights left and right, yayaaa... if you cut Military spending the boogie man will get you.. so better not..Wait, we have almost double spending in the last decade, up 81% since 2001, Hell we spend more than all other countries combined together... wake up.. slash spending...DO IT!! you will be ok, dont cry..

[yepperz]

Mitt Romney claims he intends to pay for his across-the-board 20 percent tax cut by eliminating special deductions and loopholes, but according to a study conducted by the Joint Committee on Taxation, eliminating all itemized deductions would only pay for a 4 percent tax cut.

Bloomberg

Repealing all itemized deductions in the U.S. tax code would pay for only a 4 percent cut in income tax rates, according to an estimate from the nonpartisan scorekeeper for Congress that casts doubt on Republicans’ ability to finance lower income-tax rates with base broadening.

The analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation shows the arithmetical difficulty of an approach that assumes long-favored tax breaks such as deductions for mortgage interest and charitable contributions could be repealed instantly and completely. Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney proposes a 20 percent income-tax cut and says he would pay for it by limiting tax deductions, credits and exemptions......

If you take Romney at his word, in theory this wouldn’t even cover 4 percent of his tax cut. Why? Because Romney himself has said on the campaign trail, and during the first presidential debate, that he would not end deductions for mortgages.

The Joint Committee’s findings state that further broadening of the tax base to pay for more than 4 percent of Romney’s $5 trillion tax cut would have to include employer-sponsored health insurance, the earned income tax credit, and the child tax credit.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2012-10-1...

In other words, you would necessarily have to raise taxes on working families to pay for even a portion of it.

This study from the Joint Committee on Taxation confirms the Obama campaign’s charge that Romney would raise taxes on the middle class to pay for his give-away to the wealthy. The only other alternative would be to forgo paying for it and explode the deficit, which is what Republican administrations have ordinarily done in the past.

It should not be forgotten that George W. Bush’s tax cuts were never paid for either, and that was only a 3 percent tax cut. Bush’s 3 percent tax cut is the largest driver of our current budget deficit. Mitt Romney is proposing a 20 percent tax cut.

A 20 percent, across-the-board tax cut would obliterate the treasury.

[Mile]

And it came to pass that when The Lord spake, flowers flowed out from his mouth and grew in great profusion beneath his feet."

Amos 9:18

[Chicagoan by Birth]

fetch almighty wrote:

<quoted text>that or 67th and Drexel.

Holy Cow, that further in the 'hood than thought? How's 'bout 63rd & Ashland?? Down among 'em.....

[Mile]

"Time and again The Lord told the children, "Do not run beside the waters of the pool!"

John 17:19

[Phil]

shinningelectr0n wrote:

<quoted text>
Radditz was despicably horrible.
Radditz was in Liberal collusion.
What I am learning in particular from these debates is this: many Americans no longer fall for the Liberal Media's propaganda. You can read it in blogs, among friends and family and see it in poll results. For example, after the 1st Presidential debate, I personally listened to the Liberal talking heads immediately afterwards and was surprised to hear them giving the win to Obama. Later, polls showed that majorities gave the win to Romney. Last night, right after the VP debate, I watched more of the same where the studious, educated, smart journalists of the Left all gave the win to Biden. Afterwards, a CNN poll gave a huge win to Ryan.
America doesn't like the Liberal media anymore. The game is up.

I don't watch any of that crap. I don't look at polls either. I thought that Romney won and I thought Biden won.

That being said, I did notice that facts slipped by the Romney/Ryan camp. While I didn't think Obama did a better job, I think that Romney's lack of facts doesn't help. Ryan did not have any facts either. It's like they are going to make it up as they go and really only have an idea of a plan. The next round of debates is going to be really interesting. I think Obama is going to have a great performance and I don't see Romney having any more details than he had at the first debate.

The difference between you and I is that no matter who is the President after this election I will do my best to support them. T