Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What legwork? The idea that Romney wants a plutocracy is a bit of political fiction - if you believe that it is true - then it is your responsibility to defend it. I'm not a Romney supporter - but that is something that is categorically false - and I am not going to let a mischaracterization stand unchallenged.
What is your issue relating to the constitutionality of President Obama's if
it isn't his birth and the circumstances surrounding it? As for the idea of a plutocracy, many people are beginning to believe that we already have one. The SCOTUS ruling that I mentioned earlier is part and parcel of that argument. When you have Warren Buffet saying that it isn't fair that his secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does, it's an indication that we've had far too many tax breaks for the wealthiest, while the middle class has all but disappeared. Too many members of the House and Senate are millionaires, and reward themselves accordingly with lower taxes and significant lowering of capital gains taxes. Naturally the people who benefit from such a situation have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Romney is the perfect candidate for that ideology.
What is your issue relating to the constitutionality of President Obama's if
it isn't his birth and the circumstances surrounding it? As for the idea of a plutocracy, many people are beginning to believe that we already have one. The SCOTUS ruling that I mentioned earlier is part and parcel of that argument. When you have Warren Buffet saying that it isn't fair that his secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does, it's an indication that we've had far too many tax breaks for the wealthiest, while the middle class has all but disappeared. Too many members of the House and Senate are millionaires, and reward themselves accordingly with lower taxes and significant lowering of capital gains taxes. Naturally the people who benefit from such a situation have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Romney is the perfect candidate for that ideology.
The flaw in your reasoning is assuming that lowering taxes is done for the financial benefit of "the wealthy" and has no benefit for anyone else. This is not so. To think this way you must also think that raising taxes is a good thing. It is not. Raising taxes discourages innovation, production, and expansion of businesses - which results in people not being employed. How is this a good result?
Lowering taxes is just a remedy for the bad outcomes that high taxes produced. Everytime lowering taxes has been done - it has resulted in a booming economy. This is because the money that the government would have confiscated is now free to be used by the people who earned it - this means everyone who participates in the economy - from the 16 year old flipping burgers for $8.00 at McD's to the CEO of a fortune 500 company or the starting pitcher for the New York Yankees.
Money in the hands of entrepeneurs - is most beneficial because they use the capital to grow their business - and the benefits snowball: people are hired, more money circulates which keeps the economy fresh and dynamic, the businesses tend to succeed which generates more tax revenue then would have been brought in under a higher tax rate. That is right - lowering tax rates actually produces more tax revenue than raising tax rates - counter-intuitive but true. This means that the government can actually fund what it proposes to do - or it can pay down the debt.
Now if you can explain to me how all this good economic results that are the product of lowering taxes is a bad thing - then maybe you can start me on the road to convincing me that there is a plutocracy. But I think that will be difficult to do. Liberals disliike capitalism for one reason only - because it prevents them from controlling economies and wielding power over people. These are the wealthy power brokers. They get the "lower classes" to go along with them by calling them lower classes - and waging class warfare. They promulgate myths like certain people are "against workers" and other mind numbing BS. They would prefer an oligarchy - and a central bureacracy that micromanages the affairs of people's lives. This was tried before - remember the Soviet Union and their Eastern European sattelites? How did that work out? Not such a good idea is it?
I will stick with the party of liberty, opportunity, and prosperity - the Republican Party.
If you prefer oppression, statism, and economic stagnation - by all means vote for Obama.
Yeah, keep dreaming! You tell people the lie enough times, and they'll believe it. I don't have a problem with the wealthy as much as I do greed. Unregulated capitalism is evil because all it does is concentrate the wealth into the hands of fewer people. The needs of the many should outweigh the needs of the few. Read Das Kapital sometime whenever you get a chance. The wealthy aren't the only ones who work hard. Have you ever dug ditches, paved roads, or picked produce out in the sweltering heat for a living? Have you ever slept in foxholes during war or worked tirelessly on a ship 16 hours a day with very little sleep?
Done most of the above you stated. Let me ask you something. When have the poor ever created jobs?
The birth certificate is as real as it gets. The only reason why it's such an issue is because Obama is black. They're trying to beat around the bush and avoid blurting out the N-word when it's been burning in the minds of many Tea Baggers. Barack Obama's father was born in Kenya. Okay, but the President was born and raised in Hawaii by his white mother who's from Kansas. He later ran for office when he lived in the Chicago South Side, and his diploma from Harvard is also real.
I think what they should also do is make Mitt Romney show his birth certificate because his father was born in Mexico. Also Rick Santorum whose father was from Italy should do the same as should Joe Arpaio whose parents were both from Italy. Not to mention Donald Trump whose mother was from Scotland should divulge his birth certificate to the public just to be safe.
The only reason you want to give him a pass is because he is black, that makes you the racist, not me. I am saying he is not a natural born citizen, and his papers are forged. Everything you want to believe about this man, is a lie, I don't give a damn if he's green or blue, his entire election and residency is and was a scam. You are being duped because all you care about is his skin color, which renders you incapable of being objective. You want so desperately to believe he's the victim, no, he is the perp and this country is the victim. We may never recover, if people don't wake up.
The birth certificate is as real as it gets. The only reason why it's such an issue is because Obama is black. They're trying to beat around the bush and avoid blurting out the N-word when it's been burning in the minds of many Tea Baggers. Barack Obama's father was born in Kenya. Okay, but the President was born and raised in Hawaii by his white mother who's from Kansas. He later ran for office when he lived in the Chicago South Side, and his diploma from Harvard is also real.
I think what they should also do is make Mitt Romney show his birth certificate because his father was born in Mexico. Also Rick Santorum whose father was from Italy should do the same as should Joe Arpaio whose parents were both from Italy. Not to mention Donald Trump whose mother was from Scotland should divulge his birth certificate to the public just to be safe.
By the way, you lost me at the N-word and Tea Baggers - I didn't need to read anything else you had to say.
The flaw in your reasoning is assuming that lowering taxes is done for the financial benefit of "the wealthy" and has no benefit for anyone else. This is not so. To think this way you must also think that raising taxes is a good thing. It is not. Raising taxes discourages innovation, production, and expansion of businesses - which results in people not being employed. How is this a good result?
President Obama has suggested raising taxes on the top 1%, and only to the level that they enjoyed under Clinton. The wealthy did quite well during those years, and quite frankly would have a hard time justifying why they shouldn't pay as high a tax rate as those with lower incomes, particularly when the economy is struggling. They haven't rushed to bring their jobs back from overseas in order to provide jobs for their fellow Americans, nor have they opened the many new businesses that your post claims is the result of a low tax rate on the wealthiest among us.
Lowering taxes is just a remedy for the bad outcomes that high taxes produced. Everytime lowering taxes has been done - it has resulted in a booming economy. This is because the money that the government would have confiscated is now free to be used by the people who earned it - this means everyone who participates in the economy - from the 16 year old flipping burgers for $8.00 at McD's to the CEO of a fortune 500 company or the starting pitcher for the New York Yankees.
If taxes on the wealthiest among us gets much lower, they'll be paying less than the working poor...never mind that they pay less than the middle class as it is. Bush lowered taxes on the wealthy, yet none of what you describe happened...it was quite the opposite. That CEO of a Fortune 500
company now makes $400 to every $1 earned by an employee; that just
isn't equitable.
Money in the hands of entrepeneurs - is most beneficial because they use the capital to grow their business - and the benefits snowball: people are hired, more money circulates which keeps the economy fresh and dynamic, the businesses tend to succeed which generates more tax revenue then would have been brought in under a higher tax rate. That is right - lowering tax rates actually produces more tax revenue than raising tax rates - counter-intuitive but true. This means that the government can actually fund what it proposes to do - or it can pay down the debt.
Again, none of these wondrous things happened after Bush cut taxes; I have no reason to believe that things would be different if Obama lowered taxes. What I can depend on would be fairness, more money in the government coffers and an attempt to begin offsetting the national debt
if taxes are raised on the fortunate few. My husband and I own a small business; I'm well aware of how this fiscal theory is supposed to work, but I've seen precious little evidence of it in real life.
Now if you can explain to me how all this good economic results that are the product of lowering taxes is a bad thing - then maybe you can start me on the road to convincing me that there is a plutocracy. But I think that will be difficult to do. Liberals disliike capitalism for one reason only - because it prevents them from controlling economies and wielding power over people. They would prefer an oligarchy - and a central bureacracy that micromanages the affairs of people's lives. This was tried before - remember the Soviet Union and their Eastern European sattelites? How did that work out? Not such a good idea is it?
I will stick with the party of liberty, opportunity, and prosperity - the Republican Party.
If you prefer oppression, statism, and economic stagnation - by all means vote for Obama.
As I stated, my husband and I own a small business; I certainly have no aversion to capitalism, nor does he. Your assumptions about what liberals believe about capitalism are incorrect. You have every right to stay with the party of greed, economic policies that have helped to bankrupt the country and an ever-increasing disparity among social classes; they are all failed policies. We will certainly be voting for President Obama, as we believe in a just tax code, the creation of a health care system that would
benefit all Americans and tax incentives for corporations that bring their jobs back to the United States. We don't believe that avarice should be an American characteristic.
I wonder if any of these clods realize that, since his birth mother was a natural-born citizen of the USA, he could have been born in Timbuktu and still be a natural-born citizen of the USA. There is simply no reason to lie or forge a birth certificate because it really doesn't matter.
John McCain was born in Panama. Yet, he's still a citizen because his momma was one.
This is pure ignorance. Natural born citizen is born on US soil, of two citizen parents. I've posted documentation dozens of times on this forum, I don't understand why you people can't do a little of the research yourself, so you know what you are talking about, instead of making complete fools of yourselves over & over again. This is truly getting tiresome!
You have some responsibility to this country to educate yourselves, make a little effort! No wonder foreigners think Americans are the dumbest people on earth. sheesh This is why Historian Dude and wrecking ball get away with their distortions of the truth. Don't just sit there and eat it up, do a little investigation on your own.
Done most of the above you stated. Let me ask you something. When have the poor ever created jobs?
Consumers create jobs. Not the poor or the rich.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
