The Real Mitt Romney

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Adak

You may not like Romney and Ryan's tax plan, but at least it's moving us in the right direction: cut spending, lower taxes a bit, and cut some loopholes in the tax code.

What's NOT to like, here?

Only because so far the only reason it balances is due to promises of closure in unspecified loopholes and promised growth to close a 4.8 trillion dollar gap.

What if this promised surge in growth revenue, like the 'trickle down' money that failed to materialize with the last set of tax cuts, fails to show? What loopholes? The 'loopholes' like the mortgage tax deduction that is used by millions of working and middle class Americans? Or the loopholes that allowed Mr. Romney to pay a %14 effective tax rate? Guess which ones I think will be targeted.....

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice.......

[Adak]

Originally Posted by richlevy

Only because so far the only reason it balances is due to promises of closure in unspecified loopholes and promised growth to close a 4.8 trillion dollar gap.

What if this promised surge in growth revenue, like the 'trickle down' money that failed to materialize with the last set of tax cuts, fails to show? What loopholes? The 'loopholes' like the mortgage tax deduction that is used by millions of working and middle class Americans? Or the loopholes that allowed Mr. Romney to pay a %14 effective tax rate? Guess which ones I think will be targeted.....

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice.......

Oh Please! Poly-ticks will fool us every day of the week, if we don't watch 'em!

Which do you, sight unseen, believe is more trustworthy?

A missionary for two years from the Mormon Church, and WAY successful businessman?

Or

A Chicago Community activist and professional poly-tick?

Where "poly-ticks" (poly = many, and tick = blood sucking organism).

Maybe you've been fooled so many times, you've joined with the Fools?

Have you any idea of the kind of loopholes that our tax code has? We're still giving handouts to farmers for growing wool for soldiers socks, from WWI, for crying out loud!

Romney has a blind trust for his personal funds, to avoid any hint of a conflict of interest. He has no control over what is bought or sold, and doesn't know what's been done, until the end of the quarter.

I LOVE the hypocrisy of those berating Romney for following the legal tax code. Nevermind, that the guy gives millions to charities -- to you, that means nothing. NO! Let's castigate him for following the law!!

Is there no limit to your hypocrisy?

If you believe you can PRY a cut in spending from the Obama administrations MASSIVE federal budget increases, you're completely in the dark about what they have done, and insist on continuing.

Will we get everything we want in a Republican administration? No. But at least we'll get SOME of what we want, and a LOT of what we need, and get headed back in the right direction.

We are spending $58,000 dollars per second, more than we make in income, currently - over a TRILLION dollars a year more than we can afford.

We will RUE the day that we have a true monetary crisis, believe me.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Adak

Oh Please! Poly-ticks will fool us every day of the week, if we don't watch 'em!

Which do you, sight unseen, believe is more trustworthy?

A high priest and missionary for two years from the Mormon Church, and WAY successful businessman?

Or

A Chicago Community activist and professional poly-tick?

High priest and missionary are immediately suspect, but discounting that;
I have a choice of a guy who made millions by fucking the working man and the country, or a guy that spent his career helping the little guy.
Damn, that is a tough choice ain't it.

Have you any idea of the kind of loopholes that our tax code has?

No, I can't give you a number, I doubt anyone can without considerable research. But I do remember reading dozens of times over the years, of bills that were passed to give huge breaks to a very small number of specific companies. Of course the companies weren't named in the bill, but it was written in a way that no one else could qualify. There were a few that it was only one company getting to fuck me.

I certainly wouldn't bet on either party doing a meaningful job of cleaning up the tax code mess, because every one of those special loopholes is for someone with pull in Washington. Nobody is more beholden than Thurston... er, Mitt.

We will RUE the day that we have a true monetary crisis, believe me.

Rue? Rue? That's French, that's socialist talk.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

High priest and missionary are immediately suspect, but discounting that;
I have a choice of a guy who made millions by fucking the working man and the country, or a guy that spent his career helping the little guy.
Damn, that is a tough choice ain't it.

"Fucking the working man"? Are you out of your mind? Romney's company turned around companies, and in the process, saved or created a lot of jobs. Yes, not every company was able to be turned around, because of market conditions that developed - but in business, nothing is guaranteed except change.

No, I can't give you a number, I doubt anyone can without considerable research. But I do remember reading dozens of times over the years, of bills that were passed to give huge breaks to a very small number of specific companies. Of course the companies weren't named in the bill, but it was written in a way that no one else could qualify. There were a few that it was only one company getting to fuck me.

I certainly wouldn't bet on either party doing a meaningful job of cleaning up the tax code mess, because every one of those special loopholes is for someone with pull in Washington. Nobody is more beholden than Thurston... er, Mitt.

Why do you say that? Mitt hasn't served a day in Washington, yet. His time as Governor of Mass., is long over. Obama is the one with supporters than need to be paid back - lots of bundlers and special interest blocks of voters, that put together a LOT of money for him and workers for his campaign.

Romney has some of those same problems, but his platform is a lot more focused, (on economic policy and business), which fits perfectly with what we need, so the effect will be more positive, and less detrimental.

I agree with you that reforming the tax code will be like pulling teeth.

Rue? Rue? That's French, that's socialist talk.

Rue: Define Rue at Dictionary.com

dictionary.reference.com/browse/rue
to feel sorrow over; repent of; regret bitterly: to rue the loss of opportunities. 2. to wish that (something) had never been done, taken place, etc.: I rue the day he ...

Specifically, I don't like the gov't owning a large part of GM, along with the Unions. The shareholders and bondholders were screwed royal, as were the non-union employees, who lost both their jobs and their benefits. In the case of the shareholders and bondholders (especially the latter), that is contrary to law.

Better to have GM go through bankruptcy, and come out the other side, as a new, and stronger company. Having the feds on the board of directors, of a major corp. makes me nervous.

Also, I doubt if the gov't knows how to design and/or build, better cars and trucks.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Adak

A Chicago Community activist and professional poly-tick?

Where "poly-ticks" (poly = many, and tick = blood sucking organism).

When will you guys learn that being 'cutesy' loses you the argument?

'poly-tick', 'Demoncrat'...all just mindless noise. It's like wearing a 'honk if you like stupid' T-shirt to a debate.

I'm also going to shave a few points off of TW for the 'Thurston Howell' comment, but your little verbal tantrums go way beyond. At least TW cites. You're just stuffed with unattributed talking points.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by richlevy

When will you guys learn that being 'cutesy' loses you the argument?

'poly-tick', 'Demoncrat'...all just mindless noise. It's like wearing a 'honk if you like stupid' T-shirt to a debate.

I'm also going to shave a few points off of TW for the 'Thurston Howell' comment, but your little verbal tantrums go way beyond. At least TW cites. You're just stuffed with unattributed talking points.

I've posted several url's for you - especially on the fiscal matters. I can't post about Tw's assertion about the Pope, because such an announcement by the Pope, has not been made.

Are you at all aware of how many politicians have gone to Washington with only moderate means, and because of the insider knowledge they are now privy to, they use that knowledge to become rich? If you or I did that, we would be jailed/fined for "insider trading". Poly-ticks however, have made it legal FOR THEM.

You see this kind of hypocrisy all the time. We will have Obama care by decree, but the Poly-ticks will have none of it - they have their own luxury health care policy, which they are NOT ABOUT to give up.

I don't know of a reference for all our poly-ticks misdeeds, but they have been mentioned, on rare occasions. Rare, because our field of investigative reporters would rather report on Timbuktu's problems, than dig into the political mess we have at home.

That doesn't mean it's not true, and if you are willing to dig a bit, you'll find that out.

[Trilby]

"He may have started out the way you describe, keeping companies like Staples alive and helping them flourish, but he veered away from that when he figured out the real money was in taking over companies, loading them up with debt, squeezing exorbitant fees from them and then dumping the broken husk in the end. Greed and Debt" -quote Stormieweather

ya know, that's exactly what Tony Soprano did to a store a buddy of his owned who owed him a gambling debt. Not that I'm comparing Mitt to Tony Soprano.


Tony was a good Catholic.

[Stormieweather]

Adak, you know about Sensata, right?

Sensata

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

Adak, you know about Sensata, right?

Sensata

Yes. And I know Romney left Bain Capital 12 (TWELVE) years before Sensata was moved to China.

But what is the truth?

If Bain Capital's activities are to be scrutinized and linked to Mitt Romney 12 years after he left the company, President Obama's activities within the past four years should surely receive the same attention.

Consider Obama's Job Czar, Jeffrey Immelt. According to a 60 minutes program, the CEO of GE was "unapologetic" about the fact that "half his workforce is overseas". How many jobs have been outsourced by GE? 25,000, according to the Huffington Post. The 170 positions reportedly being outsourced by the Bain-controlled organization pale in comparison.

Consider President Obama's failed "Green Stimulus" investments. When the "green" companies were not laying off thousands of employees and/or going bankrupt, a huge chunk of taxpayer money used to support the ill-advised program went overseas.

As a matter of fact, four Democratic senators actually called on the Obama administration "to halt spending on a renewable energy program in the economic stimulus package until rules are in place to assure that the projects use predominantly American labor and materials." They noted that "more than three-fourths Of $2 billion spent on wind-energy projects supported by the stimulus package had gone to foreign companies."

If Americans are looking to hold anyone accountable for wasteful spending overseas (and in general), they should look to the current president. This story may be significant if the same rules of outrage applied to both parties; and since they clearly do not, this news is just another example of faux outrage and dirty politics.

When will you learn that what you hear from the media, can't be trusted at face value?

CHECK IT OUT FOR YOURSELF.

[Stormieweather]

Romney founded and ran Bain for FIFTEEN years. It does the same thing now that it did then, under his leadership. He was fully aware and approved of outsourcing to Chinese sweatshops. In fact, at a recent fundraiser here in Florida he mentioned his personal tour of one...


Chinese Sweatshop


So I should trust what YOU say at face value? No thanks. I do my own research and decide what to believe.

[Adak]

I never said don't do you own research and decide for yourself. I encourage that, but in this case, you've reached the wrong conclusion.

Did Romney make the stupid laws, tax codes, and treaties, that made it profitable for our companies to move to China?

NO!

You have to work (and live) within the laws that you are given, by those in government. You know that, everybody knows that.

Saying that Romney moved Sensata 12 years after he left Bain, is a terrible argument to make because:

1) Romney didn't make the laws that made it possible and in some cases profitable, to move a company to China.

and

2) Romney had nothing to do with the movement of Sensata, anywhere, since he'd left Bain over a decade before this happened.

So your whole argument is just an attempt to smear Romney with anything you can. You'll have to do better, because this case certainly doesn't work.

[Stormieweather]

double post

[tw]

Originally Posted by Adak

Santorum isn't in the running anymore. I didn't care for him when he was,

Completely irrelevant is what you think about Santorum. But again, avoiding a reality that you cannot honestly dispute. The Pope called for Church doctrine imposed on American law. And Santorum agreed. So you pretend Santorum, et al did not say that? Imposing religion on the American people is an extremism ideological principle.

Does not matter what you think. You demonstrate the extremism that Romney must entertain to be elected. You represent baggage that, if eliminated, would make a Romney presidency acceptable.

"A conservative, liberal, and moderate walks into a bar. The bartender says, "Hi Mitt". " Romney must entertain extremism that he once completely rejected. Extremists so dominate that even Romney cannot be honest. Honesty, as so many demonstrated, clearly has not been your strong suit here. Did we not learn anything from George Jr?

You even blamed George Jr's 2007 recession on Dodd-Frank created in July 2010. No informed person could make that mistake. An ideologue. Conclusions made; then facts are invented. Dodd-Frank created George Jr's recession? A perfect example of ideological reasoning. And that is the point. Romney's baggage is ideologues - that you demonstrate.

Extremism is a greatest threat to America, its allies, America's relationship with it allies, the avoidance of war, the anti-nuclear proliferation treaty, another Cold War, economic health, an increasing American standard of living, and the innovations necessary to create solutions to all of our problems.

Romney has a problem that McCain had. That is the point. You demonstrate the baggage that Romney brings to the White House.

You demonstrate how dangerous a Romney presidency would be for everyone in America and the world. It is not a pretty picture - as if we ignore disasters created by George Jr to do it all over again. Because Limbaugh said it was good. That is the point. You demonstrate the rhetoric and lies found in an extremist political agenda.

It was no accident that you lied about a 2007 George Jr recession created by a 2010 law. That mistake is only possible when your conclusion was made by ignoring reality and well known facts.

Nobody is going to prove otherwise to you. That is the point. Extremists have conclusion by even ignoring facts and reality. The people that Romney, unfortunately, brings to the White House.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by tw

Completely irrelevant is what you think about Santorum.

I agree -- that's why I don't bother thinking about Santorum. He was too right wing for me, and I knew he would be too right wing for the country.

But again, avoiding a reality that you cannot honestly dispute. The Pope called for Church doctrine imposed on American law. And Santorum agreed. So you pretend Santorum, et al did not say that? Imposing religion on the American people is an extremism ideological principle.

I keep asking you to support your argument that the Pope called for Church doctrine to be imposed on American law.

You keep avoiding it -- because it isn't true??

Does not matter what you think. You demonstrate the extremism that Romney must entertain to be elected. You represent baggage that, if eliminated, would make a Romney presidency acceptable.

I'm pragmatic, not extreme. If Obama's policies worked, I'd say "Hallelujah!", and vote for him.

But they haven't worked.

Romney has a problem that McCain had. That is the point. You demonstrate the baggage that Romney brings to the White House.

You demonstrate how dangerous a Romney presidency would be for everyone in America and the world. It is not a pretty picture - as if we ignore disasters created by George Jr to do it all over again. Because Limbaugh said it was good. That is the point. You demonstrate the rhetoric and lies found in an extremist political agenda.

So bending the constitution every way he pleases, doesn't make Obama an extremist? Building more national debt than any President EVER, doesn't make him an extremist? Taking over the health care industry, doesn't make him an extremist?

Get out!

It was no accident that you lied about a 2007 George Jr recession created by a 2010 law. That mistake is only possible when your conclusion was made by ignoring reality and well known facts.

Nobody is going to prove otherwise to you. That is the point. Extremists have conclusion by even ignoring facts and reality. The people that Romney, unfortunately, brings to the White House.

Nope, I just had the wrong name of the bill, on my mind at the time. The current crisis was caused by a change in the fed law and policies, designed to enable a much greater percentage of home ownership.

Congressman Barney Franks was on the committee that oversaw Freddie Mac and Fanney Mae, and testified just six months before the housing market crash, that both these agencies were in good sound financial health. Of course, that was a lie, and they had to be bailed out, shortly thereafter.

That, and the derivatives from Wall St. (which totaled more than a TRILLION dollars of liability), brought about this economic problem.

There were other actions by the feds that helped bring it about, as well, but they were relatively minor.

[Ibby]

its hilarious that the entire rest of the developed world regards Obama as a center-right moderate and yet you think he's some kind of extremist.

Obama is extremely moderate. He more than sold out the left wing of the party - he threw the left wing under the bus by extending the disastrous Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, by gutting health care reform by passing what was, four years ago, a CONSERVATIVE plan for insurance mandates without a public option, by expanding extrajudicial execution of even American citizens abroad, by refusing to close Gitmo...

Anywhere else in the western world, Obama would be a moderate conservative. Only in the minds of right-wing nutcases like you, Adak, is Obama even remotely extremist.