Tax cuts don't add up.................

[Jetmeck]

Just for ynuk, Barry and others....you know who you are.

5 trillion in new cuts for the rich.
1 trillion in Bush era tax cuts kept.
2 trillion in defense spending we don"t need.

If you take away all the tax deductions for everyone this don't add up. Middle class taxes would go up to pay for this chit we do not need..............?

It will add to the deficit and middle America will pay for tax cuts and military spending that we don't need.

Righties explain............if you can.

Been one of you righties willing to talk about this and I thank him for being reasonable and able to compromise. Is there only one of you ?

[DenverBrit]

Our defense budget is already absurd beyond all reason and Romney wants to up the ante:

ON JUNE 8th China's top military brass confirmed that the country's first aircraft carrier, a refurbishment of an old Russian carrier, will be ready shortly. Only a handful of nations operate carriers, which are costly to build and maintain. Indeed, Britain has recently decommissioned its sole carrier because of budget pressures. China's defence spending has risen by nearly 200% since 2001 to reach an estimated $119 billion in 2010—though it has remained fairly constant in terms of its share of GDP. America's own budget crisis is prompting tough discussions about its defence spending, which, at nearly $700 billion, is bigger than that of the next 17 countries combined.

[Requiem]

Brit,

You can't talk about how much we spend on the military. WE ARE DEFENDIN' ARE FREEDOMS. Why do you hate the troops?

/joke

p.s. -- Nice Eisenhower image.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Good thing for Romney that facts and arithmetic don't matter to his Teabilly supporters.

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by Requiem

Brit,

You can't talk about how much we spend on the military. WE ARE DEFENDIN' ARE FREEDOMS. Why do you hate the troops?

/joke

p.s. -- Nice Eisenhower image.

It's ironic that the President warning us about the Military Industrial Complex was the former Supreme Commander during WW2.

Now, the man who avoided serving his country four times, in a war he supported, wants to keep pouring in more money.

The indicator of a man who is bought and paid for.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

This can't be right - he was a Republican.

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

This can't be right - he was a Republican.

Unlike you, I'm not a slavish adherent to any party.

If they makes sense and are bi-partisan inclined, they get my support.

Romney is the best of an appallingly inept string of GOP candidates.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

This can't be right - he was a Republican.

Shows just how far to the extreme right your party has moved since then.

[elsid13]

The numbers only work if you kill domestic spending, close all tax breaks and turnoff medicaid.

[Rohirrim]

Romney explained it in the debate. It's the supply side argument: All the tax cuts will lead to more revenue for the rich and corporations. In turn, they'll start flooding the country with more jobs. All those new working people will pay taxes and the government will actually start collecting more revenue. Isn't that amazing!

Of course, it didn't work the first thirty years they tried it. Maybe this time it will?

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

It's ironic that the President warning us about the Military Industrial Complex was the former Supreme Commander during WW2.

Now, the man who avoided serving his country four times, in a war he supported, wants to keep pouring in more money.

The indicator of a man who is bought and paid for.

Like most things Mitt says on the campaign trail, this one is in the Etch-A-Sketch as well. He says it to get support from the crazy ass hawks, like Adelson, for example. If he gets in office there is no guarantee he'll do anything about it.

That's the fun part of Mitt for President. No one really knows what he would do. It's like Surprise Santa. You pick a bag and have no idea what's in it.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by elsid13

>>>and turnoff medicaid.<<<

Not sure what this means?

Do you mean eliminate Medicaid?

If so, then are you insane?

[elsid13]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Not sure what this means?

Do you mean eliminate Medicaid?

If so, then are you insane?

http://articles.boston.com/2012-08-2...rrent-medicaid

The other major concern for Massachusetts stems from Ryan’s plan to give state officials much more leeway in running the program. Current Medicaid law gives states incentives to provide a minimum level of health coverage to beneficiaries. Ryan’s block grants would remove many of those strings, but that would give cash-strapped states the options of reducing eligibility or covering fewer services. Massachusetts, as a liberal state with a proud tradition of health care innovation, would probably look for ways to fill in the gaps — and thereby attract poor people from less-affluent or less-generous states.

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Like most things Mitt says on the campaign trail, this one is in the Etch-A-Sketch as well. He says it to get support from the crazy ass hawks, like Adelson, for example. If he gets in office there is no guarantee he'll do anything about it.

That's the fun part of Mitt for President. No one really knows what he would do. It's like Surprise Santa. You pick a bag and have no idea what's in it.

It's scary to guess, and just when you think you've got, he switches gifts.

[BroncsRule]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

It's ironic that the President warning us about the Military Industrial Complex was the former Supreme Commander during WW2.

Now, the man who avoided serving his country four times, in a war he supported, wants to keep pouring in more money.

The indicator of a man who is bought and paid for.

"God help the country when this office is occupied by someone who doesn't know these jackals like I do." - Dwight Eisenhower to an aide (paraphrased)

[Jetmeck]

Lonestar, nyuk AND bARRY YOU BEING CALLED OUT HERE..............answer these important questions instead of starting threads about emails and Rev Wright ?

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Jetmeck

Lonestar, nyuk AND bARRY YOU BEING CALLED OUT HERE..............answer these important questions instead of starting threads about emails and Rev Wright ?

I have never yet seen any of those guys enter into a single, serious political discussion.

[Bacchus]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Romney explained it in the debate. It's the supply side argument: All the tax cuts will lead to more revenue for the rich and corporations. In turn, they'll start flooding the country with more jobs. All those new working people will pay taxes and the government will actually start collecting more revenue. Isn't that amazing!

Of course, it didn't work the first thirty years they tried it. Maybe this time it will?

[Bacchus]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I have never yet seen any of those guys enter into a single, serious political discussion.

I came here to discuss politics and you are right. There is not much talking here. Just regurgitation of MISINFORMED right-winged talking points.

So now I am just going to post funny pics.

[Jetmeck]

Somebody turned on the lights and the cockroaches ran for cover.

Not a one of the three I called out can debate these tax cuts.

Guess they are too busy starting threads about email BS and Obama apologizing and Rev Wright. You know the important stuff.

Too busy to debate the main point of their party's economic policy.
Never mind it will **** the middle class...........no worries for those clowns even they would be right there with us getting screwed paying for tax breaks for the rich and defense.

Sad thing to vote against your best interest because your so caught up in your party's rhetoric.

[GreasyQtip]

Originally Posted by Jetmeck

Somebody turned on the lights and the cockroaches ran for cover.

Not a one of the three I called out can debate these tax cuts.

Guess they are too busy starting threads about email BS and Obama apologizing and Rev Wright. You know the important stuff.

Too busy to debate the main point of their party's economic policy.
Never mind it will **** the middle class...........no worries for those clowns even they would be right there with us getting screwed paying for tax breaks for the rich and defense.

Sad thing to vote against your best interest because your so caught up in your party's rhetoric.

One of them said it right in another post, they said, You'll have to ask Romeny!.

They don't have any ******* clue, its blindly follow the plastic doll time

[GreasyQtip]

Originally Posted by Jetmeck

Somebody turned on the lights and the cockroaches ran for cover.

Not a one of the three I called out can debate these tax cuts.

Guess they are too busy starting threads about email BS and Obama apologizing and Rev Wright. You know the important stuff.

Too busy to debate the main point of their party's economic policy.
Never mind it will **** the middle class...........no worries for those clowns even they would be right there with us getting screwed paying for tax breaks for the rich and defense.

Sad thing to vote against your best interest because your so caught up in your party's rhetoric.

I'm gonna do it! I'll play devil's advocate, Stand with big bird

http://www.freepress.net/blog/2012/10/04/stand-big-bird

Here are five things that cost taxpayers more than public media funding:

The budget for military marching bands: $500 million a year
The U.S. House of Representatives budget for office expenses, mail and personnel: $727 million a year
Three Global Hawk Drones (which Congress is pushing for even though the Defense Department hasn’t requested them): $633 million.
The foreign tax credit that credits companies for any taxes they pay in other countries: $850 million a year
Two days of the war in Afghanistan: $600 million.

Oh wait, these are all things he plans not to cut...

[Bronco Yoda]

Clearly none of you understand... it will all magically balance out once Big Bird is fired.

[Rohirrim]

The truth is, the Righties don't even know if Romney supports their positions because he refuses to take a stand on anything, divulge any specifics, or release any of his history. He's a stealth candidate. They'll vote for him strictly along party lines, but none of them can argue a single position he stands for. Two months ago, he told the Tea Party he was taking down Obamacare. In the debate he said he was going to keep much of it. Like I said, he's the Secret Santa. Select the bag and open it up to see what you've got. You want to know what his position is? It depends on who his audience is.

[DAN_BRONCO_FAN]