Jump to content

Romney/Ryan


Jamie_B

Recommended Posts

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1344818513' post='1145602']
For me it is now a very easy one issue choice. The last time we had an Ayn Rand disciple in high levels of power he was in part responsible for this mess we are in now. (Greenspan)

Ryan must be stopped.
[/quote]

I think some of the info put out by Rand would not necessarily be such a bad thing. At least compared to "You didn't build that, someone else did" comments made elsewhere. Perhaps if someone acknowledges the individuals accomplishment in todays society instead of the so called collective, we might not sound like a former nation which self imploded.

Greenspan was in office from 1987-2006. In other words, there was a Democrat in there that reappointed him. In other words, nobody is perfect and not all methods employed by others are without fault.

Perhaps the more people who look at what Rand advocated would understand they have some things in common with her.

For instance, Rand "supported philosophical realism, and opposed anything she regarded as mysticism or supernaturalism, including all forms of religion." Knowing this how can someone say he is an adherent of Rand. Perhaps some of her ideas but surely not all of them.

"Objectivism" is not for me but that does not mean I discount everything in its entirety.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Numbers' timestamp='1344881852' post='1145775']
I think some of the info put out by Rand would not necessarily be such a bad thing. [color=#ff0000]At least compared to "You didn't build that, someone else did" [/color]comments made elsewhere. Perhaps if someone acknowledges the individuals accomplishment in todays society instead of the so called collective, we might not sound like a former nation which self imploded.

Greenspan was in office from 1987-2006. In other words, there was a Democrat in there that reappointed him. In other words, nobody is perfect and not all methods employed by others are without fault.

Perhaps the more people who look at what Rand advocated would understand they have some things in common with her.

For instance, Rand "supported philosophical realism, and opposed anything she regarded as mysticism or supernaturalism, including all forms of religion." Knowing this how can someone say he is an adherent of Rand. Perhaps some of her ideas but surely not all of them.

"Objectivism" is not for me but that does not mean I discount everything in its entirety.
[/quote]

Ah yes context is imporant in the red, he was speaking of the infrastructure that allowed said businesses to thrive, much in the same way Elizabeth Warren said in the clip below and he isnt wrong.

Individualism is great but to deny that we live in a society and as such there are things we do better together than on our own (such as infrastructure) would be to deny reality in favor of some wild west sillyness that never really existed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htX2usfqMEs



As far as Rand and Objectivism, the notion that the pursuit of self-interest will somehow take care of the needs of the collective or even the down trodden has been proven wrong in history time and time again, the invisible hand doesnt exist, laissez faire doesnt work. We dont need any more proof than the current economic collapse and the reasons for it to see that.

Ryan would bring us back to the unfettered, unregulated markets that Greenspan believed in...the difference is Greenspan has admitted he was wrong, when will the other Rand disciples?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/13/mitt-romneys-constitutional-amendment-would-bar-paul-ryan-from-the-presidency/"]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/13/mitt-romneys-constitutional-amendment-would-bar-paul-ryan-from-the-presidency/[/url]

[img]http://rlv.zcache.ca/im_mitt_romney_and_i_approve_thiis_message_png-rae302066de0349a3bb597bfa063efd7f_wvk_210.jpg[/img]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1344884388' post='1145785']


Ah yes context is imporant in the red, he was speaking of the infrastructure that allowed said businesses to thrive, much in the same way Elizabeth Warren said in the clip below and he isnt wrong.

Individualism is great but to deny that we live in a society and as such there are things we do better together than on our own (such as infrastructure) would be to deny reality in favor of some wild west sillyness that never really existed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htX2usfqMEs



As far as Rand and Objectivism, the notion that the pursuit of self-interest will somehow take care of the needs of the collective or even the down trodden has been proven wrong in history time and time again, the invisible hand doesnt exist, laissez faire doesnt work. We dont need any more proof than the current economic collapse and the reasons for it to see that.

Ryan would bring us back to the unfettered, unregulated markets that Greenspan believed in...the difference is Greenspan has admitted he was wrong, when will the other Rand disciples?
[/quote]

Greenspan was but one hand in the mess. It truly does take more than one person to reach the heights the mess piled into. Every president between 1987 and 2006 can also take some blame. That is not an all inclusive list. Greenspan did not follow every detail of Rand. Nor will Ryan. Ryan's statement is misunderstood. His favorite philosopher is Thomas Aquinas. Not so sure that is much better.

The individual vs collective needs to meet in the middle in other words.

What is Obama's favorite philosopher ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Numbers' timestamp='1344886476' post='1145797']
Greenspan was but one hand in the mess. It truly does take more than one person to reach the heights the mess piled into. Every president between 1987 and 2006 can also take some blame. That is not an all inclusive list. Greenspan did not follow every detail of Rand. Nor will Ryan. Ryan's statement is misunderstood. His favorite philosopher is Thomas Aquinas. Not so sure that is much better.

The individual vs collective needs to meet in the middle in other words.

What is Obama's favorite philosopher ?
[/quote]

I agree he was one hand in it, I believe I said "in part". ;)

I would suggest that you are wrong here regarding Greenspan and Rand, according to a conversation Brooksley Borne had with him, he didnt even believe in regulating fraud.

I also would suggest you take Ryan's own words - "The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand."


Had to look up Obama's favorite [font="helvetica, arial, sans-serif"][color="#282828"]philosopher appears as if it's Neibuhr, you'll have to enlighten me why the man who wrote the serenity prayer is a bad one to follow. [/color][/font]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1344871729' post='1145733']
Well, well, well....

[url="http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/mitt-romney-would-pay-082-percent-in-taxes-under-paul-ryans-plan/261027/"]http://www.theatlant...ns-plan/261027/[/url]
[/quote]

I don't get this line of thought.

Rich people and other high earners DO pay their tax bracket percentages. They pay an extraordinarily high/skewed amount of ALL taxes compared to everyone else.

Some then take a portion of that 60% of income left over and risk it in the markets for boom, break even or bust. They receive nothing if they lose, and are re-taxed if they win. Its a double jeopardy of sorts.

They've already paid so much more than their "fair share" of taxes on income, and then risk the leftovers to recoup the money they worked for in the first place. There are no guarantees that they come out on top.

And yet, they are demonized. They are the bad guys, and those who leach off the system are not- even though the higher earners pay an incredibly disproportionate amount of taxes and basically support this country in taxable income.

I keep hearing Obama talking about everyone paying their "fair share" of taxes... fair to me means an everyone pays equal amount and feeds into the system. Not half of all people pay nothing, and high earners pay taxes multiple times at incredibly high amounts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='big_dish' timestamp='1344888221' post='1145818']
I don't get this line of thought.

Rich people and other high earners DO pay their tax bracket percentages. They pay an extraordinarily high/skewed amount of ALL taxes compared to everyone else.

Some then take a portion of that 60% of income left over and risk it in the markets for boom, break even or bust. They receive nothing if they lose, and are re-taxed if they win. Its a double jeopardy of sorts.

They've already paid so much more than their "fair share" of taxes on income, and then risk the leftovers to recoup the money they worked for in the first place. There are no guarantees that they come out on top.

And yet, they are demonized. They are the bad guys, and those who leach off the system are not- even though the higher earners pay an incredibly disproportionate amount of taxes and basically support this country in taxable income.

I keep hearing Obama talking about everyone paying their "fair share" of taxes... fair to me means an everyone pays equal amount and feeds into the system. Not half of all people pay nothing, and high earners pay taxes multiple times at incredibly high amounts.
[/quote]

Most of Romney's income was reported as capital gains, meaning he only paid 14% (13.9), I dont know why you think he was paying 40%, he wasnt.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1344888666' post='1145821']
Most of Romney's income was reported as capital gains, meaning he only paid 14% (13.9), I dont know why you think he was paying 40%, he wasnt.
[/quote]

My point is, is that he already paid 40% (+/-) on his income. He was already taxed an incredibly high amount.

He then took that post-tax income, and risked it as investment... and was taxed again on earning... and flat out lost it when the investment was bad.

He paid a ton of taxes already... and re-invested some of the leftover money. Why should he be taxed again and again and again at a ridiculously high rate? He already paid much, much more than his "fair share" the first time around.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I dont invest money... never have, never will- because I already pay what I feel is too much in taxes and dont want to risk losing any more of money... so I'm not a investment defender... I just think they argument that wealthy people arent paying their share of taxes is so off base and so blindly followed by the left that it literally makes no sense to me how anyone could actually believe it as a truth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='big_dish' timestamp='1344889069' post='1145823']
[color=#ff0000]My point is, is that he already paid 40% (+/-) on his income. [/color]He was already taxed an incredibly high amount.

He then took that post-tax income, and risked it as investment... and was taxed again on earning... and flat out lost it when the investment was bad.

He paid a ton of taxes already... and re-invested some of the leftover money. Why should he be taxed again and again and again at a ridiculously high rate? He already paid much, much more than his "fair share" the first time around.
[/quote]

No. He didnt.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[url="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/30/stephen-king-tax-me-for-f-s-sake.html"]http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/30/stephen-king-tax-me-for-f-s-sake.html[/url]




[quote]
[b] [size=5]Stephen King: Tax Me, for F@%&’s Sake![/size][/b]

[color=#363636][font=Arial, sans-serif]The iconic writer scolds the superrich (including himself—and Mitt Romney) for not giving back, and warns of a Kingsian apocalyptic scenario if inequality is not addressed in America.[/font][/color]


[url="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/10/02/why-liberals-should-leave-chris-christie-s-weight-alone.html"]Chris Christie may be fat[/url][color=#333333][font=Arial, sans-serif], but he ain’t Santa Claus. In fact, he seems unable to decide if he is New Jersey’s governor or its [/font][/color][i]caporegime[/i][color=#333333][font=Arial, sans-serif], and it may be a comment on the coarsening of American discourse that his brash rudeness is often taken for charm. In February, while discussing New Jersey’s newly amended income-tax law, which allows the rich to pay less (proportionally) than the middle class, Christie was asked about Warren Buffett’s observation that he paid less federal income taxes than his personal secretary, and that wasn’t fair. “[/font][/color][url="http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/21/news/economy/chris_christie_warren_buffett/index.htm"]He should just write a check and shut up[/url][color=#333333][font=Arial, sans-serif],” Christie responded, with his typical verve. “I’m tired of hearing about it. If he wants to give the government more money, he’s got the ability to write a check—go ahead and write it.”[/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Arial, sans-serif]
[size=4]


[/size][/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Arial, sans-serif]


Heard it all before. At a rally in Florida (to support collective bargaining and to express the socialist view that firing teachers with experience was sort of a bad idea), I pointed out that I was paying taxes of roughly 28 percent on my income. My question was, “How come I’m not paying 50?” The governor of New Jersey did not respond to this radical idea, possibly being too busy at the all-you-can-eat cheese buffet at Applebee’s in Jersey City, but plenty of other people of the Christie persuasion did[/font][/color]
[color=#333333][font=Arial, sans-serif]

Cut a check and shut up, they said.[/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Arial, sans-serif]

If you want to pay more, pay more, they said.[/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Arial, sans-serif]

Tired of hearing about it, they said.[/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Arial, sans-serif]

Tough shit for you guys, because I’m not tired of talking about it. I’ve known rich people, and why not, since I’m one of [i]them[/i]? The majority would rather douse their dicks with lighter fluid, strike a match, and dance around singing “Disco Inferno” than pay one more cent in taxes to Uncle Sugar. It’s true that some rich folks put at least some of their tax savings into charitable contributions. My wife and I give away roughly $4 million a year to libraries, local fire departments that need updated lifesaving equipment (Jaws of Life tools are always a popular request), schools, and a scattering of organizations that underwrite the arts.[url="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/16/why-democrats-feel-joy-in-gop-s-defeat-of-buffett-rule.html"]Warren Buffett[/url] does the same; so does Bill Gates; so does Steven Spielberg; so do the Koch brothers; so did the late Steve Jobs. All fine as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go far enough.[/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Arial, sans-serif]

What charitable 1 percenters can’t do is assume responsibility—America’s national responsibilities: the care of its sick and its poor, the education of its young, the repair of its failing infrastructure, the repayment of its staggering war debts. Charity from the rich can’t fix global warming or lower the price of gasoline by one single red penny. That kind of salvation does not come from Mark Zuckerberg or Steve Ballmer saying, “OK, I’ll write a $2 million bonus check to the IRS.” That annoying responsibility stuff comes from three words that are anathema to the Tea Partiers: [i]United American citizenry[/i].


And hey, why don’t we get real about this? Most rich folks paying 28 percent taxes do not give out another 28 percent of their income to charity. Most rich folks like to keep their dough. They don’t strip their bank accounts and investment portfolios. They keep them and then pass them on to their children, their children’s children. And what they [i]do[/i] give away is—like the monies my wife and I donate—totally at their own discretion. That’s the rich-guy philosophy in a nutshell: don’t tell [i]us[/i] how to use our money; we’ll tell [i]you[/i].

The Koch brothers are right-wing creepazoids, but they’re [i]giving[/i] right-wing creepazoids. Here’s an example: 68 million fine American dollars to Deerfield Academy. Which is great for Deerfield Academy. But it won’t do squat for cleaning up the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, where food fish are now showing up with black lesions. It won’t pay for stronger regulations to keep BP (or some other bunch of dipshit oil drillers) from doing it again. It won’t repair the levees surrounding New Orleans. It won’t improve education in Mississippi or Alabama. But what the hell—them li’l crackers ain’t never going to go to Deerfield Academy anyway. Fuck ’em if they can’t take a joke.
Here’s another crock of fresh bullshit delivered by the right wing of the Republican Party (which has become, so far as I can see, the [i]only[/i] wing of the Republican Party): the richer rich people get, the more jobs they create. Really? I have a total payroll of about 60 people, most of them working for the two radio stations I own in Bangor, Maine. If I hit the movie jackpot—as I have, from time to time—and own a piece of a film that grosses $200 million, what am I going to do with it? Buy another radio station? I don’t think so, since I’m losing my shirt on the ones I own already. But suppose I did, and hired on an additional dozen folks. Good for them. Whoopee-ding for the rest of the economy.
At the risk of repeating myself, here’s what rich folks do when they get richer:[i]they invest[/i]. A lot of those investments are overseas, thanks to the anti-American business policies of the last four administrations. Don’t think so? Check the tag on that T-shirt or gimme cap you’re wearing. If it says MADE IN AMERICA, I’ll … well, I won’t say I’ll eat your shorts, because some of that stuff [i]is[/i]made here, but not much of it. And what does get made here doesn’t get made by America’s small cadre of pluted bloatocrats; it’s made, for the most part, in barely-gittin’-by factories in the Deep South, where the only unions people believe in are those solemnized at the altar of the local church (as long as they’re from different sexes, that is).


The U.S. senators and representatives who refuse even to consider raising taxes on the rich—they squall like scalded babies (usually on Fox News) every time the subject comes up—are not, by and large, superrich themselves, although many are millionaires and all have had the equivalent of Obamacare for years. They simply idolize the rich. Don’t ask me why; I don’t get it either, since most rich people are as boring as old, dead dog shit. The Mitch McConnells and John Boehners and Eric Cantors just can’t seem to help themselves. These guys and their right-wing supporters regard deep pockets like Christy Walton and Sheldon Adelson the way little girls regard Justin Bieber … which is to say, with wide eyes, slack jaws, and the drool of adoration dripping from their chins. I’ve gotten the same reaction myself, even though I’m only “baby rich” compared with some of these guys, who float serenely over the lives of the struggling middle class like blimps made of thousand-dollar bills.

In America, the rich are hallowed. Even Warren Buffett, who has largely been drummed out of the club for his radical ideas about putting his money where his mouth is when it comes to patriotism, made the front pages when he announced that he had stage-1 prostate cancer. Stage 1, for God’s sake! A hundred clinics can fix him up, and he can put the bill on his American Express black card! But the press made it sound like the pope’s balls had just dropped off and shattered! Because it was cancer? No! Because it was [i]Warren Buffett, he of Berkshire-Hathaway![/i]

I guess some of this mad right-wing love comes from the idea that in America, anyone can become a Rich Guy if he just works hard and saves his pennies.<a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/13/to-romney-detractors-suffer-from-envy.html" style="cursor: pointer; ">Mitt Romney has said, in effect, “I’m rich and I don’t apologize for it.” Nobody wants you to, Mitt. What some of us want—those who aren’t blinded by a lot of bullshit persiflage thrown up to mask the idea that [i]rich folks want to keep their damn money[/i]—is for you to acknowledge that you couldn’t have made it in America [i]without[/i] America. That you were fortunate enough to be born in a country where upward mobility is possible (a subject upon which Barack Obama can speak with the authority of experience), but where the channels making such upward mobility possible are being increasingly clogged. That it’s not fair to ask the middle class to assume a disproportionate amount of the tax burden. Not fair? It’s un-fucking-American is what it is. I don’t want you to apologize for being rich; I want you to acknowledge that in America, we all should have to pay our fair share. That our civics classes never taught us that being American means that—sorry, kiddies—you’re on your own. That those who have received much must be obligated to pay—not to give, not to “cut a check and shut up,” in Governor Christie’s words, but to [i]pay[/i]—in the same proportion. That’s called stepping up and not whining about it. That’s called patriotism, a word the Tea Partiers love to throw around as long as it doesn’t cost their beloved rich folks any money.

This has to happen if America is to remain strong and true to its ideals. It’s a practical necessity and a moral imperative. Last year during the Occupy movement, the conservatives who oppose tax equality saw the first real ripples of discontent. Their response was either Marie Antoinette (“Let them eat cake”) or Ebenezer Scrooge (“Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?”). Short-sighted, gentlemen. Very short-sighted. If this situation isn’t fairly addressed, last year’s protests will just be the beginning. Scrooge changed his tune after the ghosts visited him. Marie Antoinette, on the other hand, lost her head.

Think about it.

[/font][/color]

[/quote]
[color=#333333][font=Arial, sans-serif]





[/font][/color]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1344889333' post='1145827']
No. He didnt.
[/quote]

How would he (or anyone else making a decent chunk of change) get around payroll tax? For most people its automatically deducted by the payroll company. For a small business owner/self employed type they still have to report and pay. Of course, the IRS cant catch everyone... but I'm pretty sure they would know if someone like Mitt Romney wasnt paying taxes on his payroll income.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='big_dish' timestamp='1344890594' post='1145841']
How would he (or anyone else making a decent chunk of change) get around payroll tax? For most people its automatically deducted by the payroll company. For a small business owner/self employed type they still have to report and pay. Of course, the IRS cant catch everyone... but I'm pretty sure they would know if someone like Mitt Romney wasnt paying taxes on his payroll income.
[/quote]

Simple

Report most of it as capital gains.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1344890683' post='1145843']
Simple

Report most of it as capital gains.
[/quote]

Because it is re-invested money. They already paid full taxes on it once. Why should they be taxed the full amount again, when they choose to risk everything they invest? Its been taxed. They risk it. Sometimes they lose, sometimes they win. Uncle Sam doesnt reimburse them when it goes bad- why should he steal from them when it goes well?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='big_dish' timestamp='1344890971' post='1145847']
Because it is re-invested money. They already paid full taxes on it once. Why should they be taxed the full amount again, when they choose to risk everything they invest? Its been taxed. They risk it. Sometimes they lose, sometimes they win. Uncle Sam doesnt reimburse them when it goes bad- why should he steal from them when it goes well?
[/quote]

Thats not the way it works. You dont get your whole income taxed and then retaxed when you report capital gains. You get it taxed once with some of it either being income or capital gains. There is no double jeopardy here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I mean is you are taxed on your initial income at your correct bracket.

People then reinvest money, and when they come out ahead, some believe they should be taxed at that bracket level again, even though the income was already taxed.

I dont really have a dog in the fight, as I dont invest... I just dont get it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Numbers' timestamp='1344881852' post='1145775']
I think some of the info put out by Rand would not necessarily be such a bad thing. [b]At least compared to "You didn't build that, someone else did" comments made elsewhere.[/b]
[/quote]

Ummm.. Really? Please tell me you didn't write that out.. Or it's some sort of joke. Please tell me you aren't just some "tool".. I had more respect for you than that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='big_dish' timestamp='1344892494' post='1145866']
What I mean is you are taxed on your initial income at your correct bracket.

People then reinvest money, and when they come out ahead, some believe they should be taxed at that bracket level again, even though the income was already taxed.

I dont really have a dog in the fight, as I dont invest... I just dont get it.
[/quote]

Right but if you report most of your income as capital gains, you are taxed on that at a lower rate than normal income. So they arent being taxed at a higher bracket, they are gaming the system to get taxed at a lower one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='big_dish' timestamp='1344892494' post='1145866']
What I mean is you are taxed on your initial income at your correct bracket.
[/quote]

Do you [i]really[/i] think people like Romney get their money in a bi-monthly payroll check?


Considering how much you complain about people on public assistance being "leaches" while ignoring corporate welfare, off-shore tax shelters and outsourced jobs, I guess maybe you do...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lucid' timestamp='1344892822' post='1145869']


Ummm.. Really? Please tell me you didn't write that out.. Or it's some sort of joke. Please tell me you aren't just some "tool".. I had more respect for you than that.
[/quote]

It was a point that every person has their faults and nobody is without one. Even Jamie acknowledged the individual. Just following the collective is just as dangerous as highlighting the individual. See the former Soviet Union and Nazi Germany...

I believe every side should be heard. Even if it requires me playing the side I don't always agree with. The word is dialectic.

I am a tool of my own philosophy which combines a little from each. I have my favorites but even then I can't see eye to eye on their every detail.

Explain to me how much better off the American people are today than before he took office. Debt, employment, foreign entanglements, etc...

Could I guarantee we receive someone much better ? No. Nobody can honestly say it will be. I don't have the Hope that was promised and don't see many improvements but see plenty of people continue to place blame on another party while not bothering to just fix the problem.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Mr. Kloppenberg compiled a long list of people who he said helped shape Mr. Obama’s thinking and writing, including Weber and Nietzsche, Thoreau and Emerson, Langston Hughes and Ralph Ellison. Contemporary scholars like the historian Gordon Wood, the philosophers John Rawls and Hilary Putnam, the anthropologist Clifford Geertz and the legal theorists Martha Minow and Cass Sunstein (who is now working at the White House) also have a place."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Numbers' timestamp='1344895529' post='1145878']
It was a point that every person has their faults and nobody is without one. Even Jamie acknowledged the individual. Just following the collective is just as dangerous as highlighting the individual. See the former Soviet Union and Nazi Germany...

I believe every side should be heard. Even if it requires me playing the side I don't always agree with. The word is dialectic.

I am a tool of my own philosophy which combines a little from each. I have my favorites but even then I can't see eye to eye on their every detail.

Explain to me how much better off the American people are today than before he took office. Debt, employment, foreign entanglements, etc...

Could I guarantee we receive someone much better ? No. Nobody can honestly say it will be. I don't have the Hope that was promised and don't see many improvements but see plenty of people continue to place blame on another party while not bothering to just fix the problem.
[/quote]

I'm not defending Obama and his policies. I am defending reality as opposed to propaganda. It's hard for me to respect the opinion of someone who parrots "talking points" they heard while listening to their preferred institutional mouthpiece.

Your use of Obama's quote was delivered in the same manner as it was put out by the republican propaganda machine, and used in that context to contrast a political idea embraced by that same institution..
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='T-Dub' timestamp='1344893232' post='1145871']
Do you [i]really[/i] think people like Romney get their money in a bi-monthly payroll check?


Considering how much you complain about people on public assistance being "leaches" while ignoring corporate welfare, off-shore tax shelters and outsourced jobs, I guess maybe you do...
[/quote]

This!

When I read "how does Romney avoid payroll taxes?" it literally blew my mind. How do you attempt to have a rational conversation about a topic with someone so out of touch?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[b] [size=6]Paul Ryan on Social Issues: Where Does He Stand?[/size][/b]



Mitt Romney's pick of Paul Ryan as his running mate set off weekend-long debates about the young Wisconsin rep's fiscal policies, but less was said about his stance on social issues. Where does Romney's running mate stand on such issues as abortion and gun rights?

[b]Abortion[/b]
Ryan is firmly against abortion rights. He has an 100 percent rating from the National Right to Life Committee, the nation's largest anti-abortion rights organization. He co-sponsored the Sanctity of Human Life Act, a bill that would define human life as beginning at conception.

[url="http://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/234752548848955394"]President Obama tweeted earlier today[/url]: "Make sure the women in your life know: Paul Ryan supports banning all abortions, even in cases of rape or incest."

Ryan, however, has said that he was willing to disagree, "with mutual respect," with others on the issue.

[b]Gay Rights[/b]

Ryan's record on gay rights is mixed, and gay rights is one issue on which Ryan and Romney disagree somewhat. Ryan's said he's anti-same-sex marriage, and he's voted against adoption rights for same-sex couples.

Romney has said he believes same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt.

But Ryan did break with his party to vote for the Sexual Orientation Employment Nondiscrimination Act, which would prohibit discrimination in hiring on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Romney has said that he would not support that legislation at the federal level, saying those decisions should be made by the states.

[b]Guns[/b]

An avid outdoorsman who hunts, Ryan has received an "A" record from the National Rifle Association for his stance and voting record on gun rights. In the past, Ryan has voted "yes" on the Firearms Manufacturers Protection Bill, which would prohibit "misuse" lawsuits against gun manufacturers, and "no" on the 72 Background Check Amendment, which would increase the required background check time period for purchasing a gun from 24 hours to 72 hours.

[b]Immigration[/b]

Ryan voted against the Dream Act, legislation that would offer a route to citizenship to illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children and had gone to college here. On his[url="http://paulryan.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=9970"] congressional website,[/url] Ryan said that the legislation "attempts to treat a symptom, rather than the root cause, of our current problem." Ryan favors placing a priority on securing the border, "developing a more secure employee verification system" and working on creating "an enforceable guest worker program."



[url="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/paul-ryan-social-issues-stand/story?id=16994248"]http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=16994248[/url]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...