good night Adak, good night all.

let's do this again sometime!

No, I don't have a copy of the 2,000 + page bill. As the suit moves forward, we can get more info from the filed court papers. From what I hear, they are objecting to two things:

1) That they have to pay for what they believe is a sin.

and

2) That their hospitals would have to provide abortion procedures. The doctor and nurses could be non-Catholic, but enabling that procedure is sinful to them, based on their religious beliefs.

The health care bill insists on this because, in some areas, religious hospitals are the only local hospitals.

This is just what I'm hearing on Conservative radio. The talk show host was an attorney and a legal adviser to Ronald Reagan's administration, and Chief of Staff for the Attorney General, Edwin Meese. (Mark Levin)

According to Mark, the Catholic Church is bringing all legal guns to bear on this fight.

Yet they have no problem paying for Viagra.

I will never wrap my head around this logic.

I haven't spent a lot of time with the details, because unless Romney/Ryan are actually elected, there is no hope for a cut in spending by the Fed's, and a tax cut for anybody.

Ryan's plan has been out for at least a year now. My understanding is that Romney's plan will be based on Ryan's plan, with a bit of tweaking from both Ryan and Romney, putting their heads together.

Romney's projected savings are just that - a projection, and I wouldn't be surprised if that projection was - like all economic projections - not perfect. The bottom line is, Romney's plan will cut spending in the federal gov't, cut taxes somewhat, and close some tax loopholes. His goal is to make it "neutral", so the income lost in one cut, will be matched by growth in the economy, and by closing a loophole.

I do not expect it will be exactly neutral, of course. He's smart, but he's not a Prophet. ;)

Those are three things that (taken together), you WON'T get from Obama. And those are three good things for our economy, and our country.

My understanding is that the Catholic owned hospitals consider prescribing and/or paying for so called "abortion pills" to be the same as providing an abortion. I don't equate providing a medication to be the same as "performing abortions, in their hospitals."

What's not clear?

The Lord commanded Adam to be fruitful and multiply. Viagra helps make that possible.

:facepalm:

Is anyone still listening to this shill?

:lol:

Correct. Enabling a sin, makes you a part of it's commission, to the Church, and the same logic is used in law. Enabling a crime, makes you a part of it's commission, usually as an accessory.

Oh, I SO believe the Church lawyers will RIP the feds lawyers to shreds on this case. :cool:

You asked the question, and I answered it quite civilly.

I didn't even call you

< STUPID! >

in big bright red letters.

Don't worry. I'll pray for you. :angel:

The bible sayeth: let no man, no matter how old and decrepit, be denied the gift of a boner. Go forth, 85 year old man, and get some 30 year old pregnant. Then Adak thumped it.

Remember men, YOU are in charge of YOUR bodies. The government has no right to tell you you can't swing your stupid dick all over the place.

So you would support prosecuting gun dealers who sell guns to people who later use them to commit a crime?

There must be money (value), in the economy, but it can't be just sitting in a bank, or stuck in a mattress somewhere.

Yes, Money has to MOVE, or the economy will stagnant.

No denigration on the poor. Statement of fact in looking at the economy. By definition, the poor have very little money.

You're right that many poor people spend money quickly, but it's a matter of quantity. The rich will move thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars in a day. The poor won't SEE ONE thousand dollars, in two months.

If the money was just sitting in a bank vault someplace, it would do us no good, but that's not what banks do - they invest a portion of every dollar they get:

*home loans, *commercial loans, *stocks, *commercial bonds, *municipal bonds, *real estate, *oil and gas drilling, and many more financial instruments.

So the money is moving, but as taxes increase (personal and business), that money begins to slow down, and dry up. People with money become more concerned with avoiding taxes, than with investing in the economy.

The rich aren't different from you or I in this regard.

Only if a gun dealer knew the gun he sold, was illegal, or was told the gun was intended for the commission of a crime.

Say he sold the gun to a known felon, and didn't put in the paperwork and get the approval needed. That would be a crime.

Or say the buyer came in after the waiting period was over and all the paperwork was done, and told the seller that the gun would be "great", since he "wanted to kill his ex spouse with it".

There, it's a bit more gray, but if the gun hasn't changed hands yet, I'd say he better refund the buyer his money, keep the gun, and notify the police. Certainly, he should NOT sell him anything else, like bullets! There's no better way to protect yourself from future charges in the matter.

There's no better way to protect yourself from future children than birth control.

Except abstinence. Penises (penii?) don't get women pregnant people get women pregnant.

When confronted by honesty, you would lie? That's a mortal sin! The Pope ordered Catholic doctrine to be instilled in American laws. Santorum agreed. So we also got rid of him.

How many wackos said Kennedy's separation of the Catholic Church from American government was wrong? It made him almost vomit? Extremist even advocate religious doctrine be imposed in laws. You cannot change reality by denying it.

Meanwhile the Pope has ordered lawmakers to impose Catholic doctine - their religion - on all Americans. Next is to order American laws changed to protect pedophile priests. After all, that is also defacto Catholic doctrine. When you deny it, might you cite at least one source other than Fox News or an extremist talk show host?

:notworthy

Maybe I believe that God took away that function from certain people for a reason. Why should I pay for them to artificially get it back? No Viagra for YOU!

Or maybe I believe that gluttony is a sin and so obesity treatment and/or diabetes treatments is against my religion and shouldn't be covered? (1 Corr 3:16,17)

Or maybe I believe that rehab should never be covered by insurance since drunkenness is forbidden in the Bible? (Eph 5:18)

And lets not cover infections from accidents/carelessness, or lung cancer from smoking, or skin cancer from sunbathing, or vision care/contacts, or any number of things that could remotely be tied to vanity or mistreatment of your body (temple of God).

And diseases that are hereditary. God said the sins of the father will be visited upon children (Exodus 20:5), so clearly that person's ancestor's did something bad against God and these diseases are his will. Why should I pay for insurance to rectify this?


:rant:

/sarcasm off

Using insurance coverage to force one person's beliefs on someone else is absolute bullcrap. It's insurance. YOU don't have to partake or utilize it or participate if it violates YOUR beliefs. But forcing me to suffer for your religion is asinine. And I, personally, will fight it to the bitter end.

Awesome, stormie!

BigV, post #211, did you see? A few pages back...

Did a little digging... wow this was buried quite deeply.

For reference, here are the points 2 and 3:

Firstly did this all make sense to you, with the exception of points 2 and 3; and to be clear, was it a point '2, a.' that you needed--or a new point '3, a.' moving the current point '3, a.' to '3, b.' ??? I don't see a gap, but if you can point it out I will try to do a better job.

Where was it buried? Somewhere in the last 18 pages? Who buried it? What's the context?

I bet it was those damn Republicans and their dirty tricks, burying Flint's post.

Sorry, BigV asked if anyone could explain Romney's tax plan, so I posted a brief summary of "The way I understood him to be explaining it in the debate."

Then there was three or so pages of poo-flinging... (nothing to do with my post)

...and I never saw BigV's reply. Then I went back and did a post search for the terms "flint" and found BigV making a reference to my post (so now I know he read it) ...so I posted again asking BigV for clarification.

Basically, to BigV, "which part did I not explain well?"

threadjack



/threadjack

Give me a link to where the Pope ordered Catholic doctrine by instilled in American laws. That's news to me, but I don't follow everything the Pope does.

Not knowledgeable about Santorum. He never interested me as a Presidential candidate.


First I can't quite nail down what reality you are in. Kennedy's religious beliefs are not a topic for this thread, in the run up to the 2012 election. I just don't believe it's relevant.

Do you have some info or links to back up your argument? This is your assertion of truth, not mine.

@Stormieweather: You're free to interpret the Bible any way you like, but it may not be Catholic Doctrine.

He asked the question, I answered it, not with my opinion, but with the answer from the Bible.

Could be, because when I ask Google it comes up with both the contraception for employees and having to perform abortions in their hospitals, in the description of the links, but none of the 20 odd links I checked had anything about having to perform abortions.

So it would appear that Adak is just repeating wild claims from right wing talk radio that have no basis.

BigV, follow the link for the answer.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...ssible/263541/

Edit: A second article:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-1...-tax-plan.html

Basically, you assume unrealistic job growth or you change the definition of the middle class...

You may not like Romney and Ryan's tax plan, but at least it's moving us in the right direction: cut spending, lower taxes a bit, and cut some loopholes in the tax code.

What's NOT to like, here?

Only because so far the only reason it balances is due to promises of closure in unspecified loopholes and promised growth to close a 4.8 trillion dollar gap.

What if this promised surge in growth revenue, like the 'trickle down' money that failed to materialize with the last set of tax cuts, fails to show? What loopholes? The 'loopholes' like the mortgage tax deduction that is used by millions of working and middle class Americans? Or the loopholes that allowed Mr. Romney to pay a %14 effective tax rate? Guess which ones I think will be targeted.....

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice.......

Oh Please! Poly-ticks will fool us every day of the week, if we don't watch 'em!

Which do you, sight unseen, believe is more trustworthy?

A missionary for two years from the Mormon Church, and WAY successful businessman?

Or

A Chicago Community activist and professional poly-tick?

Where "poly-ticks" (poly = many, and tick = blood sucking organism).

Maybe you've been fooled so many times, you've joined with the Fools? ;)

Have you any idea of the kind of loopholes that our tax code has? We're still giving handouts to farmers for growing wool for soldiers socks, from WWI, for crying out loud!

Romney has a blind trust for his personal funds, to avoid any hint of a conflict of interest. He has no control over what is bought or sold, and doesn't know what's been done, until the end of the quarter.

I LOVE the hypocrisy of those berating Romney for following the legal tax code. Nevermind, that the guy gives millions to charities -- to you, that means nothing. NO! Let's castigate him for following the law!!

Is there no limit to your hypocrisy?

If you believe you can PRY a cut in spending from the Obama administrations MASSIVE federal budget increases, you're completely in the dark about what they have done, and insist on continuing.

Will we get everything we want in a Republican administration? No. But at least we'll get SOME of what we want, and a LOT of what we need, and get headed back in the right direction.

We are spending $58,000 dollars per second, more than we make in income, currently - over a TRILLION dollars a year more than we can afford.

We will RUE the day that we have a true monetary crisis, believe me.

High priest and missionary are immediately suspect, but discounting that;
I have a choice of a guy who made millions by fucking the working man and the country, or a guy that spent his career helping the little guy.
Damn, that is a tough choice ain't it. :rolleyes:

No, I can't give you a number, I doubt anyone can without considerable research. But I do remember reading dozens of times over the years, of bills that were passed to give huge breaks to a very small number of specific companies. Of course the companies weren't named in the bill, but it was written in a way that no one else could qualify. There were a few that it was only one company getting to fuck me.

I certainly wouldn't bet on either party doing a meaningful job of cleaning up the tax code mess, because every one of those special loopholes is for someone with pull in Washington. Nobody is more beholden than Thurston... er, Mitt.

Rue? Rue? That's French, that's socialist talk.:p:

Everything you posted is without links. Everything you posted is recited from Rush Limbaugh, et al. You want others to do what you never do? Sources were provided. You ignored it because extremist talk show hosts downplayed reality? Santorum said ... (then you stopped listening).

Kennedy's religious beliefs are directly traceable to your ideology. As a result one even said he almost had to vomit. Because religion *should* be imposed on all Americas - according to that ideology. These are the extremists you promote. Why do you ignore what they say when convenient?

Do you also ignore that America has zero growth when Republicans are president? That Reagan raised taxes. That jobs did not recover until well into Reagan's second term. That the US Navy is larger than the next 13 countries combined (exposing a Ryan lie). That economic power is not created by Nimitz class carriers and B-1 bombers. That socialism and communism are different. That jobs are not created by money. That $0.55 trillion back then is over $1.3 trillion today. When Clinton left office, we were on the verge of a surplus. Then people you promote tried to get into a war with China, surrendered to the Taliban, and then wasted 5000 Americans and $3 trillion on a complete lie - Mission Accomplished. Therefore created record debts that will take at least a decade to pay off. Sticking Obama with the bills when Cheney said "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter".

This was a doozy:The July 2010 Dodd-Frank law created George Jr's 2007 recession and stock market crash. Only you posted that. How disconnected are you? Please, find that citation. Oh. You will provide facts and numbers? Instead, reality was invented as necessary. Dodd-Frank created George Jr's recession? How fast did you run away from that fiction?

What happens when the rich pay taxes (when America was then prosperous)? BigV posted the numbers. Tax cuts to the rich - debt increases 172%. Taxes restored; the rich pay their fair share (ie when Clinton was president) - debt decreases 27%. So what did you do? Ignore replies and numbers that exposed the Limbaugh lies you posted. BigV demonstrated how wrong you (and Limbaugh) are. As usual, when facts expose your lies, you run off to invent more lies - as any Tea Party extremist would do. No wonder they nominated a witch for the Senate.

You change topics when facts expose your myths. You paint with a broad brush. Invent fiction that only an extremist could believe. Even deny the Pope has called for Church doctrine to be imposed on all Americans. Lie to protect an ideology: a conclusion followed by searching for or inventing facts to justify it.

"Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" is why extremist conservatives in George Jr's administration massively increased debt, spending, wars, and recession. Same people you want back in power. Let's face it. You support those who said "We want America to fail." Or did you also forget that fact?

Perspective: Informed Americans see the world in terms of moderates vs wacko extremists. Wacko extremists see the world in terms of 'liberal vs conservative'. Then invent facts to justify brainwashing. And run away from any citation that shows how misguided they really are.

How funny. You, of all people, want a citation. Please stop with the comedy. Old jokes only get older.

"Fucking the working man"? Are you out of your mind? Romney's company turned around companies, and in the process, saved or created a lot of jobs. Yes, not every company was able to be turned around, because of market conditions that developed - but in business, nothing is guaranteed except change.

Why do you say that? Mitt hasn't served a day in Washington, yet. His time as Governor of Mass., is long over. Obama is the one with supporters than need to be paid back - lots of bundlers and special interest blocks of voters, that put together a LOT of money for him and workers for his campaign.

Romney has some of those same problems, but his platform is a lot more focused, (on economic policy and business), which fits perfectly with what we need, so the effect will be more positive, and less detrimental.

I agree with you that reforming the tax code will be like pulling teeth.

Rue: Define Rue at Dictionary.com
Specifically, I don't like the gov't owning a large part of GM, along with the Unions. The shareholders and bondholders were screwed royal, as were the non-union employees, who lost both their jobs and their benefits. In the case of the shareholders and bondholders (especially the latter), that is contrary to law.

Better to have GM go through bankruptcy, and come out the other side, as a new, and stronger company. Having the feds on the board of directors, of a major corp. makes me nervous.

Also, I doubt if the gov't knows how to design and/or build, better cars and trucks.

Santorum isn't in the running anymore. I didn't care for him when he was, and I don't care what you think of him, or what he thinks of anything, now.

Nobody has said that religion SHOULD be imposed on Americans, that I know of. First, it would be against the Constitution (blatantly). Second, you'd have riots in the streets if that were begun.

I don't CARE what Cheney said. Cheney isn't running for office, and won't be part of Romney's administration.

No, that was my error in naming the Dodd-Franks law. I had that law on my mind, at that time, but it's not the one.

I'm hardly a Tea party extremist! They are Conservatives, however, AND they pick up their trash after a rally -- try and get the liberals to do THAT. :D

You know you're lying about Reagan and taxes, and I've posted the facts from the gov't to point it out to you. You can't support your lies about that.

I'm still waiting for the Pope's encyclical on that - but it isn't there. Another fib, eh? :rolleyes:

Obsessed by Cheney are you? ;) Here's a tip for you - he's been out of office for a few years now, and he won't be back.
I live in America! Why would I want it to fail? Have you lost your mind?

Now you're the expert on how other people see the world? < ROFL! >

You can't make an assertion about a major proclamation from the Pope, repeatedly, and then not offer a link to it.

Not the Pope. Everything he proclaims is widely reported around the world. If it existed, I would have found it, easily.

Liberal jokes, make us all weep, when they become laws -- unless of course, it's a case of crony capitalism! But that's a problem for both parties, much to their shame. Bush Jr and Obama are both failures in this regard, and I would have to say Bush Jr. was the bigger failure in using crony capitalism, except for the Salendra scandal with Obama.

Actually, I don't listen to Limbaugh. He has good info and some insights, I know, but he constantly uses ad hominem attacks and smears, and thinks they're "entertaining". Or at least, OK. I won't put up with that.

You can't solve a problem with the country, by calling half of it all kinds of unsavory names, in public media.

When will you guys learn that being 'cutesy' loses you the argument?

'poly-tick', 'Demoncrat'...all just mindless noise. It's like wearing a 'honk if you like stupid' T-shirt to a debate.

I'm also going to shave a few points off of TW for the 'Thurston Howell' comment, but your little verbal tantrums go way beyond. At least TW cites. You're just stuffed with unattributed talking points.

And small change at that, after Romney & Company raped them for millions, saddling them with monstrous debt. The companies that survived obviously would have anyway.

What the rapist did was combine companies, so that instead of a few companies competing (you know, capitalism), each employing lots of people and making a modest profit, there was only one or two companies left, employing very few people, and paying enormous debt service on the rapists profits.

The big picture is, Romney put a shitload of people out of work and redirected what they would have been paid and funneled back into the economy, into his pocket and his offshore accounts.

Thurston...er, Mitt, was a missionary all right, a disciple of Michael Milken, honing Milken's sleezeball tactics to a keen edge with which to castrate not only the working man, but small businessmen as well.

C'mon, if you're really that naive you shouldn't be allowed on the street, no less vote. :rolleyes:


You obviously are parroting shit you hear without understanding what went down, how, why, or what would have happened as a result of Romney's hands off stance. I'll give it to you in a nutshell, a few people would have pocketed a fortune, and millions of people, along with the country, would have gotten fucked.
If you really think the board and the bigwigs of the car companies know how to, "design and/or build, better cars", you don't know jackshit about business either.

Do you even know what Romney's company did (does)? Even a hint of a clue about what a LBO is?

He may have started out the way you describe, keeping companies like Staples alive and helping them flourish, but he veered away from that when he figured out the real money was in taking over companies, loading them up with debt, squeezing exorbitant fees from them and then dumping the broken husk in the end. Greed and Debt

For those that don't want to dig through that long article, here is a description of how it works:

So don't try to sell him to ME as a shining white knight, come along to help poor KB's Toys - KB Toys . Many companies were metaphorically burned to the ground and many individuals lost their jobs so Bain and their investors could get richer.

This is a man whose knowledge lies in making the rich richer, not in helping to create jobs. I have no doubt that, if he should be elected President, he and his wealthy friends will benefit enormously. And it will be on the backs of the poorest and most vulnerable of our citizens.

Why do I think this? Oh maybe because of Global Tech.

Global-Tech:Betting Against American Workers

Profits > everything. A President who believes this will not protect our citizens...the very idea is frightening and chilling.

Oh and Hannity and Limbaugh? They work for Clear Channel, which is owned by Bain Capital. Just FYI... :eyebrow:

"He may have started out the way you describe, keeping companies like Staples alive and helping them flourish, but he veered away from that when he figured out the real money was in taking over companies, loading them up with debt, squeezing exorbitant fees from them and then dumping the broken husk in the end. Greed and Debt" -quote Stormieweather

ya know, that's exactly what Tony Soprano did to a store a buddy of his owned who owed him a gambling debt. Not that I'm comparing Mitt to Tony Soprano.


Tony was a good Catholic.

:)

Adak, you know about Sensata, right?

Sensata

I've posted several url's for you - especially on the fiscal matters. I can't post about Tw's assertion about the Pope, because such an announcement by the Pope, has not been made.

Are you at all aware of how many politicians have gone to Washington with only moderate means, and because of the insider knowledge they are now privy to, they use that knowledge to become rich? If you or I did that, we would be jailed/fined for "insider trading". Poly-ticks however, have made it legal FOR THEM.

You see this kind of hypocrisy all the time. We will have Obama care by decree, but the Poly-ticks will have none of it - they have their own luxury health care policy, which they are NOT ABOUT to give up.

I don't know of a reference for all our poly-ticks misdeeds, but they have been mentioned, on rare occasions. Rare, because our field of investigative reporters would rather report on Timbuktu's problems, than dig into the political mess we have at home.

That doesn't mean it's not true, and if you are willing to dig a bit, you'll find that out.

Yes. And I know Romney left Bain Capital 12 (TWELVE) years before Sensata was moved to China.

When will you learn that what you hear from the media, can't be trusted at face value?

CHECK IT OUT FOR YOURSELF.

Romney founded and ran Bain for FIFTEEN years. It does the same thing now that it did then, under his leadership. He was fully aware and approved of outsourcing to Chinese sweatshops. In fact, at a recent fundraiser here in Florida he mentioned his personal tour of one...


Chinese Sweatshop


So I should trust what YOU say at face value? No thanks. I do my own research and decide what to believe.

double post

I never said don't do you own research and decide for yourself. I encourage that, but in this case, you've reached the wrong conclusion.

Did Romney make the stupid laws, tax codes, and treaties, that made it profitable for our companies to move to China?

NO!

You have to work (and live) within the laws that you are given, by those in government. You know that, everybody knows that.

Saying that Romney moved Sensata 12 years after he left Bain, is a terrible argument to make because:

1) Romney didn't make the laws that made it possible and in some cases profitable, to move a company to China.

and

2) Romney had nothing to do with the movement of Sensata, anywhere, since he'd left Bain over a decade before this happened.

So your whole argument is just an attempt to smear Romney with anything you can. You'll have to do better, because this case certainly doesn't work.

So if it's not locked down it's free stuff? Laws do not cover everything. As a matter of fact, the more libertarian and tea partiers are arguing for less laws. The assumption is that government protections are unnecessary because the free market and innate human compassion will provide the necessary checks and balances.

Mr. Romney proved this wrong. If there was the least fiscal advantage to destroying companies or moving them overseas, even companies that were stable and profitable before being loaded with leveraged debt, then these companies were torn down.

In the primaries Gingrich pilloried Romeny for this. This was not 'creative destruction', this was destruction by loophole.

The board and bigwigs hire people to conduct consumer studies so they KNOW what customers want, in their car or truck. They learned that pretty well from the Ford Mustang and Lee Iacocca, back in 1961. Iacocca knew what the people wanted.

But that's the company, it's not the gov't. You want a gov't designed car, fine - you buy one. ;)

Since Mitt Romney has never been a Congressman or Senator, no - I don't know what you're talking about when you try to blame him, for the shortcomings of the previous leadership in Washington.

I worked for a corp that went through a capital group like Bain, and yes, it was tough. But before that, it was also tough, as idiots running the company, ran it right into the ground. Every year that was another two or three rounds of lay-offs, and this went on and on. Without the help of the capital group, the corporation I worked for, would have been bankrupt, simply.

The thing is, business markets are always changing. You can't say "we make a good product, so we'll always have a job here". No, you can't be sure of that. Things change, new products are introduced, new technologies are discovered. In my case, SONY came into the field, and just blew us away - HUGE market clout. Plus we had poor managers and management running the company.

When your leaders sign a treaty to permit cheap 3rd world labor, to manufacture our goods and sell it to us, do you really believe it will have NO impact on our jobs, and on companies?

Can you see competing with a labor force working for $2-$5 dollars a day? Of course not, but that is what OUR federal gov't, signed us up to do. :mad:

There have been thousands of companies who have moved overseas or down to South America, in whole, or in part. It's beyond ridiculous to point to ONE company moving overseas 12 years after Romney left from Blain Capital, and say "See! He shouldn't be President, he caused this company to move to China!"

That's not being reasonable, and you know it. Yes, it's tough being RIFF'd - been there, got the T shirt.

A capitalist society is not a fair society (no society is, so nothing new), but those RIFF'd employees should move on and see what they can do NOW, not stand around, waving signs, feeling sorry for themselves.

Completely irrelevant is what you think about Santorum. But again, avoiding a reality that you cannot honestly dispute. The Pope called for Church doctrine imposed on American law. And Santorum agreed. So you pretend Santorum, et al did not say that? Imposing religion on the American people is an extremism ideological principle.

Does not matter what you think. You demonstrate the extremism that Romney must entertain to be elected. You represent baggage that, if eliminated, would make a Romney presidency acceptable.

"A conservative, liberal, and moderate walks into a bar. The bartender says, "Hi Mitt". " Romney must entertain extremism that he once completely rejected. Extremists so dominate that even Romney cannot be honest. Honesty, as so many demonstrated, clearly has not been your strong suit here. Did we not learn anything from George Jr?

You even blamed George Jr's 2007 recession on Dodd-Frank created in July 2010. No informed person could make that mistake. An ideologue. Conclusions made; then facts are invented. Dodd-Frank created George Jr's recession? A perfect example of ideological reasoning. And that is the point. Romney's baggage is ideologues - that you demonstrate.

Extremism is a greatest threat to America, its allies, America's relationship with it allies, the avoidance of war, the anti-nuclear proliferation treaty, another Cold War, economic health, an increasing American standard of living, and the innovations necessary to create solutions to all of our problems.

Romney has a problem that McCain had. That is the point. You demonstrate the baggage that Romney brings to the White House.

You demonstrate how dangerous a Romney presidency would be for everyone in America and the world. It is not a pretty picture - as if we ignore disasters created by George Jr to do it all over again. Because Limbaugh said it was good. That is the point. You demonstrate the rhetoric and lies found in an extremist political agenda.

It was no accident that you lied about a 2007 George Jr recession created by a 2010 law. That mistake is only possible when your conclusion was made by ignoring reality and well known facts.

Nobody is going to prove otherwise to you. That is the point. Extremists have conclusion by even ignoring facts and reality. The people that Romney, unfortunately, brings to the White House.

I agree -- that's why I don't bother thinking about Santorum. He was too right wing for me, and I knew he would be too right wing for the country.

I keep asking you to support your argument that the Pope called for Church doctrine to be imposed on American law.

You keep avoiding it -- because it isn't true??


I'm pragmatic, not extreme. If Obama's policies worked, I'd say "Hallelujah!", and vote for him.

But they haven't worked.

So bending the constitution every way he pleases, doesn't make Obama an extremist? Building more national debt than any President EVER, doesn't make him an extremist? Taking over the health care industry, doesn't make him an extremist?

Get out!

Nope, I just had the wrong name of the bill, on my mind at the time. The current crisis was caused by a change in the fed law and policies, designed to enable a much greater percentage of home ownership.

Congressman Barney Franks was on the committee that oversaw Freddie Mac and Fanney Mae, and testified just six months before the housing market crash, that both these agencies were in good sound financial health. Of course, that was a lie, and they had to be bailed out, shortly thereafter.

That, and the derivatives from Wall St. (which totaled more than a TRILLION dollars of liability), brought about this economic problem.

There were other actions by the feds that helped bring it about, as well, but they were relatively minor.

its hilarious that the entire rest of the developed world regards Obama as a center-right moderate and yet you think he's some kind of extremist.

Obama is extremely moderate. He more than sold out the left wing of the party - he threw the left wing under the bus by extending the disastrous Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, by gutting health care reform by passing what was, four years ago, a CONSERVATIVE plan for insurance mandates without a public option, by expanding extrajudicial execution of even American citizens abroad, by refusing to close Gitmo...

Anywhere else in the western world, Obama would be a moderate conservative. Only in the minds of right-wing nutcases like you, Adak, is Obama even remotely extremist.

I must admit, over here we all get the giggleshits when American pundits refer to Obama as a 'socialist'.

The GOP can't use "communist" to scare voters any more, so the new boogeyman is a "socialist".

I agree with you about the unsustainability of a policy that spends a trillion dollars a year more than we collect in revenues. We agree on that point, but I feel our views diverge sharply immediately after that agreement.

glatt's right. go re-read his post.

Also, the interest on any debt we have already incurred is fixed. It doesn't "increase by just a couple percent". Any increase in our borrowing costs will be known at the time we borrow, and frankly is set by the world attitude about the safety and reliability of return for money invested in Treasury Bonds. Do you know how much it costs to borrow this money? Take a guess.

Any chance...?

Flint, thanks for your patience. Here's what I see in your first description.

check. for the purposes of this thought exercise, let's start here.

and this logically follows

and this logically follows.

paying less taxes logically produces this result, fine.

this is where I get stuck.

I think you're saying this small business owned by someone who gets their income from that business will have more money since less money is being paid in taxes. Ok. BUT. What is this stimulation? There aren't more sales (no logical argument being made for this proposition). More money isn't *coming in*, they're just not paying as much in taxes. What's the business going to do with this marginal amount of additional money? How is this stimulation? There's no way the amount would be enough to justify hiring someone. I have read that the cost of an employee ranges from 1.25 to 1.4 times the base salary.
hm... well, sidetracking myself, perhaps a "small business" could have a tax burden that 20% of which would represent enough savings to pay for a new employee... maybe. However! I find it *counterintuitive* to say the least that the first thing a business would want to do with newfound cash is to hire new people. Business are built to increase profit, not to expand employment opportunities. Their reason for existence is to increase profits and they take the path or least resistance to do so.

But I digress.

All this is moot, since Romney's plan is to make the changes to the tax code REVENUE NEUTRAL. This is service to his pledge to avoid increasing the deficit, which would be a logical result of lower tax revenues as we have previously established. So, respectfully, your point Romney's point that businesses would be stimulated by the increased unchanged revenue/tax burden is supported by wishful thinking only. This is my primary complaint.

by "broadening the base", meaning more money is subject to taxation by the result of fewer deductions. No one telling this story has provided any understandable, reasonable justification for the growth that is required to fulfill these promises. It's like 1 + 1 + 1 = 5. It just doesn't add up, when you look at each point. It's fine to just assert "5", but it's not rational.

Ok, this is the base broadening part I mentioned a moment ago...

But this doesn't follow logically in my mind. How can households pay the same amount of tax if they have fewer deductions, meaning their taxable income is greater? Or are you saying broader base, fewer deductions, lower rates, same tax amount?

Never mind the math(s).

4.a is explicitly contradictory with 2. Slipping in "also" and "end up" doesn't help.

This is true--as people will follow human nature, businesses will do what it is natural for them to do. This is the fundamental idea behind policies designed to 'piggyback' on people's natural tendencies--as opposed to 'engineering' results.

For example, business A. pays slightly less in taxes, they will invest this in growing their business, thus growing their profit (assuming the same margin, getting 'bigger' produces more revenue). So, they add production, increase output, and service new customers. Every part of the industry they are a part of incrementally increases in capacity.

Is it a direct a direct correlation--they made enough extra to justify hiring a set amount of additional staff? No, probably they will try to get more productivity out of their existing employees, have them work longer hours and such.

But the point is that when business capacity grows, at some point you will need additional workers to do that work. The industry certainly doesn't exist just to hire people, but all of those businesses will need to hire people to get that extra stuff done. The bigger they are, the more they make, the more workers they need.

That's the basic idea--businesses WANT to grow so they can make more money!

Oh, and when they make more money, there is more to tax.

The way I understood it is because the rate is lower.

My apologies, I couldn't figure out a good way to diagram that Point 1. and Point 4. happen at the same time. If the tax rate going down and the deductions being eliminated happen at the same time, they cancel each other out--there is no net effect.

Theoretically, mind you. I'm just trying to explain what I thout the idea was, since I did not find it to be confusing, but rather simple.

I question this line of thinking because American (non-financial) corporations are sitting on $5 trillion, yes that's a T, in cash reserves.

But we're talking about small businesses--think Hank Hill's boss on King of the Hill. Buck Strickland wants to make more money to spend on gambling and hookers. He can't increase his margin, so to make more he has to get bigger. He has to add customers, he has to increase capacity, and he ends up needing another truck driver to make those extra deliveries.

You need more customers in order to expand. Businesses don't just expand because they have extra money, they expand because demand is higher for their product/service (and they can't squeeze any more out of their current resources).

And that means more cash is needed in the consumer's pocket. In most cases, small business customers are the middle class. Give the middle class more cash and they will buy more with it which will give small businesses reason to expand.

Right now, corporate cash is at an all time high. Why? Not enough demand for products to justify expansion. Why? Not enough cash in the middle class's pocket with which to buy more products.