Ohio Slipping Out Of Romney's Reach

[notlocal]

Brad wrote:

<quoted text>
In a humanitarian effort conservatives supported a safety net while liberals turned it into a backyard hammock to be handed down through the generations like a career.

Exactly. A humane idea gone too far and turned into a lifestyle, destroying the traditional American family with it. We do not have a bright future.

[notice]

" And Bush did a great job up until the housing collapse"

I can't believe anyone here gives you the time of day!

Let's get this straight once and for all, W was the worst Presidnet in modern history, FACT!!!!!!

Torture, Rendition, Illegal Spying on Citizens, Lying us into a War, forgetting about his first War, forgetting about the reason (OBL) for that first War, Spending without paying for anything, Cheney's secret energy committee and bringing in more Corporate CEOs than any other.

The list is endless well before the MELTDOWN OF THE BANKS genius, it wasn't just Mortgage issues, it was LEVERAGING 40-1 on assets and Banks not being able to cover their own loses!!!!

You're one bubble dweller there tripledung! And I suspect you'll be living in that bubble of denial undfinately!

[Blacktigershark]

xxxrayted wrote:

Kyoto was a mistake which is one we avoided. Yes, it was Republicans who resisted and stopped it.
I don't blame everything on Democrats, but when it comes to government, it is Democrats who want to expand it. That's why I appear to be anti-Democrat. This is not to say that Republicans have played a hand or two as well, but most of intrusive government comes from the Democrat party here in the US.
I supported Newt Gingrich in the primaries, and as I've said repeatedly, I'm not voting for Romney, I'm voting against DumBama. DumBama is a government everything politician. Romney believes in too much government as well, just not as much as DumBama.
Elections are not about who you want to run the country, elections are about who you don't. It's usually a choice between the bad and the worst.

You continue to talk about Democrats wanting to expand government, to which I can agree should not be done, no matter what political group is advocating for it, however REPUBLICANS are advocating for the SAME expansions, xxxrayted, even if it is at a slower rate, by your own claim. If Democrats want to add 100 more seats to Congress in 4 years, and Republicans cry out that 100 more seats in Congress should be created in a time frame no less than 5 years, then tell me, what is the real difference there, xxxrayted? You think that you will save tax money if either party gets their way?

When Republicans actually stand for SOME of their concepts, like slashing the size of government, rather than paying lip service to that claim, while doing the exact opposite, THEN you can talk to me about how Republicans are looking out for America. This isn't about the Republican base scapegoating the 47% that they allege are not paying taxes, while the rich and big business are not paying their fair share of taxes. YOU are the 47% they are talking about, xxxrayted...yet you will STILL support Republicans in their criticism of you...again (I made a typo when I plugged in the $110,000 in an earlier comment, so this is what I REALLY should have said in that last comment where I made this mistake...at least I can admit I make some of these slip-ups, UNLIKE Republican candidate scumbags!)...are you in the 33% tax bracket, where you are pulling in $250,000 plus, xxxrayted? If not, then you should not be talking...as you don't know what you are talking about, and you would not like the ALTERNATIVE, because like it or not, America is in debt, and SOMEONE is going to have to get their tax rate INCREASED...do you want it to be YOU, or do you want people making $200,000 plus a year, couples making $250,000 plus a year, and big business to pay their fair share of taxes to America?

Take a look at THIS information (graph included), and see if you would sooner support legislation that is set to increase the taxes for EVERY individual, or if you would support taxes being applied to the top two wage earning groups, or if you believe that cutting taxes for the top two wage earning groups will solve America's fiscal woes (just remember, in choosing the last option, with you being a truck driver, remember all the truck drivers that had their trucks back in 2006, and were their own bosses [Contract workers for big business], that had to sell their trucks to big business for a fraction of the price, because of legislation in North America...yeah, that's right...legislation that Conservatives [that talk the same story up here in Canada as they do in the Republican party down there] put into motion up here AFFECTS truck drivers down there in your nation! Remember where truck drivers make the most money...it isn't through local deliveries, is it xxxrayted...still think that the rich and big business should get a tax break, while trusting them to make you and America whole again, when they didn't do it with the tax cuts they had going all the way back to 2001???)

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/Allo...

[WasteWater]

xxxrayted wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes and no. We all witnessed the reaction from Democrats and liberals alike when Romney said he would quit giving federal tax money to PBS. They went haywire. DumBama even used Romney's words on the campaign trail. War against Big Bird.
If we can't stop giving money to entities like that, how are we supposed to make the more serious cuts that affect most people? I mean, how many people do you know that actually watch PBS on a regular basis? It's a small fraction of our country. We have hundreds of cable stations to watch today. It's not like it was thirty or forty years ago.
It all goes back down to the 47% people who pay not one penny in federal income taxes. I think what we really need to do is have everybody pay. It may be a small amount such as a sales tax of let's say five cents on every dollar spent, but have some skin in the game.
I also think we need to get rid of bureaucracies; at least as many as we can get rid of. Let our elected politicians make decisions on environment, roadways, education, and so on. That's what we elected them for. There are no mentions of bureaucracies in our US Constitution.

They are too busy squabbling over who is conservative and liberal to do anything. We need public funding for PBS. The corporate media broadcasts nothing worth looking at. Case in point. Go to any motel room and flip through the 175 cable channels and see if anything is really worth watching.

You must be kidding me.

BBC has some of the best programming ever. Beats the hell out of what he have here.

[Blacktigershark]

xxxrayted wrote:

<quoted text>
We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world--about half of the corporate tax rate in Canada. How much more should they pay? 71% of all collected income taxes come from the top 10% of wage earners in this country. If 71% is not their fair share, what is? 75%? 80%? 90%? Give me a number of how much 10% of our population should pay for the rest of the 90% of us.

Again...what tax bracket are YOU in, xxxrayted? In the 33% bracket or higher? No? Then tell me this...you are talking about what the 10% of your population should pay to America, on behalf of the 90% of you, right xxxrayted? You ever consider what the 90% should have to pay for the 10% of the population, because that is how skewered (putting it nicely) America's tax system is for big business and the rich...but you will continue to believe that it is the 90% that is shortchanging America and big business, not the other way around, right?

This isn't about 47% now, xxxrayted...that number is tired and expired, as it is clear that this 47% number is a derivative of the Republican party's delusions...notlocal makes a good point, that certain entitlements shouldn't be given to people (whether average Americans or big business or whomever!), where taxes are made to the government, but when tax returns are filed, the filer is able to get at least FOUR TIMES the amount that they paid in taxes to the government. THOSE provisions should be scaled back A LOT, starting with big business, and then making its way down, not the other way around, xxxrayted...

You have to face THE FACTS...taxes will increase for everybody...just how you increase taxes is the key...you think that raising taxes on people that are earning $8,700 or less a year, from 10% to 15%, is going to solve the problem that America is in now, while big business is given another break to create more jobs, something they could have done every year since 1990, yet have failed to do, because they are funnelling their monies away in offshore accounts? FATCA will be a blessing to apathetic Americans like yourself...you may finally be able to buy your own truck, contract out your own services (including to your current employer), make MORE money, opt out of paying social security and worker's compensation, get health care you find to be affordable (thanks to 'Obamacare'...something has to reduce the health care insurance rates, and it won't be the insurance companies doing this!) if you want, and finally be able to use your profits from your rental property for something else than simply using it to pay your mortgages, property taxes and home insurance policies, right xxxrayted? That's what I thought...got to break that information through that hard coconut of yours...if we don't do this, then where would you be in a Romney run America (God bless the fact that you will NEVER have to see that come to fruition!)?

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/Allo...

[You are]

xxxrayted wrote:

<quoted text>

I mean, how many people do you know that actually watch PBS on a regular basis? It's a small fraction of our country. We have hundreds of cable stations to watch today.
.

joking, right?

170 million +

It is the most accessible source of free educational, informational and cultural programming in America. Mostly funded by sources outside of the government.

Maybe you need to watch the News Hour or Frontline once in a while. then you wouldn't have such silly notions and better grasp on reality.

[Bush War Crimes]

notice wrote:

" And Bush did a great job up until the housing collapse"
I can't believe anyone here gives you the time of day!
Let's get this straight once and for all, W was the worst Presidnet in modern history, FACT!!!!!!
Torture, Rendition, Illegal Spying on Citizens, Lying us into a War, forgetting about his first War, forgetting about the reason (OBL) for that first War, Spending without paying for anything, Cheney's secret energy committee and bringing in more Corporate CEOs than any other.
The list is endless well before the MELTDOWN OF THE BANKS genius, it wasn't just Mortgage issues, it was LEVERAGING 40-1 on assets and Banks not being able to cover their own loses!!!!
You're one bubble dweller there tripledung! And I suspect you'll be living in that bubble of denial undfinately!

A great job huh?/////How about the attack on 9/11? Bush killed 3000 Americans on US soil.........after getting notice in Aug of that year that an attack was coming.......Bush failed us and the 3500 soldiers he killed invading a country that had no WMD's.....keep sipping on the FOX news nut juice,,,,,,,,,,and listening to Rush Limpdick the drug addict..LMAO! Youre a F%@KING idiot! LOL!

[xxxrayted]

notice wrote:

" And Bush did a great job up until the housing collapse"
I can't believe anyone here gives you the time of day!
Let's get this straight once and for all, W was the worst Presidnet in modern history, FACT!!!!!!
Torture, Rendition, Illegal Spying on Citizens, Lying us into a War, forgetting about his first War, forgetting about the reason (OBL) for that first War, Spending without paying for anything, Cheney's secret energy committee and bringing in more Corporate CEOs than any other.
The list is endless well before the MELTDOWN OF THE BANKS genius, it wasn't just Mortgage issues, it was LEVERAGING 40-1 on assets and Banks not being able to cover their own loses!!!!
You're one bubble dweller there tripledung! And I suspect you'll be living in that bubble of denial undfinately!

Boy, those left-wing blog sites really filled you up to the top, didn't they?

[xxxrayted]

WasteWater wrote:

<quoted text>
They are too busy squabbling over who is conservative and liberal to do anything. We need public funding for PBS. The corporate media broadcasts nothing worth looking at. Case in point. Go to any motel room and flip through the 175 cable channels and see if anything is really worth watching.
You must be kidding me.
BBC has some of the best programming ever. Beats the hell out of what he have here.

If they have the best programming ever, then they must have high ratings. If they have high ratings, then they could sell commercial time. If they can sell commercial time, then they don't need government funding.

PBS is a multi-million dollar organization. The puppeteer who is accused of molesting that other gay guy is worth over 50 million dollars.

Your comment shows the problems we have in this country; cut the budget and reduce the deficit, but not for anything I like. Then you say we need to cut spending.

[That]

xxxrayted wrote:

<quoted text>

The puppeteer who is accused of molesting that other gay guy is worth over 50 million dollars.

of course is a lie on both points.

[Uuuh]

xxxrayted wrote:

<quoted text>

no. High ratings do not indicate the best programming when your mission is education, information and culture.

[xxxrayted]

Blacktigershark wrote:

<quoted text>
You continue to talk about Democrats wanting to expand government, to which I can agree should not be done, no matter what political group is advocating for it, however REPUBLICANS are advocating for the SAME expansions, xxxrayted, even if it is at a slower rate, by your own claim. If Democrats want to add 100 more seats to Congress in 4 years, and Republicans cry out that 100 more seats in Congress should be created in a time frame no less than 5 years, then tell me, what is the real difference there, xxxrayted? You think that you will save tax money if either party gets their way?
When Republicans actually stand for SOME of their concepts, like slashing the size of government, rather than paying lip service to that claim, while doing the exact opposite, THEN you can talk to me about how Republicans are looking out for America. This isn't about the Republican base scapegoating the 47% that they allege are not paying taxes, while the rich and big business are not paying their fair share of taxes. YOU are the 47% they are talking about, xxxrayted...yet you will STILL support Republicans in their criticism of you...again (I made a typo when I plugged in the $110,000 in an earlier comment, so this is what I REALLY should have said in that last comment where I made this mistake...at least I can admit I make some of these slip-ups, UNLIKE Republican candidate scumbags!)...are you in the 33% tax bracket, where you are pulling in $250,000 plus, xxxrayted? If not, then you should not be talking...as you don't know what you are talking about, and you would not like the ALTERNATIVE, because like it or not, America is in debt, and SOMEONE is going to have to get their tax rate INCREASED...do you want it to be YOU, or do you want people making $200,000 plus a year, couples making $250,000 plus a year, and big business to pay their fair share of taxes to America?

I don't know what I'm talking about? You use an example of adding more Congressional seats without knowing that it can't be done without a Constitutional amendment?

The Democrat party is for dividing up America into groups, and then picking the winners and losers. Most of the winners vote for Democrats and most of the losers vote against them.

The Republican party is for treating everybody the same way. Black, white, rich, poor, Catholic, Islamic, everybody gets treated the same.

In order to do that, Republicans would have to give back to the losers what the Democrats took away. That would be impossible with our ignorant electorate. Surveys show that most Americans are for tax increases on the wealthy even though they have no idea that it wouldn't do this country one bit of good.

The conservative ideology is that if the tax rate is 10%, then everybody pays 10% whether you make 20 thousand a year, 200 thousand a year, or 200 million a year. Everybody gets treated the same.

Our party has different factions, and unfortunately, we are shy of real conservatives anymore.

[WasteWater]

xxxrayted wrote:

<quoted text>
If they have the best programming ever, then they must have high ratings. If they have high ratings, then they could sell commercial time. If they can sell commercial time, then they don't need government funding.
PBS is a multi-million dollar organization. The puppeteer who is accused of molesting that other gay guy is worth over 50 million dollars.
Your comment shows the problems we have in this country; cut the budget and reduce the deficit, but not for anything I like. Then you say we need to cut spending.

Commercials are simply indoctrination. Ratings are part of promotional hype, they don't mean anything. How about getting rid of Homeland Security and get the military to stand down? What about looking into the various government agencies and trimming the fat along with providing over-site? What does Homeland Security need with 450million rounds of ammo?

[Uuuh]

xxxrayted wrote:

<quoted text>

Your comment shows the problems we have in this country; cut the budget and reduce the deficit, but not for anything I like. Then you say we need to cut spending.

no - they don't get much money and we get our money's worth. It is an effective service - frankly not found elsewhere and has positive multiplier effects on the overall economy and public good. There are no sacred cows but to rail against PBS is diversion and probably has more to do with trying to censor real news reporting that fiscal responsibility.

[Uuuh]

xxxrayted wrote:

<quoted text>
I
The Republican party is for treating everybody the same way.
.

now you are just being silly.

[xxxrayted]

Uuuh wrote:

<quoted text>
no. High ratings do not indicate the best programming when your mission is education, information and culture.

Please. You can go on the internet and count to five with Big Bird. You don't need to be subsidized by the taxpayers.

[xxxrayted]

Uuuh wrote:

<quoted text>
no - they don't get much money and we get our money's worth. It is an effective service - frankly not found elsewhere and has positive multiplier effects on the overall economy and public good. There are no sacred cows but to rail against PBS is diversion and probably has more to do with trying to censor real news reporting that fiscal responsibility.

PBS is just one small example of non-essential funding.

[WasteWater]

xxxrayted wrote:

<quoted text>
PBS is just one small example of non-essential funding.

I dissagree. PBS is the only example of essential funding.

Homeland Security is non-essential as is the military.

[Blacktigershark]

xxxrayted wrote:

I don't know what I'm talking about? You use an example of adding more Congressional seats without knowing that it can't be done without a Constitutional amendment?
The Democrat party is for dividing up America into groups, and then picking the winners and losers. Most of the winners vote for Democrats and most of the losers vote against them.
The Republican party is for treating everybody the same way. Black, white, rich, poor, Catholic, Islamic, everybody gets treated the same.
In order to do that, Republicans would have to give back to the losers what the Democrats took away. That would be impossible with our ignorant electorate. Surveys show that most Americans are for tax increases on the wealthy even though they have no idea that it wouldn't do this country one bit of good.
The conservative ideology is that if the tax rate is 10%, then everybody pays 10% whether you make 20 thousand a year, 200 thousand a year, or 200 million a year. Everybody gets treated the same.
Our party has different factions, and unfortunately, we are shy of real conservatives anymore.

STILL making apologetic remarks for Republicans, xxxrayted, but your argument just doesn't fly, and I will tell you why.

It seems as if you are looking at the current tax rate that is in front of Americans right now, and believing that if there was a FLAT tax rate (you say 10% above, but I will get to that later) for EVERY American and EVERY corporation, then things would be fair, and Republicans advocating for this flat tax would be the insightful heroes of the day, because money would stay in America, right? Republicans want to treat Blacks, Whites, Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, men, women, rich and poor the same way, right? Do you even READ the links that people send to you, man? Do you know what COMPLEX tax is where your country is concerned, xxxrayted? EVERYBODY is getting taxed the SAME for the same amount of dollars they bring in at a certain level, whether they make 2,000 a year, 20,000 a year, 200,000 a year or 2 million plus a year! IT'S EQUAL...don't believe anything to the contrary!

America's tax calculations are quite complicated, and I tried to work with this idea of tax calculations ever since your complaints about the raising of taxes for the couples earning over $250,000, or single people earning over $200,000. Let me write this out for you (for as much as I understand about the tax system in America), because it is OBVIOUS that you don't like to read anything that will reign your mind in to reason...

Currently in America, if someone earns $2,000, they are taxed 10% of that (I am leaving out personal exemption of 3,800, and the standard deduction of 5,950, so in reality, if you are making less than 9,750 a year, according to what I understand so far about FEDERAL taxes [this does not include state taxes], you pay no tax...this may be something that you may want to address in squeezing a little bit of money from this group of people making less than 9,750 a year, to at least making them pay a NET of 2% a year, if this same 2% increase is going to be applied to people making over $200,000 a year, or couples making over $250,000 a year...), which theoretically would mean that that person making $2,000 a year is paying $200 in taxes. A person making $20,000 a year is being taxed 10% on every dollar they make up to $8,700 of their yearly earnings (meaning that they pay $870 on the first $8,700 of their earnings) and then pay 15% on the rest of their earnings (so 20,000-8,700=11300x0.15=$1,695 +$870=$2565), so a person that earns $20,000 is paying $2,565 in taxes, rather than paying $3,000 (at a straight 15%), which means that the person making $20,000 is actually paying 12.825% of their earnings to the federal government (if we don't factor in the $9,750 deduction)!

Now, you can bellyache about EQUAL rate, xxxrayted, but that would mean that the tax rate for ALL would likely be 35%(not 10%) across the board!

[notice]

xxxrayted wrote:

<quoted text>
Boy, those left-wing blog sites really filled you up to the top, didn't they?

You couldn't prove my point better! When faced with the reality everyone in this country knows, you swerve to some quippy loser statement about "lefty" blogs.

The whole world knows what I posted and what was followed up by another poster IS REALITY!!!

The forst step in recovery is to stop denying reality!

Buh bye loser, no more time of day for you!@