Page 5 of 100
Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 1:27 pm
by Malcolm
Goddamnit, Newt. Goddamn you for making me agree with you.
Former Republican presidential contender Newt Gingrich has joined a growing number of Republicans in criticizing Mitt Romney for saying he lost the election because President Obama gave "gifts" to minorities such as African-Americans and Latinos.
"I just think it's nuts," Gingrich told Martha Raddatz on Sunday on ABC's This Week. "I mean, first of all, it's insulting."
He gets to his normal batshit insanity by the last paragraph, but he starts off sounding reasonable.
Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 1:48 pm
by Leisher
I agree that Mitt didn't lose the election because of gifts.
Hell, the black vote alone proved that. Obama got over 95% of the black vote the last two elections because of racism, not gifts.
However, I do believe it to be a fact that many, many, many people vote Democrat because the Dems support and create programs that get these specific voters free money, education, housing, cell phones, etc.
I thought his comment was an extension of his earlier 47% comment. Truthfully, how off the mark was that comment? If 47% of Americans don't pay taxes, I'd be interested in seeing how many of that 47% vote Democrat.
Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 1:50 pm
by TPRJones
Romney was right. The part not mentioned is that Republicans do the same shit for their rich business buddies. They're all buying votes, the Democrats were just better at it this time around.
Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 1:53 pm
by Leisher
And the Republican responses reek of: "Fuck, he's telling the truth! Distance ourselves from those comments immediately to make us seem to be in league with the common man!"
Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 2:31 pm
by Malcolm
Do they both give away shit? Yeah. Do I think giving away shit was the key to winning? No more than a new coat of wax on your car makes the engine perform better. Does it contribute to the car having a better appearance? Sure.
1) Obama won
2) He gave (still does) provide things to taxpayers for "free"
If Mitt were claiming these things independently, I wouldn't be faulting him. While the above two items are related, (2) is not the primary cause of (1). He sounds like a pouty-ass, sore loser at this point. Again, a great way to endear the party to people is NOT implying that the people are bought and sold like commodities. They are, but you don't come out and fucking say it to them.
Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 1:45 pm
by Malcolm
Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 2:04 pm
by Leisher
The problem isn't taxes or tax cuts, it's the fact that we're spending so much money that there's a debate about raising taxes. Nobody can argue that eventually that well will dry up.
Why then? Shouldn't that be the problem we're fixing?
Instead of trying to increase revenue by taking it from the job creators, shouldn't we be cutting costs on citizens and businesses so they can spend more into our economy?
Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 2:06 pm
by GORDON
I can't see any way the republicans don't get blamed for the "cliff," so of course botox nancy is all for it.
Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 2:38 pm
by Malcolm
They're fucked up enough right now that they can't mount an appropriate defense. They should just fucking disband and regroup.
Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 2:45 pm
by TheCatt
Revenues (taxes) as % of GDP have fallen 33% since 2000. We're 19% across the 90's. 15% the past few years.
So, historically, taxes are below recent averages.
Good graph of revenue sources over time
At any rate... a) we spend too much b) we should probably tax a little more, is my conclusion. I would have accepted the 1:4 tax rate:spending decrease plan of the original debt commission.
Just pay off the damned debt. Right now, these kids are arguing over saving 1 penny or 2 pennies, but still borrowing quarters.
Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 3:03 pm
by TPRJones
I'm all for going over that cliff at full speed.
No better way to spark an armed revolution, and we could certainly use one of those.
Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 3:04 pm
by TheCatt
Yeah, at this point, we may as well go over... fuck me on taxes, but whatever. At least the debt would start going down.
Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 3:06 pm
by GORDON
Just consider it's going to be a double rape... Obamacare also kicks in 2014, and if you think your health insurance costs aren't going to go up then... I think you're wrong.
Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 3:44 pm
by Malcolm
Ah, it's a good time not to have any dependents.
Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 3:50 pm
by GORDON
Malcolm wrote:Ah, it's a good time not to have any dependents.
I don't know this for sure, but I have a feeling the "free" health insurance is going to be taken from the "Earned Income Credit" that poor people with dependents get at tax time... for example, people with little income and who pay zero income taxes with 3 dependents get a check for $10k. That is EIC.
And I have a feeling Obamacare is going to cut into that free candy, and poor peeps will be pissed.
Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 4:14 pm
by Malcolm
You still haven't read this yet, have you? The give-take game can be played for years, especially in a society like this where litigation is everything and moves slower than a sarlaac's digestive system.
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 9:57 am
by GORDON
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:12 am
by Leisher
The "Build a Death Star" petition now has enough signatures that the White House must respond to it.
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 10:17 am
by TheCatt
Obama does not support legalislation of marijuana.
You know, cuz not yet 51% of America does.
I mean, I'm happy that he thinks this:
President Obama: Busting marijuana users in Washington, Colorado is not a federal ‘top priority’
But come on man, have a fucking spine.
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 10:30 am
by Malcolm
He's secretly saying, "Until we need to round up some more cash by arbitrarily raiding offices and fining the fuck out of them."