Support NeoGAF

[cartoon_soldier]

Worth noting as well that Obama is targeting $1b for his campaign fund, in addition to any Super PAC funds. While the GOP has a huge advantage (to date) on their Super PACs, Obama will offset some of that on his own due to how wide his donor base is. Romeny's is going to be tapped out early.

Assuming Obama can keep up the donations going, it would be good.

The one thing though is that Super PACs because of what they are will be able to go a lot more negative in their ads than official campaign ads. We already see that with ads against Obama and Warren in MA. So, just like right now, I see Obama campaign having to spend a decent chunk of dough on defensive ads.

 

[Chichikov]

Assuming Obama can keep up the donations going, it would be good.

The one thing though is that Super PACs because of what they are will be able to go a lot more negative in their ads than official campaign ads. We already see that with ads against Obama and Warren in MA. So, just like right now, I see Obama campaign having to spend a decent chunk of dough on defensive ads.

I don't think we know how the public react to super pacs.
Politicians have been generally able to play the "I don't know anything about nothing" card (I'm looking at you GWB, have your draft dodging ass apologized to Kerry yet?) but I think this time around, there will be much more focus on them, both in the media and the public.

 

[speculawyer]

Wasn't someone saying a few pages ago that romney will have no money to campaign with?


heh

I suggested that his campaign may not be able to raise money easily. However, his SuperPACs will be flush with cash. Common people may not be so interested in donating to 250 million dollar man. However, special interests with money looking to buy some tax breaks and government spending will have millions to help him out.

The corruptness of our system is very sad.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

I don't think we know how the public react to super pacs.
Politicians have been generally able to play the "I don't know anything about nothing" card (I'm looking at you GWB, have your draft dodging ass apologized to Kerry yet?) but I think this time around, there will be much more focus on them, both in the media and the public.

Democrats tried the "attack the anonymous spending" thing in 2010 and the public didn't care. The only thing I can see now is Obama pushing for a legislation to make donors non-anonymous while Romney is on record saying donors should be allowed to give unlimited donations.

 

[Chichikov]

Democrats tried the "attack the anonymous spending" thing in 2010 and the public didn't care. The only thing I can see now is Obama pushing for a legislation to make donors non-anonymous while Romney is on record saying donors should be allowed to give unlimited donations.

I don't think you can compare a midterm to a general election.
Also, Romney is going to be much easier target for this than unknown tea-party freshman congressperson #75.

 

[Cloudy]

Obama personally requests Romney to release tax returns

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/obama-calls-on-romney-to-release-tax-returns

Good. Every modern presidential candidate has done this (including Romney's freaking dad!). There is no excuse for him not to release them unless he has something to hide.

 

[RustyNails]

Good. Every modern presidential candidate has done this (including Romney's freaking dad!). There is no excuse for him not to release them unless he has something to hide.

Only reason why he hasn't released his taxes is because he wanted exploit the Hilary Rosen's non-story to its fullest. That's the first sign of relief his campaign saw in months. Him releasing his taxes would overshadow everything. His campaign reeks of desperation. Too bad for him WH has effectively shifted the debate back to taxes by invoking Buffet rule in every speech and releasing Obamas'/Bidens' tax returns. Romney am cry. He could be planning to release them late friday evening on a long weekend, like memorial day or july 4th.

 

[Hawkian]

Good. Every modern presidential candidate has done this (including Romney's freaking dad!). There is no excuse for him not to release them unless he has something to hide.

He's going to have to, but his media team would have loved to control exactly when. Obama lost nothing by asking for their release after releasing his early in the season. Now no matter how long it takes for Romney to release his they came after his opponent specifically asked him to release them.

 

[PhoenixDark]

President Obama pays lower tax rate than his secretary
http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/13/news/economy/obama-secretary-taxes/index.htm

amazing

 

[AlteredBeast]

President Obama pays lower tax rate than his secretary
http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/13/news/economy/obama-secretary-taxes/index.htm

amazing

Didn't even make a million dollars, either. His point has broken itself over and over. He goes by demonizing people who make a million dollars in a year, something that most who do accomplish, only do a couple of times over a much longer period of time, but at the same time shows that someone who makes far less than a million still has an "unfair" advantage over his "working-class" secretary.

Romney should come up with an alternate world ideal called the "Obama" rule where people making 500k should not have to pay a lower percentage than someone making X dollars. The Romney campaign isn't one for farce, but I am sure Rush will get right on it.

 

[Chichikov]

Didn't even make a million dollars, either. His point has broken itself over and over. He goes by demonizing people who make a million dollars in a year, something that most who do accomplish, only do a couple of times over a much longer period of time, but at the same time shows that someone who makes far less than a million still has an "unfair" advantage over his "working-class" secretary.

Romney should come up with an alternate world ideal called the "Obama" rule where people making 500k should not have to pay a lower percentage than someone making X dollars. The Romney campaign isn't one for farce, but I am sure Rush will get right on it.

I don't see how saying that the tax code isn't fair is demonizing rich people.
I mean, it's not like Obama is demonizing himself with that release, right?
Also, I don't think Obama ever claimed that the Buffet rule is the only thing that need fixing in our tax code.

 

[ToxicAdam]

How about both of them need to pay more taxes? I'm not going to cry for someone making 6 figures a year paying slightly more than twenty percent.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Didn't even make a million dollars, either. His point has broken itself over and over. He goes by demonizing people who make a million dollars in a year, something that most who do accomplish, only do a couple of times over a much longer period of time, but at the same time shows that someone who makes far less than a million still has an "unfair" advantage over his "working-class" secretary.

Romney should come up with an alternate world ideal called the "Obama" rule where people making 500k should not have to pay a lower percentage than someone making X dollars. The Romney campaign isn't one for farce, but I am sure Rush will get right on it.

The Buffet Rule is just one part of Obama's budget/plan. His overall plan would also lead to him paying a higher tax rate too, while giving his secretary (assuming a normal secretary salary) a tax cut or keeping it the same. Also, this is just last year. The 3-4 years before that Obama made a million dollars + and the Buffet rule would apply to him too. And you can be damn sure he will be making 1 million + a year after his Presidency.

 

[empty vessel]

How about both of them need to pay more taxes? I'm not going to cry for someone making 6 figures a year paying slightly more than twenty percent.

I'm with you. Especially high six figures.

 

[AlteredBeast]

How about both of them need to pay more taxes? I'm not going to cry for someone making 6 figures a year paying slightly more than twenty percent.

Exactly.

The Buffet Rule is just one part of Obama's budget/plan. His overall plan would also lead to him paying a higher tax rate too, while giving his secretary (assuming a normal secretary salary) a tax cut or keeping it the same. Also, this is just last year. The 3-4 years before that Obama made a million dollars + and the Buffet rule would apply to him too. And you can be damn sure he will be making 1 million + a year after his Presidency.

His secretary probably has nothing near a normal secretary salary, and should pay her fair share. Middle income America is always playing the victim, but they are not paying their fair share, either. Taxes are low to the point that it is killing America's ability to take care of itself from the inside out.

I'm with you. Especially high six figures.

We agree on things more and more...Strange world we live in, at least we both know we are right.

Regardless, the Buffet Rule is a way to "demonize" wealthy people in my opinion because Obama refuses to acknowledge that wealthy people pay the lion's share of taxes in the country (I know, I know, they control even more of the wealth), while middle americans are definitely not paying their fair share, either. Raise taxes and then raise incentives to middle income earners to subsidize college education, that is one of the biggest ways that they are getting screwed. Their kids can't get grants and they can't afford thousands in tuition each year.

 

[Clevinger]

Didn't even make a million dollars, either. His point has broken itself over and over. He goes by demonizing people who make a million dollars in a year, something that most who do accomplish, only do a couple of times over a much longer period of time, but at the same time shows that someone who makes far less than a million still has an "unfair" advantage over his "working-class" secretary.

Romney should come up with an alternate world ideal called the "Obama" rule where people making 500k should not have to pay a lower percentage than someone making X dollars. The Romney campaign isn't one for farce, but I am sure Rush will get right on it.

Huh? Obama has consistently said that both he and Warren should be paying higher rates. In every speech I've seen from him he says "people like me." The "Buffet Rule" is just an easy way to explain this unfairness to voters with the million number.

His secretary probably has nothing near a normal secretary salary, and should pay her fair share. Middle income America is always playing the victim, but they are not paying their fair share, either. Taxes are low to the point that it is killing America's ability to take care of itself from the inside out.

Regardless, the Buffet Rule is a way to "demonize" wealthy people in my opinion because Obama refuses to acknowledge that wealthy people pay the lion's share of taxes in the country (I know, I know, they control even more of the wealth), while middle americans are definitely not paying their fair share, either. Raise taxes and then raise incentives to middle income earners to subsidize college education, that is one of the biggest ways that they are getting screwed. Their kids can't get grants and they can't afford thousands in tuition each year.

Sick 'im, Empty. Sick 'im.

 

[Black Mamba]

Obama almost gave 25% of his money to charity.

The 20% tax rate is on his total AGI. If you subtract charity from his AGI, he paid 27% of the AGI minus charity contributes to taxes.

Obviously, he'd had paid more if he didn't donate.

 

[sc0la]

My problem with the Buffet Rule is that it really feels like AMT2 (electric boogaloo).

If we insist on keeping cap gains taxes at all rather than treating it as income then we should just make it progressive.

 

[Black Mamba]

My problem with the Buffet Rule is that it really feels like AMT2 (electric boogaloo).

If we insist on keeping cap gains taxes at all rather than treating it as income then we should just make it progressive.

I agree, it should be progressive. 15% under $100k, ordinary income after. Something like that.

But since people cry about what awful results would occur to investment (lol), the Buffet Rule is the next best alternative. Once you hit X amount, all income is treated the same past that amount at the top tax rate.

 

[AlteredBeast]

Obama almost gave 25% of his money to charity.

The 20% tax rate is on his total AGI. If you subtract charity from his AGI, he paid 27% of the AGI minus charity contributes to taxes.

Obviously, he'd had paid more if he didn't donate.

As would every single intelligent millionaire. That is an obvious statement if there ever was one.



My Buffet Rule point is that Obama is being deliberately narrow in his focus on "millionaires." Apparently people who get paid $900k are somehow inherently less apt and required to "pay their fair share." In essence, by Obama making half the Buffet Rule's target, and still paying less than his "fair share," he is showing how many deep problems there are with the tax code, while refusing to acknowledge or campaign on anything other than raising less than one percent of people's taxes and raising far less revenue than simply letting the Bush/Obama Tax Cuts to expire.

 

[Black Mamba]

As would every single intelligent millionaire. That is an obvious statement if there ever was one.



My Buffet Rule point is that Obama is being deliberately narrow in his focus on "millionaires." Apparently people who get paid $900k are somehow inherently less apt and required to "pay their fair share." In essence, by Obama making half the Buffet Rule's target, and still paying less than his "fair share," he is showing how many deep problems there are with the tax code, while refusing to acknowledge or campaign on anything other than raising less than one percent of people's taxes and raising far less revenue than simply letting the Bush/Obama Tax Cuts to expire.

Didn't Mitt only give 1% to charity or something? Also, after-tax money is still lower by donating than not.

Obama can't let the tax cuts expire because the middle class needs that lower bracket right now. The upper classes, don't, however.

$1 million is just an arbitrary line. I'd rather it be lower, but a line must be chosen.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

As would every single intelligent millionaire. That is an obvious statement if there ever was one.



My Buffet Rule point is that Obama is being deliberately narrow in his focus on "millionaires." Apparently people who get paid $900k are somehow inherently less apt and required to "pay their fair share." In essence, by Obama making half the Buffet Rule's target, and still paying less than his "fair share," he is showing how many deep problems there are with the tax code, while refusing to acknowledge or campaign on anything other than raising less than one percent of people's taxes and raising far less revenue than simply letting the Bush/Obama Tax Cuts to expire.

That is the current focus. He still wants to let the tax cuts on > 250k$ expire at the end of the year.

 

[AlteredBeast]

That is the current focus. He still wants to let the tax cuts on > 250k$ expire at the end of the year.

What are the numbers for revenue on 250k+? I would like to see it closer to 125 or so, but that probably wont happen.

 

[Clevinger]

My Buffet Rule point is that Obama is being deliberately narrow in his focus on "millionaires." Apparently people who get paid $900k are somehow inherently less apt and required to "pay their fair share." In essence, by Obama making half the Buffet Rule's target, and still paying less than his "fair share," he is showing how many deep problems there are with the tax code, while refusing to acknowledge or campaign on anything other than raising less than one percent of people's taxes and raising far less revenue than simply letting the Bush/Obama Tax Cuts to expire.

Except he's not. I don't have the time to link you to his recent speeches, or comb through them for each instance of calling for his own taxes to be raised, but they're there.

His secretary probably has nothing near a normal secretary salary, and should pay her fair share. Middle income America is always playing the victim, but they are not paying their fair share, either. Taxes are low to the point that it is killing America's ability to take care of itself from the inside out.

Regardless, the Buffet Rule is a way to "demonize" wealthy people in my opinion because Obama refuses to acknowledge that wealthy people pay the lion's share of taxes in the country (I know, I know, they control even more of the wealth), while middle americans are definitely not paying their fair share, either. Raise taxes and then raise incentives to middle income earners to subsidize college education, that is one of the biggest ways that they are getting screwed. Their kids can't get grants and they can't afford thousands in tuition each year.

Since Empty left, I'd like to address this. Elizabeth Warren gave a talk years ago about how this is not true at all. The middle class doesn't exist anymore relative to 30 years ago. I strongly, strongly recommend you watch her talk on this (she starts about five minutes into it). The statistics she throws out are both shocking and depressing. Right now they simply can't afford to pay their fair share.

We should be taxing the wealthy at high rates to get the middle class back on its feet, then we can talk about raising theirs or their "fair share" and lowering the wealthy's rates or whatever. When they can afford it.

 

[Black Mamba]

The middle class isn't paying their fair share? Is this a joke?

Count in social security and medicare taxes, which are regressive and lower wages as a result (employees pay almost all of these despite your business paying it for you). State sales taxes, gas tax, and then state income taxes (former 2 are regressive).

Then let's count things like your phone taxes and cable taxes.

And what about fees which are really taxes. License registration? That's a tax...

Please, the middle class is paying more than their fair share.

 

[AlteredBeast]

The middle class isn't paying their fair share? Is this a joke?

Count in social security and medicare taxes, which are regressive and lower wages as a result (employees pay almost all of these despite your business paying it for you). State sales taxes, gas tax, and then state income taxes (former 2 are regressive).

Then let's count things like your phone taxes and cable taxes.

And what about fees which are really taxes. License registration? That's a tax...

Please, the middle class is paying more than their fair share.

I am middle class and marvel every day about how much of my money I get to keep every paycheck. BEFORE deductions on mortgage, registration fees, other deductions and so on, I only paid 27% in taxes (including your regressive taxes aforementioned), after all the other deductions, I think I was at 13% or something last year. Obviously all the intricacies of life add up, but I feel no pain for people in my situation that don't manage their money better.

The budget isn't going to be fixed by raising millionaire's taxes, the middle class isn't going to be fixed by it, either. Tax rates are too low across the board.

 

[adamsappel]

AlteredBeast, have you had the epiphany yet that you're not really a Republican?

 

[AlteredBeast]

AlteredBeast, have you had the epiphany yet that you're not really a Republican?

My scale is sliding, but I am still definitely a social conservative in so many ways that nobody else will claim me. Unfortunately, democrats are cowards and won't do what is necessary most of the time.

 

[Chichikov]

The budget isn't going to be fixed by raising millionaire's taxes, the middle class isn't going to be fixed by it, either.

That is true, and the left will get bitten in the ass for soft peddling that lie.

 

[Black Mamba]

I am middle class and marvel every day about how much of my money I get to keep every paycheck. BEFORE deductions on mortgage, registration fees, other deductions and so on, I only paid 27% in taxes (including your regressive taxes aforementioned), after all the other deductions, I think I was at 13% or something last year. Obviously all the intricacies of life add up, but I feel no pain for people in my situation that don't manage their money better.

The budget isn't going to be fixed by raising millionaire's taxes, the middle class isn't going to be fixed by it, either. Tax rates are too low across the board.

The budget can be fixed without taxing the middle class any extra pennies (sans FICA cuts expiring).

For 1, we have a $400 billion shortfall simply because the economy hasn't recovered, yet. And with Iraq/Afghan, the spending there will decrease. And with an improved economy, there won't be stimulus stuff spent. A raise on tax rates of the wealthy + capital gains changed (or Buffet Rule type) and corp taxes could fix the budget with some intelligent cuts in certain areas, too coupled with the end of the Afgan war + a recovered economy.

27% is a lot for a middle class family, especially not including those fees and sales taxes (I assume you didn't count those?) once you take into account living expenses like rent, health care, food.

We deserve some leisure money...

 

[AlteredBeast]

The budget can be fixed without taxing the middle class any extra pennies (sans FICA cuts expiring).

For 1, we have a $400 billion shortfall simply because the economy hasn't recovered, yet. And with Iraq/Afghan, the spending there will decrease. And with an improved economy, there won't be stimulus stuff spent. A raise on tax rates of the wealthy + capital gains changed (or Buffet Rule type) and corp taxes could fix the budget with some intelligent cuts in certain areas, too coupled with the end of the Afgan war + a recovered economy.

27% is a lot for a middle class family, especially not including those fees and sales taxes (I assume you didn't count those?) once you take into account living expenses like rent, health care, food.

We deserve some leisure money...

That is what I am saying, though, my 27% ended up being like 13%. It is asinine that I get to make 78k and then proceed to get half back that I paid.

 

[RDreamer]

Since Empty left, I'd like to address this. Elizabeth Warren gave a talk years ago about how this is not true at all. The middle class doesn't exist anymore relative to 30 years ago. I strongly, strongly recommend you watch her talk on this (she starts about five minutes into it). The statistics she throws out are both shocking and depressing. Right now they simply can't afford to pay their fair share.

We should be taxing the wealthy at high rates to get the middle class back on its feet, then we can talk about raising theirs or their "fair share" and lowering the wealthy's rates or whatever. When they can afford it.

Everyone should watch Warren's videos and speeches (and I suppose probably read her book, which I need to do) about the collapse of the middle class. It's truly fascinating and astounding what she uncovers. And it paints a really kind of bleak picture of things that I'm not sure how we can fix until people get with it and really acknowledge it's a large problem.

The economy's in shambles, and the middle class is almost literally dying right now. You can't raise taxes on them at this point, unless you want the country to barely drag itself along for a while. There's low demand in our economy the way it is, and Warren's videos do a decent job of showing at least part of why that's happening. We need to get money to those on the bottom so that they can spend it.

 

[Cloudy]

Didn't even make a million dollars, either. His point has broken itself over and over. He goes by demonizing people who make a million dollars in a year, something that most who do accomplish, only do a couple of times over a much longer period of time, but at the same time shows that someone who makes far less than a million still has an "unfair" advantage over his "working-class" secretary.

Romney should come up with an alternate world ideal called the "Obama" rule where people making 500k should not have to pay a lower percentage than someone making X dollars. The Romney campaign isn't one for farce, but I am sure Rush will get right on it.

You're making a pretty ridiculous point here. So because the Buffett rule won't affect some people who need to be paying more, there's no need to do it? And how is he "demonizing" anyone? He includes himself in that group!!!!

After more than a decade of Republicans (and many Democrats doing it to cover their own asses) campaigning on no new taxes, do you think it's going to be easy to raise taxes on anyone who isn't filthy rich?

First of all, any comprehensive tax reform is DOA as long as Republicans control the House. Second, anything targeting the 125k earners like you've suggested would be attacked as a tax on "small business owners" by Romney's people who allegedly aren't ones for farce (war on moms, anyone?). The only feasible stuff right now is tax hikes aimed at people even the GOP can't pass off as small business owners to idiot voters lol

Of course the Buffet Rule doesn't solve the deficit and it only affects the very wealthy but arguments against it based on that are kind of stupid. Arguments against it because it doesn't affect Obama this year are also pretty stupid. That just reinforces his point!!!!

 

[Cloudy]

That is true, and the left will get bitten in the ass for soft peddling that lie.

Where is anyone claiming it will fix the budget?

 

[Jackson50]

As we fail to sufficiently invest in our infrastructure, we continually dissipate billions in a quagmire. Remember, though, we only need a little while longer to sustain progress.

The bomb tore a five-foot-deep hole in an already pockmarked highway that the U.S. government paid $230 million to pave and that Horney’s troops were supposed to protect. It showed that even as the U.S. military has pushed Taliban fighters from many strongholds, the enemy retains significant havens in this region only 40 miles from Kabul, the capital. And the near miss shook Horney’s confidence.

http://goo.gl/QWyb8

 

[AlteredBeast]

As we fail to sufficiently invest in our infrastructure, we continually dissipate billions in a quagmire. Remember, though, we only need a little while longer to sustain progress.

Absolutely retarded.

Slash combat budgets in the absence of combat and invest in America

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Republicans most conservative in 100 years.

 

[AlteredBeast]

Republicans most conservative in 100 years.

AB most embarrassed to call himself a republican in 100 years

 

[PhoenixDark]

Fox News Chief: Gingrich ‘Isn’t Going To Get To Come Back’ To Fox

Fox News chief Roger Ailes on Thursday responded to Newt Gingrich’s recent attacks on the network. Gingrich only criticized the conservative network because he’s “trying to get a job at CNN because he knows he isn’t going to get to come back to Fox News,” Ailes said.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/fox-news-chief-gingrich-isnt-going-to-get?ref=fpblg

haha

 

[Diablos]

AB most embarrassed to call himself a republican in 100 years

You ain't a librul like us? Derp

 

[AlteredBeast]

You ain't a librul like us? Derp

socially, no, never have been and never will be. I am left-leaning on economic and foreign policy issues, though.

 

[Diablos]

socially, no, never have been and never will be. I am left-leaning on economic and foreign policy issues, though.

You are a rarity in American politics.

So you are pro-life? To the extent that Rick Santorum is, or, say... Bob Casey?

 

[AlteredBeast]

You are a rarity in American politics.

So you are pro-life? To the extent that Rick Santorum is, or, say... Bob Casey?

Extremely pro-life, but I am not retarded. Rape, incest or life of the baby/life of the mother. Other than that, it is entirely selfish, reprehensible and anathema.

I am so pro-life that I am against the death penalty.

I would like to think that I use empirical data to constantly improve and adjust my positions, something that a majority of "conservatives" refuse to do, and something that many liberals are too cowardice to accomplish. On issues that are not fact-based (say, abortion is bad, for example), I go with my gut and my spiritual beliefs.

 

[zargle]

Extremely pro-life, but I am not retarded. Rape, incest or life of the baby/life of the mother. Other than that, it is entirely selfish, reprehensible and anathema.

I am so pro-life that I am against the death penalty.

Ah, so you actually understand the range of what that term should mean. Excellent. I like you.

 

[Diablos]

Extremely pro-life, but I am not retarded. Rape, incest or life of the baby/life of the mother. Other than that, it is entirely selfish, reprehensible and anathema.

I am so pro-life that I am against the death penalty.

I personally draw the line at partial birth abortion, unless it's absolutely necessary for some reason. There is plenty of time to decide if you want to get one beforehand.

Not to mention, if abortion is outlawed completely, we go back to coat hangers and all kinds of other crazy shit (hard to believe that still happens in a country where it isn't outlawed, though...)

I'm torn on the death penalty. Lethal Injection is probably the most humane way to do it. Firing ranges, hanging people, electric chairs, etc. are pretty barbaric in the modern age. Yeah, we're killing people who are most certainly a threat to society unless they were wrongly charged, but that doesn't mean we need to beat them at their own game. That said, there are those unspeakable crimes that you always hear about year after year that makes me not care about what happens to the killer(s) at times...

 

[Particle Physicist]

socially, no, never have been and never will be. I am left-leaning on economic and foreign policy issues, though.

You're like a weird hybrid of some kind.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Extremely pro-life, but I am not retarded. Rape, incest or life of the baby/life of the mother. Other than that, it is entirely selfish, reprehensible and anathema.

I am so pro-life that I am against the death penalty.

I would like to think that I use empirical data to constantly improve and adjust my positions, something that a majority of "conservatives" refuse to do, and something that many liberals are too cowardice to accomplish. On issues that are not fact-based (say, abortion is bad, for example), I go with my gut and my spiritual beliefs.

I disagree with your abortion stance - keep your mitts off my wife, thank you - but I respect your thoughtful application of the philosophy.

Also:

BREAKING: Gingrich Quits Race to Join Secret Service​

I laughed, hard.

 

[AlteredBeast]

I personally draw the line at partial birth abortion, unless it's absolutely necessary for some reason. There is plenty of time to decide if you want to get one beforehand.

Not to mention, if abortion is outlawed completely, we go back to coat hangers and all kinds of other crazy shit (hard to believe that still happens in a country where it isn't outlawed, though...)

partial birth abortion is an evil, disgusting practice that shows what the mores of society have come to. The fact that it is even allowed baffles my mind.

I would love to see data (like I said, I love knowing facts so that I can enhance my positions) to know how often the so-called "back-alley", "coat hanger" abortions were performed and if funding for women to carry the baby to term and give it up for adoption in lieu of abortion being illegal would prevent the great majority of these tragedies to occur.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Ooh...GE is heating up. Twitter Wars!!

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/obama-adviser-slams-romney-camps-studied-outrage

@EricFehrn
Bill Maher's degrading comments on Ann Romney not easily dismissed - he's a $1m donor to Priorities USA @billburton716

Axelrod decided to heat it up a bit more

@EricFehrn Rush rips Sandra Fluke in the coarsest, most vile way. All Mitt could manage was a weak " not the language I would have used."

@EricFehrn Foster Friess, who gave Santo Super $1.7M, hearts Romney, saying he hopes POTUS's "teleprompters are bulletproof." Mitt? Silent.

@EricFehrn So until you have the guts to stand up to one of your own, you can take your studied outrage and stick it in...your Swiss bank!

@EricFehrn Texas billionaire Harold Simmons pledges $36m to GOP, and calls Obama "the most dangerous American alive." Silence from Mitt.

Romney's Advisor finished with

By not condemning Bill Maher, @davidaxelrod is signaling to supporters it's OK to keep up the attacks on Ann Romney. Shame.

OOH YEA

 

[AlteredBeast]

I disagree with your abortion stance - keep your mitts off my wife, thank you - but I respect your thoughtful application of the philosophy.

Also:

BREAKING: Gingrich Quits Race to Join Secret Service​

I laughed, hard.

If your wife is still active, I seriously doubt she would even consider having one but I know you were saying that in a general way. I know it really is a matter of philosophy, and I know why an atheist, agnostic or slightly-religious person would be fine with having an abortion, but it really is one of the few things I would legislate against, given the chance. decriminalize and tax drugs (and pour money into rehab centers and solutions that actually work), allow for civil unions between consenting adults of any variety (even of the polygamist persuasion, if that is your thing), and so on, but purposeful abortion is where I cross the line. I am not talking about a fertilized egg, most of those are lost down a toilet, anyway, the morning after pill is basically just birth control, anyway. I am talking finding out a month later after missing a period.