Return to “His full Name is: Willard Mitt Romney”
Where's the like button when you need it? Oh, wait, here it is...bizarrenormality wrote:I pray for gridlock. The less the federal government does, the less damage it causes.Beiruty wrote:4 more years of the same jam in the federal government. Nothing has changed and the bickering and deadlovk persist. Cliff hanger get ready. The abyss is near.
This was not about whether or not Romney was the best candidate... My dead dog should've been able to beat Obama in the general election and the fact that he won is more proof that the media & public schools are brainwashing the country.recaffeination wrote:I hope the people who backed him in the primary despite the warnings are happy now.
What's the fallout from this? Will it be investigated before the election? And what are the consequences if it's true?The Annoyed Man wrote:Obama campaign accepted foreign Web donation -- and may be hiding more
By ISABEL VINCENT and MELISSA KLEIN
Last Updated: 10:11 AM, October 21, 2012
Posted: 12:34 AM, October 21, 2012
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/b ... hyDCRyyrELThis administration wouldn't recognize moral behavior if it crawled up their pants and bit them on the crotch.The Obama re-election campaign has accepted at least one foreign donation in violation of the law — and does nothing to check on the provenance of millions of dollars in other contributions, a watchdog group alleges.
Chris Walker, a British citizen who lives outside London, told The Post he was able to make two $5 donations to President Obama’s campaign this month through its Web site while a similar attempt to give Mitt Romney cash was rejected. It is illegal to knowingly solicit or accept money from foreign citizens.
Walker said he used his actual street address in England but entered Arkansas as his state with the Schenectady, NY, ZIP code of 12345.
“When I did Romney’s, the payment got rejected on the grounds that the address on the card did not match the address that I entered,” he said. “Romney’s Web site wanted the code from the back of card. Barack Obama’s didn’t.”
I hear they make good salsa up there.george wrote:Must have something to do with NEW YORK CITY.
We already do that... Non-prepared food isn't taxed. All you'd have to do is tack on a federal sales tax to the existing system.fickman wrote:Second, you could still make such a tax progressive if you want by declaring luxury rates for certain classifications of good and keeping basic staples tax free.
I agree, but I don't think enough people see it like this for us to have much of a chance of getting it through.anygunanywhere wrote:Everyone, no matter what their income level, should pay taxes if they work and have income.
I do not propose fixing stupid since that is not possible. I do want to stop rewarding stupid.
No longer rewarding stupid will stop enabling the perpetual welfare state.
Anygunanywhere
I think my first choice is one flat tax rate for everyone, or a national sales tax with no income tax at all.RoyGBiv wrote:Rather than fixing who can vote, would it be easier to implement a simple flat tax and put the reins on government spending as some percentage of GDP? Vote yourself whatever you want, as long as the size of government bears a reasonable extraction from the overall economy? That would leave folks forced to make choices in lean times, and to grow "benefits" (transfer payments and redistribution) during fat times.
That and bringing down the cost of medical education. The first two things I keep hearing people mention in defense of paying doctors a lot are "malpractice insurance" and "student loans". I'll bet you could say the same thing about medical companies and their employees, respectively, as well.RoyGBiv wrote:This is an excellent question, but it's framed in a way that might cause folks to try and answer you in a narrow way...2firfun50 wrote:I've got a serious question for those opposed to paying for health insurance or being taxed for that decision.
I understand that Plan A is to never have a serious illness or injury, not pay any taxes, or health insurance, etc..
But if misfortune should strike, what is Plan B? Who pays the bill?
A broader question would be "How do you fix healthcare so that fewer folks are without coverage?"
And as we all know, the answer is complicated... But, let me try and answer your question with some healthcare "fixes" and we'll see how it goes..
1. Postulate: If insurance costs less, more people will buy it. The cost of insurance is too high, because the cost of healthcare is too high and regulations and laws are misguided, causing further cost escalation.
- Reform healthcare tort, set limits on malpractice suits based on some reasonable categorization of injury/disability/etc.
The IRS is actually helping Obama keep his "no raising taxes on individuals making less than $200,000 a year and couples making less than $250,000" promise by saying that their agents won't audit you for not paying that particular tax/penalty/abomination. I wonder how this'll affect next year's federal budget?The Annoyed Man wrote:http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... fda77612f7
Tax penalty to hit nearly 6M uninsured people
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press – 53 minutes agoI am uninsured. Come 2013, I get to start paying a fine so that the government can insure people who don't work.........and I'll still be uninsured.WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly 6 million Americans — most of them in the middle class — will face a tax penalty for not carrying medical coverage once President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law is fully in place, congressional budget analysts said Wednesday.
The new estimate amounts to an inconvenient fact for the administration, a reminder of what critics see as broken promises.
The numbers from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office are significantly higher than a previous projection by the same office in 2010, shortly after the law passed.
The earlier estimate found 4 million people would be affected in 2016, when the penalty is fully in effect. The difference — 2 million people— represents a 50 percent increase.
That's still only a sliver of the population, given that more than 150 million people currently are covered by employer plans. Nonetheless, in his first campaign for the White House, Obama pledged not to raise taxes on individuals making less than $200,000 a year and couples making less than $250,000.
And the budget office analysis found that nearly 80 percent of those who'll face the penalty would be making up to or less than five times the federal poverty level. Currently that would work out to $55,850 or less for an individual and $115,250 or less for a family of four.
Average penalty: about $1,200 in 2016.
Both... Complicit because it seems like the only rational explanation for his actions is that he wants the US taken down a notch; incompetent because I doubt he meant for things to get so scary in the Middle East.74novaman wrote:I honestly waver between the two. I have a really hard time deciding between the two options.RoyGBiv wrote:The political question tonight is, Is Obama incompetent or complicit?
Dunno, who?smoothoperator wrote:Two of the biggest problems plaguing this country are excessive government spending and the associated debt. So, let me ask two questions to the people who think Republicans are the answer.RoyGBiv wrote:by what line of reasoning do you reach this conclusion ?hillfighter wrote:A third party vote is the strongest possible vote against the status quo.
Who was the last Republican to leave DC with lower federal spending than when they took office?
Who was the last Republican to leave DC with a lower federal debt than when they took office?
If that's real...The Annoyed Man wrote:DNC mainstream delegates favor banning corporate profits: http://www.humanevents.com/2012/09/06/h ... e-profits/.
Yeah, that bugs me, too. I hope he hasn't handed the dems ammo for 2016.Jaguar wrote:Something that has been bothering me. In his acceptance speech, Romney said,I was wondering why not a plan to create 15 million new jobs? Or 20 million new jobs? Or even 30 million new jobs? I mean, if you are going to promise new job creation, why limit yourself?And unlike the President, I have a plan to create 12 million new jobs.
I do not like when presidents promise things they cannot deliver, all he can do is create an environment in which business can thrive or put people on the fed's payroll. If the latter is what he is talking about then we are all in deep, if it is the former then why not just say,Seems like he is dumbing it down. Is my libertarianism showing?I want to create an environment where business can prosper and be willing to hire all the workers they need to be profitable, which will create new opportunity for millions of others, and get the engine of the free market running again."
