Style over substance.....yeah

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by lonestar

probably stroking each other since they are not getting any action anywhere else..

You sound like a man of experience.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Mitt Romney debates himself

MUST-SEE VIDEO at the link: http://bit.ly/Q22eJY

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Obama failing at that whole "socialist" thing...

Dow Jones index closes at new 5-year high

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/...rkets/1613559/

[Rohirrim]

I had to laugh at Bill Maher's take on Obama's performance: "He sucked. He looked tired, he had trouble getting his answers out," he said. "It looks like he took my million and spent it all on weed."

[Pony Boy]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Obama's Small Business Tax Cuts: Fact Check

Obama responded to Romney responded by touting his 18 small business tax cuts.

“So at the same time that my tax plan has already lowered taxes for 98 percent of families, I also lowered taxes for small businesses 18 times,” Obama said. “And what I want to do is continue the tax rate -- the tax cuts that we put into place for small businesses and families.”

Meanwhile, business owners across the nation who haven’t seen their tax rates budge in the last fours scratched their heads. Some of those “tax cuts” that Obama mentioned weren’t really tax cuts at all. Rather, as The New York Times recently reported, they were incentives. In other words, small businesses had to spend money -- on health insurance, a new employee, or new equipment -- in order to see any savings.

CNN Money also pounced on Obama’s claim, reporting that the majority of Obama's small business provisions were temporary. “If extensions and expansions aren’t double counted, the list comes out to 14 tax breaks, and only five are still around.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_1941038.html

[Rohirrim]

I'd like to know what both campaigns consider "small" businesses. Without knowing that, it's all just a bunch of rhetoric.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by lonestar

Ah a trifecta of cartoon or moronic posts..

probably stroking each other since they are not getting any action anywhere else..

You know what is sad? Someone your age insinuating gay innuendo between forum posters. Time to grow up.

[Pony Boy]

Originally Posted by Requiem

You know what is sad? Someone your age insinuating gay innuendo between forum posters. Time to grow up.

Is that the politically correct term for "Circle Jerk"? If so the "gay innuendo" on the Mane is running rampant ......

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Pony Boy

Is that the politically correct term for "Circle Jerk"? If so the "gay innuendo" on the Mane is running rampant ......

Ironic comment from a water carrier for a party that would cease to exist if its closeted gays were purged.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I'd like to know what both campaigns consider "small" businesses. Without knowing that, it's all just a bunch of rhetoric.

You can bet Romney and his mouth breathing supporters will assume "small business" = any business smaller than Wal-Mart.

Just like they consider an individual income of ~$250K "middle class."

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and again. Here's one time Newt gets it right.

[DAN_BRONCO_FAN]

to the loony left here is my answer to why i support romney

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by DAN_BRONCO_FAN

to the loony left here is my answer to why i support romney

You say this like it's not already obvious why you support Romney.

The fact that you read and write at a third-grade level already gave you away.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

[DAN_BRONCO_FAN]

this is why end of story

[DAN_BRONCO_FAN]

typical you cant defend so you attack the person cute and also can you try harder with the insults your really boring me

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by DAN_BRONCO_FAN

typical you cant defend so you attack the person cute and also can you try harder with the insults your really boring me

Not an insult - just a factual observation.

Your posts read like they were composed by a third-grader.

[DAN_BRONCO_FAN]

you cant defend obamas record on this so you resort to petty attacks on me. must of hit a nerve therefore i win

[DAN_BRONCO_FAN]

why cant you defend obama on making energy rates go thru the roof and making it hard on working people.
its not lies listen to Obama's own words
one more thing ya know that book dreams of my real father
you do know the author is part of alex jones tin foil hat brigade right he wrote a book about how Elvis is alive and another about how Paul McCarthy was dead and the guy you was seeing was some imposter . yet you fools got all worked up over that tin foil hat idiot ha and keep working on your insults it just proves me right

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by DAN_BRONCO_FAN

why cant you defend obama on making energy rates go thru the roof and making it hard on working people.

That's funny: From 2001-2009 right-wingnuts like you bent over backward to assure us that the president had no control over the price of oil, etc.

[Jetmeck]

Originally Posted by Missouribronc

Where are the $4 trillion in spending cuts Obama claimed last night?

Tell me about this since you made it up ?

[Jetmeck]

Originally Posted by lonestar

Ah a trifecta of cartoon or moronic posts..

probably stroking each other since they are not getting any action anywhere else..

5 trillion in new tax cuts don't add up nor does 2 trillion in new defense spending.

Heh there LOSER STAR defend this BS ?


YOU CAN'T BUT KEEP UP YOUR IGNORANCE DEFLECTION !

[Missouribronc]

Originally Posted by Jetmeck

Tell me about this since you made it up ?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...bff6_blog.html

“I’ve put forward a specific $4 trillion deficit reduction plan…. And the way we do it is $2.50 for every cut, we ask for $1 of additional revenue…. That’s how the bipartisan commission that talked about how we should move forward suggested.”

— Obama

Though Obama often claims that his deficit-reduction plan has the “balanced approach” of the Simpson-Bowles deficit commission proposal offered by the co-chairmen, the Simpson-Bowles plan is actually quite different. (The commission failed to reach a consensus.)

For instance, Simpson-Bowles envisioned $4 trillion in debt reduction over nine years; the president’s plan would spread the cuts over 10 years. A good chunk of the savings from deficit reduction piles up in that last year. When the two plans are compared apples to apples, Simpson-Bowles yields about $6.6 trillion in deficit reduction — 50 percent more than Obama’s plan. (For a detailed look at the Simpson-Bowles, here is a link to a new report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.)

By Obama’s math, you have nearly $3.8 trillion in spending cuts, compared to $1.5 trillion in tax increases (letting the Bush tax cuts expire for high-income Americans). That’s how he claims $1 of tax increases for every $2.50 of spending cuts.

But virtually no serious budget analyst agreed with this 1:2.5 accounting. Obama’s $4 trillion figure, for instance, includes counting some $1 trillion in cuts reached a year ago in budget negotiations with Congress. So no matter who is the president, the savings are already in the bank.

The Obama campaign notes that the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the president’s budget would reduce the deficit by $3.5 trillion over 10 years. The national debt, as a percentage of the gross domestic product, would rise from 73 percent to 76 percent in that period, however. The left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities also pegs the administration’s deficit reduction as $3.8 trillion, but says the ratio of spending cuts to tax increases is 1 to 1.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

[Jetmeck]

Originally Posted by Missouribronc

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...bff6_blog.html

Two words....balanced approach.

You answered your own question. Need to read it.

Need tax increases un upper income people to go along with reduced spending.


You have a problem with compromise if you have a problem with mostly spending cuts and some increased revenue to go along with it.

Republican get the spending cuts they want along with just a small increase for those that have made out real well last couple of decades.

Romney wants to decrease the taxes on the rich but with a decrease in tax deductions it will be revenue neutral,

EXCEPT THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE. He wants 5 trillion in tax cuts above the Bush 1 trillion already in place and two trillion in defense spending that is beyond stupid when we are winding down to wars.

So you got a beef with the guy wants to reduce the deficit with a balanced approach but think Romney BS which don't add up is the way to. ?

It don't add up and to make it add up the middle class will end up paying more because of less tax deductions to finance more tax breaks for the rich and defense spending we do not need.

Appreciate you at least getting in this debate but your argument is sadly flawed.