Republican Front Runner

[T Beek]

 

[iddee]

Dang, Bjorn, don't talk logical. You're confusing Tbeek.

[kathyp]

Excuse me I gotta go... ahh .. I need to cast a tie breaking vote in ... ahh ... There is a real important place I gotta be at ...ahh...Hey Mitt where am I goin?" 

sounds a lot like Obama and Biden!

i'm with Bjorn on this.  we already hired the guy who could do the wonderful debate and give the great speech.  obviously, given his record, there is more to being president that that!!

[T Beek]

Dang, Bjorn, don't talk logical. You're confusing Tbeek.

Thanks for the support and input iddee

Always interesting and telling to see 'who' gets admonished and by whom (and for what) around here, even more interesting and telling is 'who' is excluded (over and over).

If the remaining GOP choices weren't so sad (w/ exception of Paul & Buddy 'IMO' only) and there wasn't so much at stake, it would be comical (thank goodness for Jon Stewart  and his 'intelligent' analysis for those who can handle truth, even when funny ).  

Does anyone really think or have faith that Romney believes a 15% tax rate will be good for everyone (you know, good for the goose)?  

Or is that just for his friends and benefactors?  Follow the/his money for answers.  That 15% would be great for those of us (the majority) 'earning' under 100K and now paying a 33-35% rate, but wait...that 15% rate is for 'unearned' income and 'most' of us (non-rich) don't have much (if any) of that  .  

Mitt has pretty much admitted that he's been living off 'unearned' income (some might say off the backs of those he capitalised) for the last ten years, must be nice heh?  Yeah, I wanna be like Mitt

What will we do?  Stay tuned for more of the same from the GOP.  We are in so much trouble and the divisions grow deeper by the same folks we entrust w/ our very lives, then self-perpetuated in places like this.

Makes me want to shout the old mantra "COME ON HOME AMERICA."

The 'only' clear solution from the GOP;  Replace Obama! (and now because 'he can speak well' or is it 'slick')

thomas

[kathyp]

Always interesting and telling 'who' gets admonished and by whom (and for what) around here, even more interesting and telling is 'who' is excluded (over and over).

you got that whole chip on the shoulder thing going on, don't you?  what?  you want people just to agree and pat you on the head when you are wrong?

i'd like to see 15% on all taxes, but it is good for any of us who have had the sense to invest....anyone with an investment retirement account, for instance.  i know that's a foreign idea to many union people who are given stuff without having to plan for anything.  for the rest of us, we look forward to eating when we retire.

he had to earn the money (higher tax rate) before he could invest (good for economy), to get that lower rate on investment return.  investments involve RISK.  again, something about which many have no clue.

[T Beek]

Right, and I'm confused

Still watching the little picture, heh?

thomas

[iddee]

 

Let's take a closer look. You buy stock with money you have already paid tax on.
The company makes a lot of money, and pays tax on it.
They give you a bit of what is left after taxes.
Then you are taxed at 15% on the tad bit you get back. Usually about 3% of what you invested annually.
And you think this third round of taxation is just too small a percentage.

Now, I started my investing with 25.00 to the local power co. in a drp in 1986. All my investments are now paying me approx. what SS pays me in my retirement, which isn't very much after 55 years on the public labor market.

So you think they should be taking more than 15% of my dividends in a third taxation on my money.

THANKS A LOT!

[T Beek]

Only if those dividends are worth millions iddee .  You really don't realise that you're being gamed, do you?  Do you think for a minute that the Romney's of America would ever 'settle' for a measly 3% return?

There are lots of assumptions in your statement, starting with whether 'any' tax was ever paid by many at all income levels, particularly the well off.  Did you know (they don't teach it in our schools) the original intent of our 'income tax' was to tax exactly the type of income Romney lives on, not wages 'earned' through labor, but capital income, money made from money (yours, mine and everyone elses).  Funny how things change (stay the same), heh?

To not recognise that the well-off have 'all' the advantages economically (its their game, their rules) and to applaud their greed (maybe wishing for some of that wealth too), which has successfully created our 'incredibly shrinking America' is like forgetting to breath IMO, just mine now .

As a result of so many 5 watt bulbs sitting, or wanting to sit in 100 watt sockets as our leaders , America's unifying ethic of "we're all in this together" has been usurped and supplanted by a dispirited, plutocratic, selfishness, while scorning 'any and all'' public interest as idealogically impure and ruiness to business.  

We as a nation are slowly being pushed toward the 'money rules all' jungle, where 'everyone is on their own' and matters of justice, general welfare, equality, tranquility and prosperity are just for those who can get their own.  

Some are currently calling this American exceptionalism .  My version looks slightly (actually a lot) different.

This past November, Stanford University issued a "map of prosperity' based on family incomes confirming a middle class decline of nearly 20% since 1970.  The significance of this map isn't just the increased poverty (up by over 13 million over past decade), but the clear and ever widening separation between the rich and the rest of us, effectively producing the two tiered society 'we the people' used to only think of as existing south of the border or the other side of the world.  

How/why has that become accepted by so many?  Indoctrination certainly helps.  Laziness in a 'free' society is no excuse for ignorance.

There are many working toward turning 'their' (our elected and their masters) failures into inspiration for future generations.  Not everyone has bought into the ME FIRST mantra.

First step is to make sure that those who 'profited' the most off the alleged economic crisis (their game, their rules), they helped create also insure (one way or the other) that 'their incurred' debt doesn't get passed on to anyones grandkids but their own.

Despite my aversion to 'cherry-picking' the words of Americas founders I'll leave you with this one which is completely 'in context' to the discussion it was derived from.

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."       -Thomas Jefferson 1816

If troubled times teach us anything, for many (although rarely enough), its just incentive to get up off our butts and get busy 'making change happen' instead of just gripping and/or repeating what 'feels right' today.

Until next time

thomas

[kathyp]

To not recognise that the well-off have 'all' the advantages economically (its their game, their rules) and to applaud their greed (maybe wishing for some of that wealth too), which has successfully created our 'incredibly shrinking America' is like forgetting to breath IMO, just mine now .

speaking of assumptions.....even if you were correct that the wealthy....you know...those who pay the majority of the taxes....have all the advantages, so what?  that has no impact on your ability to earn, or earn more, or invest....

what "incredibly shrinking America?

We as a nation are slowly being pushed toward the 'money rules all' jungle, where 'everyone is on their own' and matters of justice, general welfare, equality, tranquility and prosperity are just for those who can get their own.

so we are being pushed toward a nanny state where the government makes sure it's all "fair"....but more fair for some than for others.  want to see the middle class destroyed?  this is the quickest way.  you will have the dependent, and the wealthy, who will indeed have bought their position.

This past November, Stanford University issued a "map of prosperity' based on family incomes confirming a middle class decline of nearly 20% since 1970.  The significance of this map isn't just the increased poverty (up by over 13 million over past decade), but the clear and ever widening separation between the rich and the rest of us, effectively producing the two tiered society 'we the people' used to only think of as existing south of the border or the other side of the world. 

link please!

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."       -Thomas Jefferson 1816

yes, well, kind of hard to do that when you have a government in bed with multiple companies and labor unions, isn't it?  there is no challage to a government that is willingly coerced by both.

[cbuchh48]

    Welcome back, Thomas. I've missed your breath of fresh air on this board.

[sterling]

In Tbeeks long post there, he is criticizing what he thinks America is turning into. And criticizing the republican candidates. He seems to have forgotting who is running this country right now.

Not one of the republican candidates in this race is responsible for what is going on in this country right now. The far left party is in charge right now and Tbeek is trying to blame some one else. Give credit where credit is due.

Tbeek is alltime talking about how much he knows about history. And I often wonder why he never tells the history of the communist influence in his beloved unions such as the AFL CIO. Or the communist campaigning for LBJ, you know the Great Society president. Or the communist influence in the White House today.

[cbuchh48]

In Tbeeks long post there, he is criticizing what he thinks America is turning into. And criticizing the republican candidates. He seems to have forgotting who is running this country right now.

Not one of the republican candidates in this race is responsible for what is going on in this country right now. The far left party is in charge right now and Tbeek is trying to blame some one else. Give credit where credit is due.

Tbeek is alltime talking about how much he knows about history. And I often wonder why he never tells the history of the communist influence in his beloved unions such as the AFL CIO. Or the communist campaigning for LBJ, you know the Great Society president. Or the communist influence in the White House today.

WOW!! McCarthyism has returned. 

[iddee]

Careful, folks. Don't get personal and get the thread locked. TBeek and I are having too much ribbing each other to have it shut down. 

[kathyp]

WOW!! McCarthyism has returned.

actually....McCarthy was right.  guess you could take issue with method, but not accuracy.

[SEEYA]

>>.McCarthy was right.
 
I think that is the scariest statement I have read on this forum!

>> Replace Obama! (and now because 'he can speak well' or is it 'slick')
Before; he was a dummy with a TelePrompter, and he would fold up, debating Romney or Gingrich or Santorum or....

Back to the topic: Is Newt going to slip by Mitt? This whole GOP primary must be leaving a bad taste in some TEA PARTY'ers mouths.
Gingrich and his open marriage? Does anybody remember how he carried on about Clinton and Monica?

[kathyp]

McCarthy was right.

he was.  that's a fact of history.  when they began to look for communist infiltration into everything, especially government, they found it.  that's Nixon's first congressional claim to fame.  he was the one who dug out Alger Hiss.

the hunt for communists was not run by McCarthy.  he  was simply loud about it and had some ideas about what should be done with them when found    he wasn't even on the investigative committee.

when the soviet union fell and we got to see a lot of the KGB files, it was amazing to learn what they had been up to.  we always knew that they had spies in govt.  we knew that they were movers in union groups.  other things we suspected and didn't know for sure, like their involvement in the "peace" movements of the '60's and even the civil rights movement.

unbunch your panties.  i'm not saying that the anti-war movement or the civil rights movements were communist.  they did seek to exploit our unrest hoping to break us from the inside.  much less bloody and less expensive that going to war!

[BjornBee]

    Thank you for never leaving kathyp! Your breath of fresh air on this board is much appreciated!

[BlueBee]

    Thank you for never leaving T Beek!  Your breath of fresh air on this board is much appreciated!

[kathyp]

great!!  so we are all breathing fresh air....or something!!   

[iddee]

""great!!  so we are all breathing fresh air....or something!!""

AKA halitosis.