marks2065

Another shake of the Etch-a-Sketch. What does Mitt stand for, except saying whatever his audience of the moment wants hear. So you've never mis-spoken and apologized? Obama hasn't :-(

we he is correct to an extent. The projected deficits are based on projected GDP, For every 1% GDP is over the projection it offsets about 1 trillion over ten years due to more tax revenue and less benifits paid to people not working. So Romney can cut tax rates, remove some loop holes, and get an increase in GDP and reduce the deficit at the same time. A quick review of GDP, government revenue and tax rates of the past, say, 30 years indicates that tax rates have very little to do with GDP growth, and a whole lot to do with revenues. It is pie in the sky to believe that cutting tax rates will magically improve GDP and provide revenues to support an increase in defense spending. Maybe if you wear magic underwear... worked before and it would work again. Easy to claim, until you look at the data. looks like it works to mehttp://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?year=2000_2008&view=1&expand=&units=b&fy=fy11&chart=F0-fed&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s

were did I say "increase spending"?

we he is correct to an extent. The projected deficits are based on projected GDP, For every 1% GDP is over the projection it offsets about 1 trillion over ten years due to more tax revenue and less benifits paid to people not working. So Romney can cut tax rates, remove some loop holes, and get an increase in GDP and reduce the deficit at the same time. A quick review of GDP, government revenue and tax rates of the past, say, 30 years indicates that tax rates have very little to do with GDP growth, and a whole lot to do with revenues. It is pie in the sky to believe that cutting tax rates will magically improve GDP and provide revenues to support an increase in defense spending. Maybe if you wear magic underwear... worked before and it would work again. this time with eliminating loopholes there would be less of a drop in revenue and with the lower tax rates it would make the US more competitive on the global market .

confidence goes a long way to fixing many problems

Name one job that Romney has done that has been a failure. Every job he has done he has been a secsess from the jobs requirements. some people outside that job may have not liked what he has done but his commitmant was not to an individuals likes and disslikes. I feel he will do whats best for America and be a good president for America.

we he is correct to an extent. The projected deficits are based on projected GDP, For every 1% GDP is over the projection it offsets about 1 trillion over ten years due to more tax revenue and less benifits paid to people not working. So Romney can cut tax rates, remove some loop holes, and get an increase in GDP and reduce the deficit at the same time.

Obama lost the debate and needs a boost to offset his loss.

I agree - Romney was far more smooth with his lies than Obama was with his. What lies did he tell? or are you and Obama the same, all talk and no facts? factcheck.org/2012/10/dubious-denver-debate-declarations/ www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/oct/03/fact-checking-denver-presidential-debate/ Plenty of falsehoods and half-truths to go around. After a little reading I find that both are equally wrong at times but I feel that what they were wrong on is important. Romney was wrong on some numbers but he wasn't wrong on the substance. but either way I'll take a change over what we have. Just the posture of the 2 in the debate would make me not vote for Obama. Our president needs to work, not play golf, vacation, and get pissed off when he is pressured. Our president needs to be positive, energetic, and involved in the workings of government. He shouldn't be missing most of the national security meetings. He should be sitting down with both sides working on comprimises and breaking the deadlock on voting in the senate. this president is lazy and out of touch with congress.

Amazing...so money buys hookers and blow...who knew? sex is better when you travel the world and get free local girls and leave for the next tropical island. Does Holly agree? I have never had the money to actually do that but that would be my reasoning to why sex would be better for the rich. But holly and I do have really great sex in the caribean.

3rd quarter 2008 GDP DROPS 3·7% 4th quarter 2008 GDP DROPS 8.9% 510,000 jobs LOST in 4th quarter 2008. Yep that GOP administration sure gave us the good times. what was the first 6 years and what was the average over Bush's 8 years the compare that to Obama's 4 years

Still think he's responsible eh? He is responsible for the 2007 recession in the exact same way that Obama is responsible for 1.3% growth. so you are saying both Bush and Obama are idiots, good now we can move forward and elect someone else.

I agree - Romney was far more smooth with his lies than Obama was with his. What lies did he tell? or are you and Obama the same, all talk and no facts?

Amazing...so money buys hookers and blow...who knew? sex is better when you travel the world and get free local girls and leave for the next tropical island.

the part time jobs has greatly increased, I wonder if that has anything to do with Obamacare? because of the mandatory health ins requirements are employers hiring more part time workers to avoid the insurance mandate?

Well, they interviewed Schneiderman (sp?) on NPR yesterday, and he was hinting very clearly that more charges will follow. We'll see. It is a political move only, if they really wanted to be serious they would have done it 2-3 years ago.

I think it says "vote for Obama and we will see 4 more years of dispair"

Wrong. in canada all non life threatening medical needs for non citizens must be paid at time of service.

I think you'll need to substantiate that claim, Don. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada#Ethnicity per 2006, minority population equals 20% of the population. 2011 population = 33M, or basically California with a much lower level of diversity. Cities like Vancouver have seen a major increase in Chinese and other Asian populations, particularly during the period leading up to the end of Hong Kong as a separate entity, but that's just San Francisco decades earlier. The comment was based only on my personal anecdotal experience/impression from visiting Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa, Vancouver, Atlanta, Washington, Baltimore, Nashville, Miami, Seattle, and San Diego (amongst other cities), all within the last 5 years or so. From what I have read, the US has a higher overall proportion of the population that is "minority", but two groups dominate that: "African-American" (13%) and Hispanic (15%). Obviously the proportion of the population that is of Asian origin is high in certain areas, such as San Francisco, but in those areas other ethnic/racial groups are less numerous. In Canadian cities, a somewhat smaller proportion of the population is composed of "visible minorities", but those people tend to be immigrants from origins more evenly distributed around the world. So, on an average day in Atlanta I may interact with people from 3 or 4 ethnic groups, whereas in Toronto or Ottawa or Vancouver I'll probably hear 8 or 10 different languages being spoken. I suspect San Francisco is more like the Canadian cities, but I think that is not typical of most American cities. Anyway, there is no question that Canada is still pursuing a liberal immigration policy, and much of the population growth is due to immigration, whereas the US is becoming more restrictive. Getting back to the point of this thread, I don't see any reason to link immigration to the fact that so many people do not have health insurance in this country. Don Illegal imigration is the issue. also in canada you can not get health care if you are not a citizen unless you pay for it at time of treatment, that kinda helps keep costs down.

He's a LIAR. His very first statement about tax rates is untrue. Raising the TOP MARGINAL RATE by 5% doesn't increase the tax on a couple earning $250k by $12.5k. How much does it increase? A small business owner earning $251,000 would pay the Bush rate on the first $250,000 and the old Clinton rate on just $1,000. So the tax INCREASE would be 5% of $1000, or $50. It is AMAZING that anyone with a grain of intelligence or math skills could be taken in by the LIE. Clearly it shows the contempt with which Republicans hold US voters. what would be the total tax increases? a few $s here and a few $s there usually ends up being quite a few dollars. You are all worried about the math, most people are worried about an increase. I think we should make everyone pay something if they make over 10k a year. no more freebies to those under 50k.

He's a LIAR. His very first statement about tax rates is untrue. Raising the TOP MARGINAL RATE by 5% doesn't increase the tax on a couple earning $250k by $12.5k. So having established himself as a deliberate LIAR, why should we believe anything at all that he says subsequently? So Dick's numbers are wrong, why don't you give us the correct numbers on all the tax increases for single of married making 250k.

Really? I bet there are quite a few liberals who post here who have never been on welfare. I would be one of them. I was not saying all liberals are collecting welfare, I said liberals like to give welfare instead of making someone support themselves.

Restoring tax rates on the millionaires to Clinton era levels won't destroy the upper class, any more than it was destroyed by Clinton, Reagan, Nixon and Eisenhower tax rates. You forget that under the other administrations we had much less foriegn compition, protecting many. now the foriegn compitition is killing the US and we need to make the system more competitive hear.

A parasite growing inside a woman doesn't change whose body it is whether amoeba, tape worm, or something with the genetic potential for humanity. You can only argue otherwise when you assume ensoulment occurs at the time of conception. Since the First Amendment dictates separation of church and state that can't serve as the basis for laws regarding the matter. I'm an atheist I don't believe in souls. Explain to me then why its okay for women to abort children but not for men. What I mean by men aborting children is that they'd be given the legal right to financially abort the child, no payments to the woman as alimony nor child support for the child. The only solid argument against that is that you can't sign away the child's rights, right to financial support from the parents. Why is it okay for women to violate the child's right to life but it is not okay for the man to violate the child's right to child support? because this isn't a war on women's rights it is a war on the pocket books of americans to pay for women to do what they want. Really? It costs taxpayers far less to provide contraception than to provide AFDC benefits, and no federal tax money goes to provide for abortions. so instead of fixing the issue, which is personal accountability for your actions, you go liberal and just expect everybody else to pay for the lack of responsibility of others. It is simple, make dads pay child support and cut mothers off from any aid if they get pregnant while on aid and see how fast the problem decreases. problem with liberals is that they don't know tough love, they only know welfare.

Sounds good to me, vote for someone that can't win and at the same time take a vote away from Obama to help Romney win