Support NeoGAF

[Chumly]

They completely eliminated them for the top bracket (these cuts are a tiny percentage of top bracket tax returns) but also reduced them by 60% for the lower tax brackets (something that is not politically realistic and has never been proposed by Romney).

Which means that romney is either going to hurt the poor/middle class or hes going to drastically increase our deficit. The study is pretty clear.

 

[RustyNails]

From what I've found, my mothers side goes back to 1712 of what is kept on record for my tribe. Gotta love GAF though since when there is blood in the water for a conservatives opinion, they love to bite.

This has nothing to do with conservatism and everything to do with the things you are saying.

 

[SnakeswithLasers]

Pctx is like a walking comic strip

A walking comic strip that unfortunately represents some 100 million people in this country.

 

[Gr1mLock]

One of the best meltdowns in a while this side of Kosmo.

 

[Sobriquet]

Gotta love GAF though since when there is blood in the water for a conservatives opinion, they love to bite.

I don't think people mind conservative opinions. Only when they contradict actual facts, like what you're doing.

 

[SnakeswithLasers]

From what I've found, my mothers side goes back to 1712 of what is kept on record for my tribe. Gotta love GAF though since when there is blood in the water for a conservatives opinion, they love to bite.

Is this a poor choice of words, or are you a Native American?

 

[xxracerxx]

Gotta love GAF though since when there is blood in the water for a conservatives opinion, they love to bite.

Well you are just saying things that are flat out wrong, like the whole Obama "You didn't build that..." line. But you won't discuss it.

 

[Izayoi]

From what I've found, my mothers side goes back to 1712 of what is kept on record for my tribe. Gotta love GAF though since when there is blood in the water for a conservatives opinion, they love to bite.

Backpedaling to accusations of persecution.

Took you more pages than most, though. I'm impressed.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

I don't think people mind conservative opinions. Only when they contradict actual facts, like what you're doing.

Pfft! Typical libs and your "facts". His opinion is just as valid and true as anyone elses.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Romney is claiming to be revenue-neutral. Therefore, you don't have to assume any cuts because REVENUE has to be the same.

Not only that, but cutting spending outside of SS, defense, and medicare is going to do nothing to make for the tax cuts.

 

[Pctx]

I don't think people mind conservative opinions. Only when they contradict actual facts, like what you're doing.

Ok. I'll shut up and let the discussion continue.

Well you are just saying things that are flat out wrong, like the whole Obama "You didn't build that..." line. But you won't discuss it.

Link the video and I'll watch it in context since apparently I'm misinformed.

Is this a poor choice of words, or are you a Native American?

I am a Native American by more than 50% blood lineage.

Backpedaling to the accusations of persecution.

Took you more pages than most, though. I'm impressed.

I don't mind it, I"m used to it.

Pfft! Typical libs and your "facts". His opinion is just as valid and true as anyone elses.

Sarcasm lightens an otherwise uptight mood in this thread.

 

[Chumly]

From what I've found, my mothers side goes back to 1712 of what is kept on record for my tribe. Gotta love GAF though since when there is blood in the water for a conservatives opinion, they love to bite.

I love when people who obviously have no idea what they are talking about pull this line. If you don't pull dumb shit then you won't get piled on.

 

[lopaz]

To you. It means a great deal to me. This is a point I don't lord over people but there is a reason we left the oppression of Great Britain to start our own country and that is ingrained into my DNA of which no one will take.

nah, world events don't affect people's DNA

 

[Black Mamba]

I don't understand why they are assuming revenue neutrality. His plan isn't to increase middle class taxes. He'll give everyone their pittance and once again a good old boy will be in the white house so magically deficits won't matter again.

This entire HuffPo article is flat out bad editorializing.

They're assuming it because Romney has claimed it.

The plan would recoup the revenue loss caused by those changes by reducing or eliminating unspecified tax breaks, thereby making more income subject to tax. Gov. Romney says that the reductions in tax breaks, in combination with moderately faster economic growth brought about by lower tax rates, will make the individual income tax changes revenue neutral compared with simply extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

I love when people who obviously have no idea what they are talking about pull this line. If you don't pull dumb shit then you won't get piled on.

See, the problem is that many of the GOP plataform supports policies that ignore facts.

As a result modern day GOP and any of its supporters automatically appear detached from reality supporting absurd policies.

This two facts combined result in obvious scorn from people who are not gonna ignore reality in order to consider policy.

It's easy to see why GOP supporters would feel "persecuted" then.

As far as I care, as long as they support a party that actively works to make them poorer (unless they are already rich) and restrict their constitutional rights, they deserve the public scorn.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Originally Posted by Pctx:
I agree more with Romney's foreign policy and I don't think he is a warmonger contrary to popular views. His policies indicate a much stronger connection with small business of which I could at length to describe my displeasure with Obama's "You didn't build that..." remarks but won't. Let's see what else; The guy is successful in life and like his father worked to achieve where he is today so that's a plus.

You do realize the ad was taken out of context, and that Obama was specifically talking about nobody got rich on their own due to taxpayers paying for roads for goods to be moved, security, and educating the employees..............right?

 

[Ramblin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=192oEC5TX_Q

 

[Pctx]

watching.

 

[Opiate]

My preferences is that the ultimate person responsible for the well being of the United States end up standing for each and every value that makes America great. I don't see that with Obama. That is my opinion.

I'm asking for specifics (I actually used the words "precise" and "specific" 4 separate times). "Standing up" for "American values" is about as broad and non specific as a response can be. Can you please be more precise? What policies, in particular, do you espouse?

You talking Keynesian economics? What's the word that gets kicked around... sustainable that's right. I'm curious (this goes for all of GAF actually) that do you think Romney will outspend Obama in the first year? So far we've had $1 Trillion+ a year from Obama and that isn't sustainable. The only way we can come back to sanity is a measured approach at reduction in government services and revenue that was going towards meaningless programs going towards things we need.

No, this isn't necessarily Keynesian: you said you want the GDP to grow. You said that right here:

Also, any tax increase on any class in America cannot be afforded as the priority is to get GDP up and people spending.

Okay, so you want to grow the GDP by keeping taxes low. In particular, Mitt Romney endorses lower tax rates than we already have, which can be viewed here at business insider. So we can "get GDP up" by lowering tax rates (this would be the conservative plan, and the one Romney currently endorses) which would increase the deficit, or we can "Get GDP up" via fiscal stimulus -- which would also increase the deficit.

Whether you're conservative or liberal, "getting GDP up" requires spending through tax cuts, or fiscal stimulus, or both. This is a basic principle of economics; we have scarce resources and no single, particular choice will give us everything we want. Giving a larger percentage of GNI to the poor leaves a smaller percentage for the wealthy; increasing monetary supply increases spending, but also increases inflation; increasing GDP via any means requires deficit spending.

So which do you choose? A higher deficit or a higher GDP? Economics is the study of scarcity, and it tells you that you cannot have both.

I agree more with Romney's foreign policy and I don't think he is a warmonger contrary to popular views.

Okay. What specific policies to you approve of in regards to foreign policies? Be precise, please.

Thanks for taking the time, Pctx.

 

[Cyan]

Alright so the word gaffe is "someone invested in roads and bridges... if you have a business, you didn't build that." The quip spun however you want points out the singular point I disagree with him on which is that by definition of being an American, my hard work is mine alone. No one else but me. So if you want to come after me because that's the way I think, have at it.

Are you saying that you did, in fact, build those roads and bridges?

Otherwise I'm really unclear how you could disagree with that.

 

[Forever]

Alright so the word gaffe is "someone invested in roads and bridges... if you have a business, you didn't build that." The quip spun however you want points out the singular point I disagree with him on which is that by definition of being an American, my hard work is mine alone. No one else but me. So if you want to come after me because that's the way I think, have at it.

That line is exactly, factually correct. No spin required. What's wrong with you?

 

[JCizzle]

Alright so the word gaffe is "someone invested in roads and bridges... if you have a business, you didn't build that." The quip spun however you want points out the singular point I disagree with him on which is that by definition of being an American, my hard work is mine alone. No one else but me. So if you want to come after me because that's the way I think, have at it.

You live in a broad society, to claim that we aren't all dependent on each other (some more than others) is short sighted sighted IMO. Someone pays for the schools, roads, libraries, police, military, etc. and that isn't one person. At some point you interacted with some or all of those services which require collective contributions from all of the country.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Are you saying that you did, in fact, build those roads and bridges?

Otherwise I'm really unclear how you could disagree with that.

Don't you get it? He educated HIMSELF. Didn't have to go to school. He didn't need drivers to move his goods. He moved it all by HIMSELF; walking to the suppliers and back to his business. He protected his business HIMSELF from criminals and thieves.

 

[Amir0x]

this shit is getting funnier by the second

*grabs a handful of popcorn*

 

[Pctx]

Thanks guys for quoting what was incomplete in which I was typing as I watching, I appreciate that. The whole thing in context makes sense. Case closed. Moving on.

I'm asking for specifics (I actually used the words "precise" and "specific" 4 separate times). "Standing up" for "American values" is about as broad and non specific as a response can be. Can you please be more precise? What policies, in particular, do you espouse?

Small business, small government, independence of foreign debt holders.

No, this isn't necessarily Keynesian: you said you want the GDP to grow. You said that right here:



Okay, so you want to grow the GDP by keeping taxes low. In particular, Mitt Romney endorses lower tax rates than we already have, which can be viewed here at business insider. So we can "get GDP up" by lowering tax rates (this would be the conservative plan, and the one Romney currently endorses) which would increase the deficit, or we can "Get GDP up" via fiscal stimulus -- which would also increase the deficit.

Whether you're conservative or liberal, "getting GDP up" requires spending through tax cuts, or fiscal stimulus, or both. This is a basic principle of economics; we have scarce resources and no single, particular choice will give us everything we want. Giving a larger percentage of GNI to the poor leaves a smaller percentage for the wealthy; increasing monetary supply increases spending, but also increases inflation; increasing GDP via any means requires deficit spending.

So which do you choose? A higher deficit or a higher GDP? Economics is the study of scarcity, and it tells you that you cannot have both.

A higher GDP by default is my vote.

Okay. What specific policies to you approve of in regards to foreign policies? Be precise, please.

Thanks for taking the time, Pctx.

I'll catch flak for this but at this point I am to entertain apparently. I like that we back Israel and don't throw them under the bus. I don't like it at the cost of alienating Palestinians or the rest of the ME, but I haven't seen a more compelling option in Obama other than the distance put between us and Israel. I want to hear Romney's stance on Afghanistan. I for the life of me cannot figure out why we're still there. The amount of money that we're spending to keep that war ongoing is killing us by 1,000 cuts. Obama seemingly has just been more of the same. My view is we need to get our men and women home and need to learn the business of keeping out of others peoples business. This of course has been a problem since WW2. Anyways, just a few policies I like and also would like to see.

 

[Gr1mLock]

Well this was fun. We should do it again sometime.

 

[RustyNails]

NeoGAF: Fighting ignorance, one post at a time.

 

[Cyan]

Thanks guys for quoting what was incomplete in which I was typing as I watching, I appreciate that. The whole thing in context makes sense. Case closed. Moving on.

You posted it. Not our fault if we started replying prior to you changing your mind. I mean, your post ended with a "have at it" for crying out loud.

 

[War Peaceman]

Thanks guys for quoting what was incomplete in which I was typing as I watching, I appreciate that. The whole thing in context makes sense. Case closed. Moving on.

This is a good start!

 

[Baraka in the White House]

NeoGAF: Fighting ignorance, one post at a time.

Pfft. More like oppressing valid opinions, one post at a time.

 

[SnakeswithLasers]

I am a Native American by more than 50% blood lineage.

So 50% of you probably feels pretty shitty about those British colonialists that founded the ol' USA and why people were interested in the new world (enslaving natives) anyway?

 

[Eric_S]

So which do you choose? A higher deficit or a higher GDP? Economics is the study of scarcity, and it tells you that you cannot have both.

It late here, so my apologies in advance for posting sillines in a sleep induced stupor; but surely increased spending (while taking out loans) would increase GDP? In the short run at least. I'll agree that the current US fiscal allocations are questionable at best over the long term.

 

[Pctx]

So 50% of you probably feels pretty shitty about those British colonialists that founded the ol' USA and why people were interested in the new world (enslaving natives) anyway?

That would make for an interesting conversation but in short, that is something I carry with me but I hold no ill will.

 

[Freshmaker]

If we'd only tax the rich more, that'd fix all our problems!

We barely tax them at all, so your sarcasm is unwarranted and weirdly bonkers for good measure.

 

[arglebargle]

All taxes need to go up. I applaud him raising taxes on middle class, but the top 10% should go up as well.

He won't be elected, though, and Obama won't raise taxes on the middle class.


EDIT: I am a middle-class republican, but have nothing to do with today's current crop of retardation emanating from the word holes of mouth breathers like Reince Preibus and Grover Norquist.

Oh... should have known. Raising taxes, however intelligent and obvious that may be, is politically toxic right now.

in what world is raising taxes right now intelligent and obvious?

 

[Guileless]

Do you have to assume that he would eliminate all popular tax cuts for everyone making less than 200k? Because I would call that a bad assumption.

These people took a political bullet point and spun it into assuming he would commit political suicide.

I agree, and I would rather bet on Gov. Romney revealing himself to be king of the lizard people at his inauguration than Gov. Romney repealing the mortgage interest tax deduction. This premise of this study is ridiculous.

 

[flippymittens]

If I were as rich as Romney, I'd hold the same position.

Romney's not even that rich compared to many wealthy people... Kerry is wealthier than Romney and the wealthiest President was supposed to be Washington.

Celebrities are the "good rich people" though and bankers/ any rich person on the "right" is some wealth hording dragon...

President Obama is rich and has done alot to benefit wall street yet noone bashes the President in this regard.

 

[Czigga]

Poor pctx it's like 100 vs. 1 lol.

Props for standing up !

President Obama is rich and has done alot to benefit wall street yet noone bashes the President in this regard.

Yeah and Obama's top campaign contributors are all big banks. Seems to go over everyone's head though. Obama is so contrarian to most things his supporters espouse, I just don't get it.

 

[pigeon]

President Obama is rich and has done alot to benefit wall street yet noone bashes the President in this regard.

Actually, people bashed the President constantly for being too soft on Wall Street, and still do. But there's not much point in bashing him in this thread, since it's about how Romney would be a thousand times worse as President.

 

[SnakeswithLasers]

That would make for an interesting conversation but in short, that is something I carry with me but I hold no ill will.

It is definitely interesting that you are holding 'American DNA' on a pulpit, while those first few colonialists (of which Romney and you, with your 'people will figure something out to survive' comment, are arguably more reminiscent than Obama) were motivated by a similar "profit no matter the human cost" philosophy that resulted in the wiping out most of your people.

Where do you stand on something like this? I'm genuinely curious. Corporatism has been neglecting to steward both land and people in their pursuit of profits for (nearly) 400 years on this continent. Your people directly were massacred due to this.

 

[Escape Goat]

The photo they used is awesome

 

[Czigga]

It is definitely interesting that you are holding 'American DNA' on a pulpit, while those first few colonialists (of which Romney and you, with your 'people will figure something out to survive' comment, are arguably more reminiscent than Obama) were motivated by a similar "profit no matter the human cost" philosophy that resulted in the wiping out most of your people.

Where do you stand on something like this? I'm genuinely curious. Corporatism has been neglecting to steward both land and people in their pursuit of profits for (nearly) 400 years on this continent. Your people directly were massacred due to this.

Yeah give him his history and tell him how he should feel.

 

[ronito]

American Exceptionalism for starters as it values the individual instead of the collective. You want a stark contrast between candidates, do some research on this area. Also, any tax increase on any class in America cannot be afforded as the priority is to get GDP up and people spending. The government needs money to run, I get that, but there also needs to move towards curtailing services and move those towards states responsibilities. I would imagine that is another good contrast between Romney and Obama. Care for me to go on?

How come no one told me there was a new Astrolad?

 

[Clevinger]

I agree, and I would rather bet on Gov. Romney revealing himself to be king of the lizard people at his inauguration than Gov. Romney repealing the mortgage interest tax deduction. This premise of this study is ridiculous.

Why, because people like it? People love, love, love Medicare and Republicans have tried to pass two budgets now, one of which outright kills it, and the second of which slowly strangles it to death over time. They don't care.

 

[Cyan]

http://i.imgur.com/L43Ou.gif[IMG]
How come no one told me there was a new Astrolad?[/QUOTE]

There will never be another AstroLad.

 

[flippymittens]

Poor pctx it's like 100 vs. 1 lol.

Props for standing up !



Yeah and Obama's top campaign contributors are all big banks. Seems to go over everyone's head though. Obama is so contrarian to most things his supporters espouse, I just don't get it.

Yes atleast supporters of neoliberalism are honest.

Yes very accurate observation, it puzzles me too.
I think most people just fall for the President Obama is a good man who is being swarmed and prevented from doing good deeds by the mean Republicans that MSNBC loves to portray.
Despite the fact that he had Democratic control of congress in the early years of his term, despite the fact that he signed into law NDAA and increased drone strikes people believe President Obama is a liberal President.

Actually, people bashed the President constantly for being too soft on Wall Street, and still do. But there's not much point in bashing him in this thread, since it's about how Romney would be a thousand times worse as President.

Soft on Wallstreet? He has actively helped increase the growing income disparity...

So you are voting based on who you do not want to become President? Given how President Obama made a ton of unfufilled promises and acted the opposite of what people wanted... Is it a fair assumption Romney would behave the same way and actually be liberal?

 

[SnakeswithLasers]

Yeah give him his history and tell him how he should feel.

A) A lot of Americans don't educate themselves on the history of America outside of what they learned in their mandatory grade/high school coursework.
B) I'm not telling him how to feel, I'm asking him how he feels about the contradiction.

 

[shamanick]

To you. It means a great deal to me. This is a point I don't lord over people but there is a reason we left the oppression of Great Britain to start our own country and that is ingrained into my DNA of which no one will take.

Americans lol

 

[Pctx]

It is definitely interesting that you are holding 'American DNA' on a pulpit, while those first few colonialists (of which Romney and you, with your 'people will figure something out to survive' comment, are arguably more reminiscent than Obama) were motivated by a similar "profit no matter the human cost" philosophy that resulted in the wiping out most of your people.

Where do you stand on something like this? I'm genuinely curious. Corporatism has been neglecting to steward both land and people in their pursuit of profits for (nearly) 400 years on this continent. Your people directly were massacred due to this.

And yet we're given money and build casino's to compensate for the grievances of the past hundred years. This of course doesn't excuse the behavior and if anything Native Americans are more or less a swept under the rug people which in this day and age is quite sad.

Honestly though, I know for me, the history of where my mom and others came from pursued a different road for me and a different life. Ironically, my birth mother is not my current mother as I'm adopted. I believe it is by virtue that I see, feel and live the difference that in some ways I represent. Same goes for my new kid. I want to give him the chance of a lifetime just like I was given.

 

[derder]

Maybe I'm stupid, but I don't see the logic is giving wealthy people a tax cut and increasing the taxes of those who actually stimulate an economy through their spending, etc.

What am I not seeing/understanding?

The idea is that the upper class invest in parts the economy -- to get richer. If rich people are able to invest "more freely", they are more likely to invest with economic benefit instead of putting their money into banks to save.

I think.