Republican 2012 Presidential Nominee

[FeStealth]

I debated if I should even bother, seeing so little actually gets through to you. What the hell, I've got nothing better to do and it won't take long.

Double taxation... where did I hear that before? Oh right, remember this?

Would you like to revisit this topic again? I could tear you an old one, but bigger!

Sweden, ah Sweden. You'd think it's the only Social Democracy in Europe listening to you. I suppose Finland, Norway, Denmark, France, Netherlands, Austria, those don't count. And to say that socialism is responsible for the European crisis is such a simplification only you could honestly make it, and not laugh at himself. It's okay, I'm laughing at you instead.

You're right, you didn't say anything about the military. Conservatives never say anything about the military when it comes to budget cuts, though. Naturally, first thing you could think to cut was Medicare. I agree, raising taxes isn't the end all be all. Cutting taxes isn't either, and perhaps someone should remind the GOP, who signed a pledge to never raise taxes. Don't see Democrats doing that, do you? But I'm getting away from the point I wanted to make, which is inefficiency. The social program spending is high because it's inefficient. Medicare, Medicaid? Why not a national provider? No, that would make sense. Let's just cut programs, then taxes, then programs again, then taxes some more. Look at the tax rates during America's golden age, mm?

No, of course you're not talking about ancient history. It's all 50 years and on, like when Abe was around and the KKK formed. Ah, too funny. And it doesn't matter how far or near back you go, the point is the parties have switched places in the last 50 years. You can point to Democrats resisting women's suffrage or black voters then. Can you point to who is resisting gay marriage? Things change, pretending they don't is being ignorant.

And stereotyping was the best part. No, of course the host of gay marriage revoking, women's rights assaulting state legislations don't matter. I'm being stereotypical of a political party.

[woot]

*grabs popcorn*

[Satan's Evil Twin]

You're a big government guy, that's clear enough. You got some philosophy where you believe the state can take care of everybody and everything. Tear me a new one, you didn't even tear a piece of tissue.

The whole double taxation.... this video will easily explain it better.

As for deductions, it only applies if it goes toward the business. I can't just take a trip to Fiji and dine out at a 5-star restaurant and claim it's a business expense when it isn't. Take a taxation course, you'll understand how stingy the government is. So far, you're just throwing out rhetoric without any basis.

France's credit rating has decreased and they're starting to run out of money after forking out bailout money to the PIIGS nations.

http://www.telegraph...nd-at-risk.html

Sweden is very fragile right now too....

http://mobile.bloomb...ance-kills-jobs

The Netherlands, Finland, Denmark, Austria... their corporate tax rate is half of what it is in the US. Thus they attractive a lot of business relatively to the United States.

http://en.wikipedia....round_the_world

The revenue for the US has been increasing practically every single year. If you were a person that got a raise every year but yet you're constantly broke, you know what your financial adviser will tell you, "STOP SPENDING SO MUCH!"

Medicare/Medicaid covers about 80 million people and OAS paid to 50 million.... about 40% of the population takes up 60%+ of the budget. Either too many people are getting those benefits when they don't need it, too unsustainable, or both?

Tax rate during the "Golden Age"? The greatest point of US expansion was after the Civil War when Income Tax was zero, but I'm gonna assume you mean WW1 and after.

1st.... tax rates increased dramatically because of WW1 and WW2, so those are exceptions. Subsequent years were still high to repay for the war.

2nd.... the US debt has been increasing basically non-stop every year. So what's your point really?

For the Democrat party... there are currently lots of members who are anti-LGBT, anti-Semitic, etc. Why don't anyone ever call them out?

Jason Altmire (D-​Pa.), John Barrow (D-​Ga.), Sanford Bishop (D-​Ga.), Dan Boren (D-​Okla.), Ben Chandler (D-​Ky.), Jerry Costello (D-​Ill.), Mark Critz (D-​Pa.), Henry Cuellar (D-​Texas), Joe Donnelly (D-​Ind.), Gene Green (D-​Texas), Tim Holden (D-​Pa.), Larry Kissell (D-N.C.), Dan Lipinski (D-​Ill.), Mike McIntyre (D-N.C.), James Matheson (D-​Utah), Collin Peterson (D-​Minn.), Nich Rahall (D-W.V.), Mike Ross (D-​Ark.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.).

There are many Republicans who support gay-rights and such, but they are they still labeled as bigots?

[FeStealth]

No, I'm not a big government guy, I'm a responsible government guy, I guess that isn't clear enough. The video was nice, is it because you can't speak for yourself? Screw it, let's take the example from your video and I'll show you a quick little lie: "Let's take a company where the payout is 40%... ....35% of every dollar to government... ...15% to government in income taxes... ...so if you examine the distributions, blah blah blah, 64% to the government, 36% to shareholders (he even wrote it down) that's the law" Does that sound familiar? It should, it starts at about 2:00. Simple math: $1 x 65% = 65c of every dollar paid out in dividends, 65c x 85% net take = 55.25% to shareholders. Government take = 44.75%.

Fact is, yes money gets taxed at the corporate level and at the personal income as dividends, but they are not the same entity, corporations and shareholders are not one and the same. If we don't tax corporations, corporations will pay no taxes, if we don't tax dividends, people living off dividends won't pay taxes. More than that, corporations make use of public roads and other functions paid for by tax payers, it is only fair for them to pay their part. Not to mention the purpose of a corporation is to shoulder liability, that itself isn't free.

Of course deductions only apply to business expenses, I never claimed otherwise. I was talking about expenses like gas to get to work, lunches, supplies, etc. Things you conveniently overlook. If it hasn't become clear yet, I've taken taxation courses (econ too). And I also own two businesses, one of which I am a partner, the other a sole proprietor. Neither are corporations, though. You keep telling others to pick up textbooks left and right, I'm curious what it is you do. I'm sorry, to call my words empty rhetoric is baseless (gasp!). I'd welcome you to prove me wrong though.

Now then, onto Social Democracies... Would you make the argument that their social aspects are the causes of current financial turmoil? Have high taxes and healthy social programs somehow bankrupted the aforementioned nations? That's the topic here, isn't it? These nations are also still capitalistic, why aren't you blaming the system you've already admitted is flawed (but you're hesitant to replace)?

Either too many people are on benefits or they're too unsustainable, or both. Are those the only options? How about higher wages, higher personal taxes and sales taxes? It's no secret wages have been stagnating for decades (actually shrinking just a bit). I take my cues from what works, not from blind ideology like Reagan's Supply Side Economics (which fails miserably, but is revered by the right). Really the point of cutting/raising taxes is moot until people's wages increase sufficiently to keep up with the cost of living. Corporations can't finance a country alone, people can't afford to pay any more taxes, income inequality is atrocious - I think the solution makes sense. US (and Canada) are some of the lowest taxed developed countries. I think the big problem for both is lack of tangible results of paid taxes. Anyway.

I said "GOP is a Christian fundamentalist party that oppresses gays, women, atheists and other religions, and anyone who doesn't seem to be a middle-aged white man, or a millionaire." You're misinterpreting my words entirely. You cold also tell me Christians vote Democrat, and it wouldn't change my point - GOP platform appeals to a particular segment of the American population, though a large one. I'm not commenting on the individuals in the parties, but the contemporary record. Abortion, birth control, gay marriage, all of these are opposed on religious grounds. Not anything remotely real or important, but on religious convictions. Or how about pushing for creationism in schools? Or questioning scientific findings because they contradict dogma? I didn't think I would have to defend this point, the answer is so obvious.

[DonLever]

What social programs are possible to maintain given high enough taxes? All the good ones. WTF are you talking about? "What we have isn't working, but let's not change." Why is it that countries with socialism have better quality of life for everyone? Why is it that Yanks get what, 10 days of mandatory vacation, why most of Scandinavian Europe gets a month or more? Why is their minimum wage 2x what it is in Canada? A hybrid of healthy capitalism and socialism is what's necessary.

[The Situation]

As an alternative to the Socialist Europen model I prefer the East Asia model. Countries like Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore are doing fine, much better then Europe. The quality of life is fairly high without massive social programs. Taxes are low compared to here and Europe. For example, there is a 15% flat tax in Hong Kong for a certain income level. People who have low income don't even pay income taxes. Typically their unemployment rates are much lower than Europe and North America. Usually 5% or lower.

So it is basically a lie that social programs are what makes the quality of life better. Society is much more civil there, you don't see a any panhandlers or people sleeping on the street. People are self reliant, they don't expect everything handed to them

Socialists always uses the social justice argument. They claim poverty causes crime, drug use, civil unrest, etc. Yet, there is poverty in East Asia. There is a lot of poor people there. Not everyone is a millionaire in Hong Kong. Then, how come there is low crime rates there compared to here? What are your chances being mugged in Tokyo than in New York?

[wiseupsucker]

seriously love the debate

[Gretzky's Mullet]

As an alternative to the Socialist Europen model I prefer the East Asia model. Countries like Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore are doing fine, much better then Europe. The quality of life is fairly high without massive social programs. Taxes are low compared to here and Europe. For example, there is a 15% flat tax in Hong Kong for a certain income level. People who have low income don't even pay income taxes. Typically their unemployment rates are much lower than Europe and North America. Usually 5% or lower.

So it is basically a lie that social programs are what makes the quality of life better. Society is much more civil there, you don't see a any panhandlers or people sleeping on the street. People are self reliant, they don't expect everything handed to them

Socialists always uses the social justice argument. They claim poverty causes crime, drug use, civil unrest, etc. Yet, there is poverty in East Asia. There is a lot of poor people there. Not everyone is a millionaire in Hong Kong. Then, how come there is low crime rates there compared to here? What are your chances being mugged in Tokyo than in New York?

[Satan's Evil Twin]

Funny how much emigration there is away from those East Asian utopias isn't it?

[The Situation]

Funny how much emigration there is away from those East Asian utopias isn't it?

[Gretzky's Mullet]

They are still developing and aren't quite as advanced as western nations. However, if you look at Japan, the first Asian economy to really develop, there is not a lot of immigrants from there.

[The Situation]

There are plenty of immigrants from Japan. But Japan also has extensive social welfare programs for health care and elder care. Japan is a country where social justice and equality are concepts that resonate with people. His point was that any country where capitalism is bridled with concerns for the less fortunate through social programs is a failure. Japan has some problems to be sure, but they are not a good example of that. Health care is a non-profit exercise there, for example.

[Gretzky's Mullet]

There is not a lot of immigrants from Japan relative to other countries.

http://www.statcan.g...entImmig_ec.pdf

Japan would be a terrible example to follow considering they have the highest GDP to Debt ratio in the world.

[DonLever]

The latest Poll puts Obama ahead of Romney by 9 points, 51-42 in swing states.

Looks bad for the Republicans. The gap is attributed to women switching their votes to the Democrats.

Serves them right for having extremists candidates like Santorium that is forcing Romney to the right. The daily attacks by the Santorium and Gingrich on Romney is doing the job for the Democrats.

http://www.cbsnews.c...ay-gallup-poll/

GIngrich wants Romney to have a conservative platform. That may be fine for southern states but that would never work nationally.

[Gretzky's Mullet]

Indeed. The fact of the matter is, Barack Obama is far closer to the American political "center" (which is different in each country) than any of the Republican candidates, and the center is where most people tend to be distributed. As much as these guys are trying to frame him as a liberal lefty etc, the fact is that Obama's actually been very wise all along about whose votes he should be trying to get. One of the major issues brought up in the debates and the mud-slinging is the ability of any of the candidates to contrast themselves with Barack Obama. Unfortunately, this plays right into his hands, because Obama has carved himself out a very large chunk of centrist territory, such that to position themselves against him, the Republicans have to swing way right. Santorum was already there to begin with, and Gingrich was too, albeit in a different way. But because only dyed-in-the-wool voters tend to participate in primaries and caucuses, Romney has to shift from his typical previous orientation as a centre-right guy to a far right guy, just to be able to appeal to the base enough to get them to choose him. Romney's faced with a bit of a catch-22: stay where he's always been, which is in a position to grab the fertile territory in the center swing states during general elections, but scare off the people he needs to get him the nomination in the first place, or move into red meat territory to get the nomination, but scare off swing voters (or get labeled a major flip-flopper once the general campaign starts up).

The fact is, the Conservatives are trying to distance themselves as far as they can from Obama because they feel that his bouts of unpopularity could be his undoing, however, I think they've distanced themselves right off a cliff. If the other Republican candidates were smart (which they may be, but not enough to cancel out their gargantuan egos), they'd recognize that if they really want to win in November, they need to have a candidate that can reel in swing states like Ohio, not someone who can dominate in Kansas and Tennessee but get his butt kicked in the states that are actually in question. And that candidate needs to enter the election in good enough shape not to get smoked by Obama. Too late in my view. Obama's dirty laundry has already been aired ad nauseum, and he's rebounding in the polls in spite of it. Whereas the Republicans are already behind, and this is before the Democratic Party has even really had to start in on them.

[Satan's Evil Twin]

Anyone happen to see Maddow on Mitt the Liar? I think Santorum is a better candidate.

[Columbo]

Serves them right for having extremists candidates like Santorium that is forcing Romney to the right. The daily attacks by the Santorium and Gingrich on Romney is doing the job for the Democrats.

[woot]

Forcing Romney to the right? No, Romney is just a disingenuous bastard who will take whatever position necessary to win the next contest. Many southern states voted first, so of course he became an anti-gay, anti-woman redneck. In the general election, he'll try to back away from that and paint himself as more of a moderate to win over independents. Whatever position it takes to win, and who cares if it's a 180 turn from what he was saying a few months ago.

[unbridled_id]

.... I thought he would wait until his home state primary... but he was going to lose there and had to save face.

[Satan's Evil Twin]

They shouldn't even bother with this election, just hand it to Barry and get it over with. This is gonna be worse than 2008.

Excuse the, uhm, "freak".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAxtFuB0eJ4