You can invest in foreign companies too. No one is stopping you. Foreign companies invest in American markets as well you know. They just pay 35% to do so… So seeing as the market here sucks, the President is spouting off about how small businesses aren’t as important as the government and they only keep 65% of their income, while they can invest in a developing nation that actually has growth, better tax rates and a system that isn’t going to take 35% of their money, what do you think they are going to do?
I never claimed or intentionally implied you were stupid, sorry if any of my posts came off that way.[/quote]
You mean people would rather invest in areas where not only the labor is cheaper, but they also do not have to deal with pesky labor unions, de facto confiscation of their property if the wrong kind of critter wanders onto their land and where they are not constantly vilified?
It’s okay to de-regulate and encourage companies to have their manufacturing done overseas, even if it means people losing jobs here. Great idea, just what we need. Our country is a nation full of shopping malls and fast food joints, we produce jack shit because a CEO’s priority is his or her investors. If they can ship labor, or sales overseas (which so many have) that’s extra cash. How dare I get upset about that. I mean, why should I be complaining when someone who makes a business decision as such to increase his and his friends profits, while making those they used to employ jobless. Brilliant ideas, just brilliant. Good and Christian too. Gonna make a whole lot of jobs since the profits trickle down so well, and there are so many brilliant points of light, and compassionate conservatives… Quit being silly, I’m not stupid.
. [/quote]
Before this whole clusterfuck of an economy the US have been a net gainer in jobs.
So, not only where there more jobs due to globalization, they also got loads of cheap stuff because it was produced in China.
And yes, people lose their jobs when they get bought up, sliced and sold, but the overall economy benefits because the resources they used to command are now used more efficiently.
What he did for a living is an indispensable part of a healthy economy, its like saying that vultures or sharks are icky because they prey on the weak.
Yeah well, they do, but you would not want to see an ecosystem without them.
On the other hand, here’s a big unanswered question about Romney that he could settle TODAY if he wanted to, but he won’t. It’s only a problem for Romney because he’s allowing it to become a problem. It’s a problem that Romney CAN fix, but he WON’T. So, why not? [/quote]
But it isn’t a big unanswered question. The American electorate isn’t baying for the release of the tax returns. The only folks interested in Romney’s tax returns are the Obama campaign.
And why do they want them? To change the subject. Romney’s personal finances aren’t especially relevant to his governance (unless there is some current conflict of interest). They only want them to demagogue them to changes the subject.
And can I blame the Obama campaign? Not really. What’s left to talk about? Obama (quietly) reverses the Clinton welfare-to-work reforms by executive order, and Obama needs to saturate the media with “what’s Romney hiding?!?!?!” to avoid the obvious bi-partisan backlash of his incredibly poor but self-serving decision.
Further, we are teetering on a recession - change the subject.
And yes, if Romney’s tax returns are demanded to be relevant, Obama’s academic transcripts are relevant too.
And why wouldn’t he change the subject? A recent CBS-NYT poll has Romney up one over the President, and Obama’s favorability rating - long one of his strengths - is now woefully underwater at 28%-52% with independents:
Fifty-four percent of registered voters cite the economy and jobs as “extremely” important in their presidential vote, more than any other issue. Here Romney has the edge: 49 percent of registered voters say he would do a better job handling the economy and jobs, while 41 percent cite Mr. Obama. Romney is also seen as better on the federal budget deficit (50 percent to 36 percent), taxes (47 percent to 42 percent) and illegal immigration (46 percent to 38 percent). Mr. Obama as seen as better on foreign policy (47 percent to 40 percent) and social issues (48 percent to 37 percent). Views of the candidates on health care and terrorism were split. Thirty-eight percent of registered voters say Mr. Obama cares a lot about their needs and problems, compared to 25 percent who say the same of Romney.
And Romney has barely spent a dime telling his story.
I counter your non-issue with an actual issue. You know, what someone is doing to try and help the country, so we might discuss if it is a good or bad implimentation of a great idea:
Fifty-four percent of registered voters cite the economy and jobs as “extremely” important in their presidential vote, more than any other issue. Here Romney has the edge: 49 percent of registered voters say he would do a better job handling the economy and jobs, while 41 percent cite Mr. Obama. Romney is also seen as better on the federal budget deficit (50 percent to 36 percent), taxes (47 percent to 42 percent) and illegal immigration (46 percent to 38 percent). Mr. Obama as seen as better on foreign policy (47 percent to 40 percent) and social issues (48 percent to 37 percent). Views of the candidates on health care and terrorism were split. Thirty-eight percent of registered voters say Mr. Obama cares a lot about their needs and problems, compared to 25 percent who say the same of Romney.
And Romney has barely spent a dime telling his story.[/quote]
And that’s the encouraging part to me TB. Romney is now sitting on a gigantic load of money raised from those of us who are tired of this President and his left wing failed policies. However, Romney is being very careful spending only enough to fend off attacks as he knows what I’ve been saying for months on end. Most people (who have not yet made up their mind) do not start paying attention until after Labor Day. So while Romney is being out spent now he will more than likely out spend Obama by more than 2-1 when a political ad will have far more power the final two months of the campaign. With that said Obama must spend heavily now in order to keep teh race even and get the topic off the very poor job he’s done as President. The culmination of his poor economic decisions seem to be blooming as the weeks pass. As his former Pastor would say the chickens are coming home to roost!
Here is an excellent article on the Romney strategy.
[quote]K2000 wrote:
Seems like the consensus here is this:
You guys think NOT revealing his taxes is a big WIN for Romney’s campaign (I don’t see the logic there, but hey, it’s PWI). Nobody could actually explain the GAIN there, but on the other hand, it’s easy to imagine he’s doing it to hide something. By not releasing, Romney insures that this will be a question that lasts all the way up to election day. Romney is relatively unknown to voters – not releasing keeps him a mystery. I don’t think voters want a mystery president, with looming questions (is he hiding money in offshore bank account? etc.) Just my opinion.
You guys wish this thread was about anything else but Romney’s taxes (ZEB) or wish this thread was about Obama’s school transcripts, and one joker who still thinks the president’s birth certificate is questionable. Way to dodge the question, guys. I wonder if voters will accept a dodge, too?
Most people don’t give a shit what Obama’s grades were. He’s obviously smart. If Obama was campaigning on his great scholarship record, then maybe there would be the same interest in his transcripts. But he’s not. However, Romney’s running SPECIFICALLY on his financial expertise, but he doesn’t want anybody to examine his finances. That’s a huge question mark. Too bad you can’t see it.
Do you think the media likes unanswered questions (like WHY won’t he release his tax forms?) I know one of you guys will bring up the birth certificate… Hawaii did release his birth certificate, they just didn’t release it to every dipshit who demanded it (they got thousand s of requests). Also, withholding that wasn’t Obama’s call, it was a decision by the state of Hawaii.
When Romney releases his tax returns, will that be a flip-flop?
[/quote]
Obama is trying to dodge his four years of total failure by even bringing up Romeny’s tax returns. How foolish, yet it’s his only chance to get the voters attention off of his dismal record as President. And…I bet if fails![/quote]
What the heck are you talking about???
Romney is the one who insists on making his tax returns an ongoing story, by refusing to do what other candidates have done for the past 30 years or more. Romney could make this story go away, by releasing his tax returns ASAP. But he doesn’t. Romney is dragging it out. So, instead of everybody talking about Obama’s record, Romney is completely BLOWING his opportunity to focus the media on Obama.
Hmm, maybe this is a Romney rope-a-dope? Maybe Romney will wait and let this story build up, and bring Democrats out on a limb, only to embarrass them by revealing his tax returns are hiding nothing? Like the same way Obama clowned all the birthers by allowing them to speculate wildly then BAM. STFU! Could it be some 12th dimensional chess being played by Romney? Is he laying a trap?
[/quote]
You should know better but you don’t. Romney has released the same number of years of tax returns as Ronald Reagan and every other candidate who has run for President over the past 50 years and that is the most recent two years. If he released two more years what would that prove? Would Obama then want two or three more years after that?
There is no story here none. Only a desperate President trying to hang on to his job by trying to create an issue where none exists.[/quote]
Wrong. Here’s a list:
Romney’s record is fair game for scrutiny. If he wants to claim business expertise, then show your business records. Or let people wonder. That would be fine with me too
[/quote]
The site you have posted speaks mostly to sitting Presidents releasing their tax returns AFTER being elected. For example, Reagan ran in 1980 for the first time and he released two years tax returns, same as Romney. Yet, your site does not show his 1980 release.
I counter your non-issue with an actual issue. You know, what someone is doing to try and help the country, so we might discuss if it is a good or bad implimentation of a great idea:
[/quote]
You will have to excuse me , I fail to get the correlation of Obama submitting a bill to fund teachers and a Presidential Candidate that flip flops for what ever is convenient and may have committed a crime by telling two different stories in writing .
[quote]ZEB wrote:
It’s called class ware fare, dividing America pitting one economic class against another in order to win an election. What a high minded person Obama is. What hope and change he has inspired.
LOL[/quote]
It IS class warfare, but not in the way you pretend it is. Investment income is taxed at less than half the rate that work is. That is simply not fair to working people who don’t enjoy the luxury of investment income. It’s class warfare but it’s coming from the top down, not the bottom up.[/quote]
Wrong, why should anyone pay twice on their money? You are penalizing EVERYONE by having a capital gains tax. Keep in mind that this tax effects the average Joe who sells his house, or has a bank account. This just doesn’t harm those who invest in stocks. Would you propose to raise the capital gains tax and harm those in the middle class?
Let me use a variation of Obama’s line back at you. No one gets rich alone. If I decide to start a popcycle factory because I have an extra 5 million dollars and I need 150 people to run production lines and sell my product tell me who wins?
I win if my risk pays off. And the many people that I’ve hired now have jobs for the first time, or they’ve quit a previous job and came to work for me because I have offered them more money.
In addition to that both myself and my employees have more money and are able to spend more money in the economy causing other peoples business to flourish as well.
Who loses when the investment class has more money to invest?
NO ONE!
Who wins?
EVERYONE!
Now you’re resorting to out right lies. The fact is that the Bush tax cuts did create almost 6 million jobs according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics
[quote]
June 2001: 132,047,000 people employed
January 2008: 137,996,000 people employed
Increase during that six-and-a-half-year period: 5,949,000 people[/quote]
Tell me again how taking money out of the hands of those who create jobs causes more jobs to be created? How does that even make sense?
I counter your non-issue with an actual issue. You know, what someone is doing to try and help the country, so we might discuss if it is a good or bad implimentation of a great idea:
[/quote]
You will have to excuse me , I fail to get the correlation of Obama submitting a bill to fund teachers and a Presidential Candidate that flip flops for what ever is convenient and may have committed a crime by telling two different stories in writing .
[/quote]
One story is about governance, and how the country is being run.
The other story is about whether one camp did or did slander a canidate. Now if you posted a link to an article about what Romney did or didn’t do, then it would be a story about whether or not he is soft selling his involvment in private business activities over a decade ago. Which, if you believe the Obama camp, did not translate to his actions as governor of MA. Because from what I understand the Obama camp is trying to sell him as an evil doer that will erode jobs, well I posted a link a page back or so about Romney’s record in MA.
Here is another story more relevant to the conversation of: who should be president, than Bain’s SEC filings:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Romney has something to hide. His father was famous for his desire for transparency, and he was an open book when it came to his taxes… Guess the fruit fell far away from the tree, at least when it comes to transparency and taxes. Why would Romney be so against something his father supported, that was actually quite noble and honest?
Bugs the crap out of a lot of republicans in office, but unsurprisingly none here. [/quote]
He released the same number of tax years as Ronald Reagan did when he ran in 1980. And for that matter the same number as the majority of candidates since Jimmy Carter.
You want there to be an issue here because that takes our attention away from Obama’s failed Presidency.
How come Obama isn’t running on his record? Why isn’t he criss crossing the nation bragging about all of his accomplishments?
There are no accomplishments…so he’s left with asking for more years of Romney’s tax records.
It’s actually quite funny and at the same time pathetic.
Strategically, Romney will most likely release several more years of tax returns at a time that is most bothersome to Obama. And they will show that–GASP-- he’s a rich guy!
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I do not understand how ? any one can come up with the same FACT , that Romney is a big fucking LIAR [/quote]
He’s a big meany too…um and he’s rich so he’s automatically evil.[/quote]
Yet the same people that want to call Romney a liar will support Obama who has actual lies on record. sigh
He may be a liar, but at least he’s not going to try and destroy this country.
[/quote]
You maybe right Obama probably has lied also . But the problem I have with Romney is he is not a very good liar . Chose any subject and you can see him change his story for what ever is prudent for the moment .
I do not remember wher I heard it but some where I heard “the best liar lies least”
You will have to excuse me , I fail to get the correlation of Obama submitting a bill to fund teachers and a Presidential Candidate that flip flops for what ever is convenient and may have committed a crime by telling two different stories in writing .[/quote]
Romney didn’t commit a crime, and two leading Bain higher-ups (and supporters of the Democratic Party) have confirmed no crime took place.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Chose any subject and you can see him change his story for what ever is prudent for the moment .
[/quote]
Oh he flip flops like a mother fucker, for sure.
But then again look at Obama’s claims about 1) individual mandate 2) staffing involving Wall St bigwigs before he was POTUS, and then what he did once he was POTUS.
They are both slimy mofos. Comes down to which one is giong to steal less of my money.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Chose any subject and you can see him change his story for what ever is prudent for the moment .
[/quote]
Oh he flip flops like a mother fucker, for sure.
But then again look at Obama’s claims about 1) individual mandate 2) staffing involving Wall St bigwigs before he was POTUS, and then what he did once he was POTUS.
They are both slimy mofos. Comes down to which one is giong to steal less of my money.[/quote]
I agree Obama has probably lied but look at any issue Romney has taken a stand
I counter your non-issue with an actual issue. You know, what someone is doing to try and help the country, so we might discuss if it is a good or bad implimentation of a great idea:
[/quote]
You will have to excuse me , I fail to get the correlation of Obama submitting a bill to fund teachers and a Presidential Candidate that flip flops for what ever is convenient and may have committed a crime by telling two different stories in writing .
[/quote]
Obama had a man murdered.
In broad daylight.
For saying things on Youtube that did not please him.
And, in the old tradition of wiping out your enemies offspring so that they cannot take revenge he had his son killed in a separate airstrike one week later.
