If Romney loses, how many riots will there be?

[Sublime1]

milwaukee69 wrote:

<quoted text>
The HUGEST problem right now is that no Republican will admeit that there is just as many out-of-work Conservatives as there are Liberals. Laziness knows no bounderies.

I don't think he's saying that the only folks who are lazy are liberals. He does have a point ... in that a lot of folks won't take a job that pays good, if they think it's too hard or beneath them. Well f' them I say.

[Ferrerman]

Taxing rich people will not solve the debt/deficit so, why even try? Taxing them will only show how mean we are and it would only bring in a measly $800 billion a year which, in Topix 'tard parlance and expertise, is "nothing so, why even try?". Plus, as we've learned from the post-election rhetoric, it's only poking the corporate bears who have ways of getting even with us if we don't vote against our best interests like good, free citizens should. What we need to do is cut spending on social programs while increasing spending on the Military Industrial Complex. This is what Mittens Rmoney intended to do and, since he lost, why not push his agenda upon the American people? Makes sense, right?

[milwaukee69]

Sublime1 wrote:

<quoted text>
There are some, but there are not enough of good jobs.
<quoted text>
For some folks, it’s not really viable to increase your job skills and marketability. I went to college and graduate school, already. To the extent the government raises my taxes, it just means I do less spending. The point being, when we all do less spending, the economy grows slower … when the economy grows slower there are less jobs for folks.

I'm not in total agreement with your statement. I've worked through many recessions - some I've even thrived. I don't do anything fancy - just manufacturing. Aside from maybe Florida and some western states, manufacturing is very much alive and well in the US. Manufacturing companies are so desperate to find people nowadays, they're willing to train just about anyone who will come back the second day. I'll buy into the laziness statement, but only to a certain point. No amount of political rhetoric is going to change the mindset of the American worker.

Like Henry Ford said, "Pay your workers enough money so they will buy the products that they build."

[Sublime1]

Ferrerman wrote:

Taxing rich people will not solve the debt/deficit so, why even try? Taxing them will only show how mean we are and it would only bring in a measly $800 billion a year which, in Topix 'tard parlance and expertise, is "nothing so, why even try?".

Allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire on the wealthy as Obama wishes, will only bring in 68 billion more a year. That’s not very much when we are taking on over 1000 billion in debt every year. That solves about 7% of our spending problem.

[Sublime1]

milwaukee69 wrote:

<quoted text>Like Henry Ford said, "Pay your workers enough money so they will buy the products that they build."

That's the problem with a lot of manufacturing jobs. They don't do that anymore.

[au contraire]

KochBrosRunPrincess wrote:

<quoted text>The 1%ers want to pay less than the average middle class guy does. The 1% ARE strongly represented by many struggling Americans like Sam, Craine and Dr Dirty. Why? I can't tell you. Sheep just can't think things through.

Horse hockey, not even in loonville or toonville can you tax enough to support you liberal whiners to the level you think you deserve.

[milwaukee69]

Sublime1 wrote:

<quoted text>
That's the problem with a lot of manufacturing jobs. They don't do that anymore.

It's only a problem if you're a settler.

[Ferrerman]

Sublime1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire on the wealthy as Obama wishes, will only bring in 68 billion more a year. That’s not very much when we are taking on over 1000 billion in debt every year. That solves about 7% of our spending problem.

See? It's even worse than I foolishly made it out to be!*Only*$68 BILLION! Chump change. Why bother? Better cut PBS AND unemployment. Wall Street's going to be needing that SS money to gamble with too...

[Gov Christie Is Next]

Ferrerman wrote:

<quoted text>See? It's even worse than I foolishly made it out to be!*Only*$68 BILLION! Chump change. Why bother? Better cut PBS AND unemployment. Wall Street's going to be needing that SS money to gamble with too...

LOL total irresponsible thinking that got us where we are today.

[milwaukee69]

How ironic!!!

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romney-pum...

[au contraire]

Tax Audit wrote:

<quoted text>Romney bragged about paying a 13% tax rate. I bet even you pay more than that. You're ok with that? I don't see where you're coming from other than behind.

Au contraire, he never bragged about it. Liberals using the MSM as the propaganda wing did blow it out of proportion, even though Obama, Pelosi and Reid all use the same laws to pay the least tax possible themselves. Your one sided game is getting a little old and fools only other childish liberals.

[milwaukee69]

au contraire wrote:

<quoted text>Au contraire, he never bragged about it. Liberals using the MSM as the propaganda wing did blow it out of proportion, even though Obama, Pelosi and Reid all use the same laws to pay the least tax possible themselves. Your one sided game is getting a little old and fools only other childish liberals.

On a related note, President Obama would like to thank all the hate-mongering conservatives out there that paid their federal taxes last year. Without those taxpayers, the president would've never pulled in a salary to campaign and win re-election.

Thanks again.

[Ferrerman]

The guy with the fake chick pic does sorta have a point. Sorta.

Who is kidding who (or is it whom?) though when it comes to tax rates? If Rmoney paid 13% it was only set up that way to have something to show for his presidential candidacy. An astute observer might notice that 13% is nowhere near 35% and even further away from a proposed 39% tax rate. Rmoney was used to paying 0%(nothing) as many super rich people do. They have accountants take care of such things. Even far less successful types who may make a mere $1 million a year are not so stupid as to pay the 35 or the 39 per cent rates.

So, who does pay 35% now? Who will pay 39% when the cuts expire? I can't wait to find out!

[The Decider]

Ferrerman wrote:

The guy with the fake chick pic does sorta have a point. Sorta.
Who is kidding who (or is it whom?) though when it comes to tax rates? If Rmoney paid 13% it was only set up that way to have something to show for his presidential candidacy. An astute observer might notice that 13% is nowhere near 35% and even further away from a proposed 39% tax rate. Rmoney was used to paying 0%(nothing) as many super rich people do. They have accountants take care of such things. Even far less successful types who may make a mere $1 million a year are not so stupid as to pay the 35 or the 39 per cent rates.
So, who does pay 35% now? Who will pay 39% when the cuts expire? I can't wait to find out!

As Sam errrr Au Cont pointed out, it's not enough to cover the burden as is so eff it and let the 1%er's keep it and create jobs (for banks located in Grand Cayman and Switzerland).

[flbadcatowner]

Billy R wrote:

<quoted text>Are you seriously claiming that you don't have a repellant personality?

Are you seriously trying to practice psychology again...without a license? I could easily pick you out in a crowd as the one with the flaming pants.

[flbadcatowner]

Billy R wrote:

<quoted text>You must be having those blackouts again, so let me help you remember... http://www.topix.com/forum/news/weird/T6U1U0T...

The post inquestion was not made to you. While I used the term fawning in the post, I did not accuse any specific individual of doing it. Maybe you need to read my posts more carefully. I suppose it is possible that somebody has a guilty conscience from having read my post.

[flbadcatowner]

Sublime1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Changing demographics will be a big driver of this in the coming years. For an ever increasing percentage of the electorate, when it comes to voting, it just comes down to who is going to give you more handouts. Statistically most of the minorities prefer the party of handouts, and as demographics change, it will be harder and harder for those who do not agree with doing more and more to "help" people to have any voice whatsoever.
It's the classic expression "democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting over what to have for lunch" manifesting itself. The percentage of wolves are increasing and they will want to be fed, because they are entitled to it, after all ... just ask them - they will tell you a sad story.

The sooner that the wolves' prey stops getting sent to China, the sooner that they will become less dependent on the government.

[David Gilmore]

Here Comes The Boom wrote:

<quoted text>
look who's talking:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/topix/TSQ64TR...
rotfl

Really.

[Knightkore]

I refuse NOT to pay my taxes...

One word...filibuster...

Time to go over the cliff everyone...

[Sublime1]

flbadcatowner wrote:

<quoted text>The sooner that the wolves' prey stops getting sent to China, the sooner that they will become less dependent on the government.

Yes, the typical blame game. Nothing adverse that happens to the wolves in their life is the wolves fault. They are innocent victims of society.

Globalization is not going to stop anytime soon. HOw about if instead of blaming others, the wolves recognize this and get an education like I and many other did instead of scrapping the bottom of the barrel and expecting to live the middle class dream building cheap widgets in some factory. That's pie in the f'ing sky. Those days are gone. That's just the way it is. You either adapt or you don't.

Of course, sitting around feeling sorry for yourself and blaming others is much easier for some.