Seriously? Now progress is bad? You CAN'T be THAT stupid.

Not "progress", the word was "progressive", which is pretty much a synonym for liberal ideology.

Apart from the ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence, (like inalienable rights), once you try changing the Constitution, you can quickly run into trouble. Most of the time, those who want to change it (or ask you to believe their new and subtle interpretation of it), do so only to benefit either themselves, or their party, at everyone else's expense.

Well, then, I guess I should vote for Romney and the GOP because they would never dream of changing the constitution. Oh, wait! What's this?


http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/0...nal-amendment/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...he-presidency/

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...arty-platform/

The subject of gay or homosexual marriage, was not mentioned in the Constitution. So any amendment would be an addition, not a change in any existing part of the Constitution. Similar to the 14th amendment, etc.

Again, this is political posturing to get his conservative base more motivated to support him and come on out and vote!

Romney wasn't even in Congress, so the writer is making a huge flight of fancy that Mitt was serious about a Federal Constitutional Amendment.

I thought a good way to go was to have civil unions with full marriage rights, for gay couples. Thus "protecting" the word "marriage", for those more likely to produce the next generation.

That term "marriage" seems to be a huge sticking point, so I'm looking for a compromise here that gives our gay brothers and sisters full marriage rights, but provokes the least angry backlash from our hetero brothers and sisters.

I'm not sure this is the best compromise, but I'm thinking it's one of the better ones and could be done.

Mormons are strongly against abortions except for medical necessity or rape. I don't believe Romney will budge on his anti-abortion stance.

That one is NOT a political posture.

I'm usually very supportive of political compromise (energy, gun rights, etc.) but I completely disagree when it comes to gay marriage. There is no legitimate argument against gay marriage that isn't based on homophobia or blatant hypocrisy.

Civil unions may be a more politically realistic solution currently but I think it will be a bad choice in the long run.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...n-in-benghazi/
There were others killed in Benghazi, but since Mitt didn't know them, he didn't feel bad about their deaths.

Because "Separate But Equal" worked so well before.

~snip~

Yeah, please don't posit anti-gay marriage as a 'hetero' position. It is a religious position (usually) and is neither representative of hetero opinion, nor exclusive to heterosexual people.

Point taken, but I'm in Calif., and here, we HAD a gay marriage law passed, but then there was a backlash, and now we have NO gay marriages allowed by law. (A judge has held up it's implementation, but that's what has been passed by the electorate).

So I don't believe (surveys show slightly more than 55% don't want Gay marriage), that the Feds can force it through as a a law, at this time. Whatever party did it would be in for a beating at the next voting cycle. That leaves it up to the states, to sort it out, as best they can.

Do you believe the Feds can pass a Gay marriage law in 2012-2014 time frame? I don't believe that is possible. Change my mind.

@DanaC: "hetero" sounds more descriptive than "religious (usually)". I agree that it's certainly not a strictly hetero position at all.

Mitt Romney is in the pocket of every millionaire and billionaire in this country.

that's all we need to know.

Just because you're very successful and become rich, that doesn't mean you're an evil person! Morality doesn't matter whether you're rich or poor. It's what's in your heart.

ANY day, I'll put a prominent Mormon up against a Chicago politician!! You have picked an obvious loser in a morality contest.

In the world of politics, everybody knows a politician gets elected, because he had lots of $support$, and you don't get that kind of support, from the poor. ;)

(Watch "Charlie Wilson's War" DVD for a great look into it. Great video, and based on history.)

I'm not saying the election process we use is ideal, I'm just saying that's how it works, at present. Obama uses it just as much as Romney does. The cost for a Presidential campaign, is now over a Billion dollars - for BOTH Republican and Democrats.

Adak, as a Romney supporter, how do you feel about him walking away from his conservative stances from just a few months ago and becoming moderate now? For example, he clearly said in the most recent debates that we need government regulation of private industry.

Do you think he's just saying what he needs to so that he gets elected, and he's really deep down a conservative? Or do you think he was saying what he needed to during the primaries and he's really deep down a more liberal guy than a conservative guy?

I'm curious how you reconcile in your own head the different things he has said to different people in just the last 6 months.

Tril didn't say he was an evil person. She said he's in the pocket of Millies and Billies. Does that imply evil? No, it implies he's swayed by money. That's all we need to know.

Yeah, I know I said I wasn't going to argue with you...but you're so over the top I can't help it. ;)

Oh, as an aside, I have met, spent some time with, had adult beverages with one of Charlie's Angels...a beautiful tall lady Texas lawyer on Wilson's staff. One of the best friends of ex sissy-law who was on staff for another congressman at that time. She's a cool lady, and she said they pretty much nailed his personality in the movie...and she said it was a great time. She said "think about it...there weren't that many opportunities were there for women in politics at the time." She told me about hanging out with Tom Hanks at the premiere party...great stories.

Your recommended viewing assignment is Wag the Dog. ;)

And just because you're poor, that doesn't mean you are a lazy, good-for-nothing bum, looking for a handout.

Completely expected. Romney knows business, and he knows business needs regulations in place. Without regulations, it would be a hell hole, we know that. Wall St. particularly, has moved heavily into financial instruments that are nothing more than gambling with little or no "ante" on the table. That has proven to be a big factor in several of our economic crashes, and should NOT be allowed. You want to gamble, you put your chips on the table FIRST, then and only then, do you have "skin in the game".

Obama has failed to change this - probably because so many of his staff (cabinet, appointee's, etc.), have come straight from Wall St.. I thought SURELY he would fix this mess, but Noooooooo! :mad:

Yes, you benefit by adopting a more conservative tone for the Republican primary.

Romney is a smart guy, he will change tactics, to meet the situation. His deeply held ideals, will always be more conservative than Obama - that's certain. As you may know from his record in Mass. as Governor, Romney WILL entertain and support some liberal bills, when the people earnestly desire it.

And you're OK with liberal bills being passed under the next president, whether they have a (D) by their name or an (R?)

Adak, election's just a moment away
And you're without sense once again
You laughed at me
You said i never knew Romney
I wonder if you know him now

(chorus)

So many ways he didn't care
So many words pulled from the air
Most people poor in a storm
Why do they ho?
Why'd they ho?

We lost all that common ground
You know Romney will let us down
But then most of all
I Do Love You
Shill

--The Commiedores

;)

Adak will ignore this.

I know how that post feels.

Adak's conspicuously ignoring this position too.

I know how that position feels.

Adak, or anyone who understands and believes Romney's tax plan, please help me.

He's said that we as a country need to solve our budget problems, and the main way to do that is to reform the tax code. He's said he will cut tax rates by 20% across the board. This is supposed to generate enough increased growth to create millions of jobs and broaden the base. He's claimed that his tax cuts "absolutely" not increase taxes, and that it will be done in a revenue neutral fashion, paying for these cuts with compensating eliminations of deductions. I think I have that right.

So here's my question.

He says he's gonna solve our budget problems by growing the economy.
He says he's gonna grow the economy by cutting tax rates.
He says he's gonna keep the same amount of money coming in by eliminating deductions.

So, business is being held up from expanding because they have too many deductions? Business is afraid of deductions?

What?

Reduce rates, meaning the amount of taxes due on a given amount is LESS.
Eliminate deductions and exemptions equal to the amount of the amount of tax savings from reduced rates--this is what being revenue neutral means--so the net tax due is the same.
What's changed? I pay the same amount in taxes, how does the deficit go down?

Romney's tax plan does not add up. He won't explain it, Adak won't explain it. mercy won't explain it. Urbane Guerrilla won't explain it. Firing Big Bird won't solve it, but that's all he's offered. Oh, that and Planned Parenthood.

He's stupid or he's lying. And I don't think he's stupid.

He's really saying the old joke was right... we just need more wheelbarrels.

I know how that wheelbarrow feels.

Thanks, I'll be here all week. Please try the strychnine (the strychnine is bipartisan, you can all partake.)

*coughs* wheelbarrows *coughs*

I think it's wheelbarrow. I think.

Read up for more information.

Brookings Tax Policy Center article

Somewhere else I read that the Romney deficit reduction and budget balancing assumptions are based upon "possible" and "potential" economic upturns. So...if I were to make a million dollars a year, I could get out of debt very quickly. :p: A bank will not give me a loan based on that "assumption", but it's ok for our entire nation's economic well-being?

By the way, more than 95% of all taxpayers fall into the 'below $200,000.00" income level.

Kiplinger

Mitt Romney is, by his own admission, "completely wrong".

Attachment 41121

The way I understood him to be explaining it in the debate:

1. Reduce ‘individual’ tax rate
...a. Individuals in households pay less
...b. Individuals who own small businesses pay less
2. Tax revenues decreased at this point
3. Small businesses stimulated at this point
...a. Resulting in tax revenues going back up
4. Also, deductions eliminated for households
...a. Households end up paying the same amount

I have a different idea most for what is Conservative or Liberal. I'm actually for some liberal goals, if they are implemented in a practical manner. I support Gay Unions for instance, with full legal rights to marriage. Not because it's the ideal, but because it's as close to the ideal, as we can practically get.

D or R doesn't bother me. Lately the D's have mostly been out of their rabid ass minds, however. :D

Our fiscal policies MUST be conservative, however. We just CAN'T keep spending a Trillion dollars we do not have, and have to borrow it from somewhere else, and then pay interest on it.

If that debt interest should ever increase by just a couple percent, we'd be in SERIOUS difficulty!!

What's the saying? If I owe the bank $1000, that's my problem. If I owe the bank $1,000,000, that's the bank's problem.


Who's problem is it if the US owes China $8 Trillion?

The fiscal details in Romneys Administration, will be undoubtedly written in large part (probably the larger part), by his Vice President, Paul Ryan.

As the head of the House Budget Committee, Ryan has an excellent and detailed knowledge of what changes should be made, and the order they should be made in.

That's one reason I'm so pleased with this pairing, because the President may want to work on the economy and fiscal matters, but no President has the time to dig into all the details. Here, Ryan already KNOWS a lot of the details, and has plenty of time to research the matter.

A perfect choice in a running mate, imo. :D

@@: I thought it was obvious that the poor needed a helping hand. But no, they don't need a monthly check for decades, if they're able-bodied.

Ha, pretty funny! :D

The Conservative way to a better economy (which is the only way it works, btw), is:

1) Lower taxes: puts more money into everyone's pocket, and that gets money MOVING around the private sector, (and into gov't as well, by various means). We have money now, but it's not moving, because the gov't has WAY too many strings attached to it.

Remember that a GOOD economy is not how much money there is, but how FAST that money is moving through the economy. Stagnation is something you do NOT want in your economy!

2) Excessive deductions in the tax code, are a hindrance, basically picking and choosing which payer (personal or business) is a winner, and which will be the losers, because not everyone can use those deductions.

You don't probably want a perfectly FLAT tax code, but we need a flatter tax code.

Businesses have to forecast ahead, and when deductions and items like health care costs changing, pop up in your forecasts, it puts doubts into your forecasts. Business people do not expand their business when they have serious doubts:

"Will health care expenses increase by 20% this year, because of Obama care? Can we get a waiver?" maybe, and maybe.

"Will we be able to get <D> deduction this year, and if so, how big will it be for us? maybe and who knows the amount.

Not good.

Because as stated, the tax base has increased, and incomes increase as money MOVES faster in the economy. Gov't coffers fill up quicker, also, from many tax sources, not just income tax.
You just are not informed yet on how our economy works, in any detail.

Most everyone thinks that more money in the economy will improve our economy - so if the gov't adds 20% more money to it, that should improve our economy by about 20%.

Which is completely wrong. Adding money to the economy gives it a stimulus, but until money is MOVING, it is NOT GOING TO HELP THE ECONOMY.

We've had a LOT of new jobs created, but do they tell you that tens of thousands of those new jobs are GOVERNMENT jobs?

Oh hell no! :mad:

That is NOT growth in the private sector, and THAT is what we need. And you won't get that from Obama - he's never worked in the private sector, and doesn't like it. He wants more government jobs and more government controls.

Look at how quickly he axed the Keystone Pipeline project. He'd have us eat grass, rather than approve a major business enterprise that would have created hundreds of new high paying jobs.

You have to respect Obama for this - the dang guy is consistent. Most smart people will turn away from something that doesn't work, and try something else. Not Obama - he'll stick with it and beat you into poverty with it. He's not "liberal", he's a Socialist or Stateist (if you prefer).

During his campaign in '08, Obama said that "under my cap and trade system", Coal fired electrical plants would be "bankrupted", because of the taxes (fee's and fines), he would make them pay.

NOT ONE DAMN WORD ABOUT HOW WE REPLACE THE POWER HE WANTS TO TAKE AWAY!! And NOT ONE reporter asked him A DAMN QUESTION about that obvious problem!! And of course, nothing about the doomed shareholders of those companies!!

He said he would make make electric rates "skyrocket" - well, that's being honest at least. Frankly, I'd rather he lied, and made the electric rates come down, however.

Just heard a prediction, that under the latest proposed cap and trade system, diesel fuel for my truck, will be in the $25-$27 dollar range PER GALLON! I nearly feinted, and that's no lie.

:mad::mad::mad:

As I just said in another post a little earlier today... :facepalm:

In a few hours more, Paul Ryan will try and teach Joe Biden, how to count the letters in the word "Jobs".

That is so funny, hearing Biden in a speech, count it out:
"it's all about the three letter word 'Jobs'"
"J-O-B-S, Jobs". <laughter among the crowd>

Just to be fair, we must include the famous Dan Quayle remark:
"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."

Why dear God, must we endure these nincompoops as our leaders??

Other DQ funnies:
http://politicalhumor.about.com/cs/q...aylequotes.htm

You can't expect to get a lot of details about Romney's plans just yet, because first the democrats must:

1) call every one of the proposed tax cuts, stupid, in 20 locations, in time for the 6 o'clock news cycle.

Let's see: Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid - sure!

2) find 50 people whose life has imploded, because of a planned reduction in their income tax.

3) trot out 3 crying widows and or orphans, who have lost their husbands or fathers, because of Romney's reduction in their income tax.

4) interview 10 business managers who are now moving their plants to China, because they will pay lower business taxes, under the Romney tax plans.

It's so pathetic you'd cry, but it's so funny at the same time, that you can't. :D

If Joe Biden ever became President, wouldn't that just take the humor out of it, in a heartbeat?

The only thing that gives me hope is Romney said Ryan's plan was not his plan, and he's running for President, not Ryan.

I don't watch much network TV so haven't seen a lot of the campaign ads, but having spent a week on Cape Cod I was amazed at the number of ads. That area would of course have a ton of ads for the Warren/Brown race, and some for New Hampshire and Rhode Island races.

What shocked me is the deluge of Super-PAC ads (almost all negative) on all the federal, and even some of the state races. No shit, they'd break for a commercial and you'd see four or five political ads for every potato chip or Pepsi ad.

I can see the broadcast industry shills and lobbyists trying to shorten the election cycle from 4 to 2 years with that kind of revenue stream. :lol:

If that's what you think, may I reply by way of quoting someone I whose opinion you appear to trust:
*****
First of all, liberal vs conservative *everything* coming from you is just additional noise. I'm subtracting it from what you say. You're elusive and changeable on those terms and frankly, they contribute nothing to the understanding of the economy, or specific plans like the one under discussion here. Moving on...

No, you're wrong. Lower tax revenues does *not* mean that more money is put into everyone's pocket. Somebody... his name escapes me at the moment, anyhow, he said that some 47% of people pay no income taxes at all. How can you say that lowering income tax rates will increase the amount of money in these people's pockets??!! It won't. Now, Romney is talking about income tax rates, that's all he's spoken about. Not a word about payroll taxes, gas taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, medicare, etc. Nothing. Only income taxes, he's said he will reduce the rates by 20%. So, by his words and your "logic", only 53% of the people will be getting more money. Not the poorest, just those who pay income taxes.

Now, this half of the population, roughly speaking, let's follow your reasoning for a little bit, let's say they do have more money in their pocket. Money is already moving around our economy, in the private sector and in the public sector. I must also point out that those two sectors connect and overlap. They are interdependent. Money is already moving. How much more money there is in the pockets of half the population is no indicator of how the money's moving. Just the bulk of the money.

I agree that a dollar has to be in motion for it to have any intrinsic value. But nothing I've heard from Romney says anything about increasing that motion. Much of the recovery to date has been on two main fronts: an increase in employment and production and consumption, *and* a reduction in personal debt. There would be more growth, but as a country, we're living somewhat BELOW our means and using the difference to reduce our indebtedness. This makes things look worse if you consider only growth, but we've had growth PLUS less debt. This is good. But, then again, we're talking about how his tax plan does stuff, not about the money supply.

You're right, not everyone can use all the deductions. Calling it picking winners and losers is oversimplifying to the point of uselessness. Our tax code is labyrinthine, Byzantine, I doubt no one knows it all. And I believe there are a great many ways it could be simplified. You're also right--someone's ox will be gored and they're likely to be unhappy about it. If those someones are people *coughcorporationsarepeoplecough* of great means, they're *highly* likely to have their ox spared. The millies and billies to whom Romney is beholden.
Really? You think we need a flatter tax code? We have what? Six rates? What number do you think is a better, flatter number? Besides Romney's said nothing at all about making the tax code flatter. Just shorter (by 20% in each bracket) and thinner (by eliminating some number of deductions, TBA). It's this TBA that bothers me and every other thinking person, though not you or your fellow magic hand wavers.

Back to what Romney *said*: I'll reduce the rates by 20%, I "absolutely" will not increase taxes, and to avoid increasing our deficit by reducing our revenues I will 'pay' for the tax rate reductions and the corresponding reduction in revenues by eliminating some deductions. WHAT DEDUCTIONS CAN BE ELIMINATED THAT WILL FILL THE HOLE LEFT BY THE RATE REDUCTIONS? You haven't answered this. Romney hasn't answered this. NO ONE has answered this, because there isn't an answer. EVERYONE, except the couple of bloggers who "refute" President Obama's accusation of Romney's lies, says it can't be done. It is YOU who know squat about the economy Adak.
OMG. Can you hear yourself talk? This bogeyman of "uncertainty" that has its boot on the neck of businesses is bullshit. Furthermore, your guy, Romney, remember him? If you and he are all freaked out about "will we be able to get <D> deduction this year and if so how big will it be and who knows the amount"... then you should NOT vote for Romney, because This. Is. Exactly. What. He. Has. Promised. REPEATEDLY. "There will be eliminations of deductions, but we're not saying *which* ones." You want uncertainty of deductions? Romney's your guy.
Dude. "as stated" is all you have to support your claim that the tax base will be increased. You still haven't said how. Go back up into YOUR own post and show me where you outline how it will be increased. Flint, bless his heart, *did* actually say it when he jumped from point 2) to point 3), though he gave no justification for it (don't worry, I'm gonna give him a chance to 'splain it to me). You haven't even brought it up until now. You ... just... state it, like a virgin birth--TADA! Come on, tell me how the policy described by Romney will increase the tax base. I'm still waiting.
Cite.

Riiiiight. And you want the people of Nebraska to drink oil.
Look. My bullshit meter just exploded. It is impossible for me to have a reasoned, intelligent dialog with anyone who wastes braincells connecting Obama and Socialism. We have more of a chance to share ideas with each other if you called him a nigger because of his skin color or a Muslim because of his middle name. It would be just as offensive, just as smart, just as useful, but would at least have the intellectual honesty of a racist bigot. Calling him a Socialist is merely offensive, stupid, useless and wrong.
thought I was done, I was wrong. Show us this prediction. I stand ready to point and laugh. Personally, I am not buying your feint.
Mad indeed.

V, I admire your heroic efforts at dialog, but eventually ...

Let me get this straight. Your complaint, at least the complaint coming from Romney's campaign and their surrogates about Obama's lack of qualifications to guide the economy is his lack of experience in the private sector--never run as much as a lemonade stand, is how the bumpersticker reads, is it not? I think YOU may have repeated it. Got it.

Ryan is your ace in the hole for the fiscal details for an imagined Romney Administration, right? The guy who'll be at the Executive helm for the economy. He's good because he's been the head of the House Budget Committee. Got it.

So... just curious... what is Ryan's private sector experience? Any lemonade stands? Well, no. He did drive the Weinermobile though. cite.

Private sector experience:

His substantive work: Public service. Government worker to you.

Now I have to say, I don't believe this disqualifies him for executive office. I don't think this is a useful measure, it's too incomplete. But you can't say Obama's unqualified because of the dearth of his private sector experience and then tout Ryan who has far less private sector experience and be expected to be taken seriously. Your double standard is unconvincing. You might be happy with him because you like him and be unhappy with Obama because you dislike him--fine. But your reasoning is unsound.

How would you deal with federal benefits that accrue to spouses? Is it a Union, or is it Marriage?

What is this ^^^^^ ?

That a lot of mumbo-jumbo, right there ^^^^. You make no argument or assertion, of fact or opinion, of the subject at hand.

You have to do better than this!

I thought you would understand that nothing will put more money into the pockets of people who are paying no taxes, when you cut taxes.! For pete's sake here.

If you want to stimulate business AND personal spending, do you think the poor will do that with a cut in income taxes?

The poor don't own businesses, and they don't pay income taxes, and they do a very small amount of personal spending, BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO MONEY - THEY'RE POOR!
The money is not moving nearly as fast as it needs to, to help restore us to a vibrant economy again.You're mixing national debt, with personal debt (which has gone down sharply). Romney's message is trying to be clear and plain to people who don't know about the need for the speed of money, and how it adds to our economy. Most people I talk to know NOTHING about that.
Well, finally! ;)

You need to look at Obama's cabinet and Czars he's appointed. Goldman Sachs is HEAVILY represented, and that is the very heart of the *millies and billies*, you decry.[/quote]

It can be done, but not in the simpleton manner you're looking at it, and it's very likely it won't be done all in the first 2 years of his term.
If you ever sit in on a board meeting where long term planning is being discussed, you'll know EXACTLY what I'm talking about.
[/quote]
Yes, there will be added doubts about the future in a Romney administration, throughout the business ranks. It won't all be peaches and cream, but because Romney is undeniably more pro business than Obama ever dreamed of being, there will also be a sigh of relief, since the President knows business, and how to help businesses in trouble, and will help enact policies, and codes, that are better for them.This is the historical trend, since Grover Cleveland. Not just in the country, but in every state, in every city, in every county. If other factors remain the same, when you cut taxes moderately (and cut your gov't spending as well), you increase your tax revenues. Worked for Cleveland, Kennedy, (remember "A rising tide lifts all boats" speech?). Reagan. Didn't work when FDR, Carter, Obama, etc., did NOT cut taxes, during their economic downturns.

Along with the moderate cut in taxes, the taxing authority needs to cut their spending, as well.

It's the Conservative Yellow Brick Road, and it has worked many, many times. When it's not followed, the result will be economic downturn and hardship, unless the most favorable conditions are not present to bolster up this Liberal mistake in fiscal policy.
I need to stop this reply, because it's getting too long. I will answer this, in my next reply.

This is taken from Steven Moore's excellent writing. Moore is a senior economics writer for the Wall Street Journal. Full info is here:

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ir_22.htm

with way more graphs and data than I can fit in here. Also, Moore has a new book out which goes into even more detail.

As J.F.Kennedy said when he cut taxes:
This is from his "A Rising Tide Lifts All Boats" speech, iirc.

It IS unintuitive that it would work this way, but we know that it DOES work this way, so try to accept it.

Should we tax our rich more?

Fact: What country leans on upper income households, the most?

Some socialist country? Nope. USA does!
That's why this "Fairness" crap from Obama, drives me right up the wall. (and no, I'm NOT in the top brackets myself).

The above chart, and much more besides, is all here:
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ir_22.htm

as well as several other places on the web.

Can I guarantee that cutting taxes and trimming federal spending will grow our tax base - no. But it ALWAYS has, in the past. I see no reason to believe it won't do it again.

The article I linked to is excellent, and Moore's book is even better.

.

Nope, cut spending, pay debt, then reduce taxes to match revenues to expenses, otherwise interest will eat you up. Ask anyone that's gotten into the credit card hole.

Paul Ryan is arguing that Joe Biden and the administration, have supported abortions so much, that the Catholic church is having to sue the gov't. That support for abortions is both here, and abroad, including the forced abortions on a massive scale in China.

Ryan further points to Biden's statement of this, when he visited China.

Joe Biden replies:
"I've been a practicing Catholic my whole life and it's the core of my being."

Sure it is, Joe: To Catholics, abortion is a heinous (mortal) sin. Just in case you maybe forgot.

Has Biden had an abortion? I don't think so. Anyone that tries to push their personal view, whether from their religion or not, on other people, has no business in the government.

America was founded on principles that religion is only between you and your god. Any church that enforces a Spanish Inquistion to enforce their beliefs would be Satanic.

Pope ordered Church doctrine be imposed in law upon all Americans. Apparently you agree with his Satanic statement? Or do you believe in fundamental American principles: a person's religion is never imposed on anyone else. Many extremists oppose that fundamental American principle. Do you?

That's what Obama does in his health care law. That why the Catholic and a few other churches, are suing the feds for forcing them to accept paying for abortions AND for performing abortions, in their hospitals.

Personally, I believe abortions should be 1st trimester only, and the decision is ultimately up to the woman in consultation with her doctor, and the father, if possible.

No church is enforcing an Inquisition, Spanish or otherwise! The Pope never ordered Church doctrine be imposed in law on ANY Americans.

You know nothing about the Catholic Church, clearly.

What struck me about the debate was the lack of any plan (still) for the next four years, if the President is given a second term.

I wasn't expecting much, since it is the V.P., not Obama debating, but still. What's your plan for the next four years?

: : : Crickets : : :

You may not like the Romney plan, but at least they have one. ;)

go back and read who I quoted as my reply to your snide remark about how uninformed I am about the economy, in any detail.

by subtracting your useless stereotyping labels from your posts I clarify our discussion by keeping it on the subject at hand, Romney's proposed policies. What political church you genuflect in is irrelevant.

For example, what deductions will Romney eliminate to pay for his $5 trillion dollar tax cut?

Not what good-for-nothing Congressionally approved deductions will Conservative-in-Chief-in-Waiting Romney eliminate to conservatively save God's Greatest Nation On Earth from the Liberal mess we've been saddled with?

Like that. What's the damn point. Just let's talk about the actual facts. You can cheerlead for "conservative" and boo "liberal", I'm just going to ignore it. Just like I said up there.. That IS doing better.

Those who ignore lessons from history are doomed to repeat it. Predicted was what would happen with George Jr's tax cuts. By even citing well understood economic theory that predicts recessions. Predicted because the same recessionary effects occurred with Kennedy's tax cut. But soundbytes and ideologue rhetoric routinely ignores facts to preach a political agenda - to preach propaganda. The same ideology again ignores what happened with Kennedy's tax cut. Because extremist talk show hosts say so?

Reality posted on 11 April 2001 in
Laffer curve - the real laugh. 11 years later. And another, who never learns from history, recites the same lies. Classic ideological politics. Soundbyte replaces knowledge and history. The next tax cut (on 11 April 2001) predicted a recession. It most certainly did. Big time. Back then it "IS" a bad thing. Today is "WAS" a bad thing. But only when one learns lessons from history - and ignores wacko extremist rhetoric.

Only propaganda and ideology 'proves' tax cuts cure economic malise. Especially when that malise is directly traceable to previous tax cuts and other fiscal mismanagement before 2007.

What do we know from history and a basic grasp of economics? Tax increases to pay for deficits result in long term growth - and then more jobs.

No, it's not Obama's personal view it's the law, written and passed by congress. Sure he pushed it, but if he'd written it according to his personal view you'd be apoplectic.

Forcing them to pay for contraception like a responsible employer isn't forcing anyone to use them. I guess the Catholic church wants to try to at least keep the poor that can't afford them under control. The numbers seem to show that a great many Catholic women that can afford the pill choose to do so.

Can you site a source on this, "for performing abortions, in their hospitals"?

Just like Romney, say some shit, then walk it back.

You said "everyone's pockets", now you're admitting you really meant just half of everyone's pockets. What are you doing? Rounding up?

I noticed that Romney's in favor of reducing income tax rates by twenty percent, but supports the idea of letting the payroll tax reduction expire. In whose favor is the sum of these two proposals?

So, you're saying that money that moves fast helps restore a vibrant economy. You're saying it's less about the amount of money than it is about the speed with which it's moving around, am I right?

Then, you denigrate the poor for having no money, "THEY'RE POOR!". Classy.

Let me ask you this. How can you say it's rich people who have a lot of money in the bank and who will have more money in the bank after this massive tax cut Romney's proposing is enacted are contributing to the economy? How are these people "job creators"? Because, poor people? No one spends money faster than poor people. They get it, and boom, it's gone. Sometimes it's gone so fucking fast it leaves before it gets there. Now THAT'S some high-velocity, vibrant-economy-building patriotic American economic action, right there. Those slacker bastards with their static bank balances, not moving, just sitting there getting piled higher and deeper... what are they doing for the economy? More specifically, what are their increased savings doing for the economy?

You're right, I misspoke, I've corrected the text to more accurately reflect my thoughts.

You haven't answered it. You just call me a simpleton. But don't worry. You have good company. I just watched Paul Ryan fail to answer the same direct question. You can't answer it. He can't answer it. Romney hasn't answered it and won't answer it ("care to wager ten thousand dollars?"). There is no answer that fits his parameters.

I may be a simpleton, but I know my question is being evaded.

Translated:

Obama uncertainties bad.

Romney uncertainties good.

Got it. At least you didn't throw in a few "conservative" labels in there, but it's the thought that counts, right?

:facepalm: