Romney just cost himself the election

[whatbogsends]

Yeah, we know Obama can't work with Republicans in the House, but thank for highlighting that fact.

It's actually Republicans that won't work with Obama, rather than 'Obama can't work with Republicans'. Especially in light of the fact that several key Republicans stated they would work to thwart him since day one.

 

[RedPaddy]

It's actually Republicans that won't work with Obama, rather than 'Obama can't work with Republicans'. Especially in light of the fact that several key Republicans stated they would work to thwart him since day one.

lol. go back and look at the participants invited to craft obamacare, note that it was all Dems. The exclusion of the minority party was not brought on by themselves in all instances.

 

[HerbieHeadley]

Also according to the CATO Institute, we spent (pre recession) twice as much on business welfare than on individual welfare (ex., 16 billion a year to the oil sector as well as tax breaks).

I'll have to search for that. Unless you have a direct link. I never could quite grasp how not taking money from business in the form of tax confiscation is somehow considered to be spending.

 

[IzzyPop]

lol. go back and look at the participants invited to craft obamacare, note that it was all Dems. The exclusion of the minority party was not brought on by themselves in all instances.

Go back and look at where the ACA got its start. Heritage Foundation, Newt Gingrich, and Mitt Romney. It was conceived by conservatives back in the nineties and championed by Republicans as the alternative to the Clinton heath care reform and instituted by Mitt while he was Governor of Massachusetts.

 

[Thekla]

I'll have to search for that. Unless you have a direct link. I never could quite grasp how not taking money from business in the form of tax confiscation is somehow considered to be spending.

Here are the numbers:

About $59 billion is spent on traditional social welfare programs. $92 billion is spent on corporate subsidies. So, the government spent 50% more on corporate welfare than it did on food stamps and housing assistance in 2006.
Think by Numbers » Government Spends More on Corporate Welfare Subsidies than Social Welfare Programs

This does not tmk include military expenditure, covert and overt operations, and other contributions which benefit key business sectors in our economy.

Nor does it include our defacto subsidy to banking; the econ blog Zerohedge covered an analysisi that estimates that 70% of JPMorgan's profit is due to its govt. backing.

Free enterprise my foot ...

Here, on JP Morgan:
77% of JP Morgan’s Net Income Comes from Government Subsidies (links to Bloomberg analysis)
http://www.zerohedge.com/contribute...#8217;s-net-income-comes-government-subsidies

 

[RedPaddy]

Go back and look at where the ACA got its start. Heritage Foundation, Newt Gingrich, and Mitt Romney. It was conceived by conservatives back in the nineties and championed by Republicans as the alternative to the Clinton heath care reform and instituted by Mitt while he was Governor of Massachusetts.

Thankyou much. Perhaps all the libs here will listen to one of your own when he has just shown you Republicans have worked with Democrats.

 

[MachZer0]

One years worth. Not sure why he thinks he is better then anyone else.

He must be one of those who doesn't pay taxes he talks about

You have ample opportunity to provide evidence, other than speculation

 

[MachZer0]

Go back and look at where the ACA got its start. Heritage Foundation, Newt Gingrich, and Mitt Romney. It was conceived by conservatives back in the nineties and championed by Republicans as the alternative to the Clinton heath care reform and instituted by Mitt while he was Governor of Massachusetts.

When you say championed, obviously you mean never even brought up n the floor for serious consideration

 

[MachZer0]

Here are the numbers:

This does not tmk include military expenditure, covert and overt operations, and other contributions which benefit key business sectors in our economy.

Nor does it include our defacto subsidy to banking; the econ blog Zerohedge covered an analysisi that estimates that 70% of JPMorgan's profit is due to its govt. backing.

Free enterprise my foot ...

Do you have a char that's actually readable

 

[Thekla]

Do you have a char that's actually readable

Google image "subsidize this" for a larger chart
(the large images mess up the page readability on CF).

For further information, you can go to the article I linked or just google
"CATO Institute corporate welfare" (they've been covering this for a long time, so there'll be numerous hits).

 

[DaisyDay]

Go back and look at where the ACA got its start. Heritage Foundation, Newt Gingrich, and Mitt Romney. It was conceived by conservatives back in the nineties and championed by Republicans as the alternative to the Clinton heath care reform and instituted by Mitt while he was Governor of Massachusetts.

Thankyou much. Perhaps all the libs here will listen to one of your own when he has just shown you Republicans have worked with Democrats.

That's just the point - the Republicans have NOT worked with Democrats lately. The AFA was taken from Republican proposals, yet they went against it.

Perhaps now you will admit that the Republicans in Congress are obstructionists.

 

[RedPaddy]

That's just the point - the Republicans have NOT worked with Democrats lately. The AFA was taken from Republican proposals, yet they went against it.

Perhaps now you will admit that the Republicans in Congress are obstructionists.

No, I think of them preservers of liberties and common sense. So many of Obama's proposals are just plain wrong for this country, I am overjoyed when they can be prevented.

 

[TeddyReceptus]

No, I think of them preservers of liberties and common sense. So many of Obama's proposals are just plain wrong for this country, I am overjoyed when they can be prevented.

This is Tea Party Rhetoric. The U.S. government functions precisely because compromises are made.

Please explain to me how it is "wrong for this country" to demand that any and all balancing of the budget be done at the expense of the poor while explicitly preserving near-historic low top marginal tax rates for the rich?

Seems to me our country was doing relatively well during the middle-latter part of the 1950's and guess what? The income inequality wasn't nearly as bad as it is now, the rich paid a much higher top marginal tax rate.

Compromise is how government works.

The facts of the matter is that Obama took more heat from his base for considering cuts to social programs we all value, but the GOP took no heat from their base because all they did was say "NO".

Is that "fair"? No. Obama suffered in his base because Obama knew that the real path for the country lies between the two extremes.

The GOP decided that their main goal was NOT to serve the American people but rather to ensure that Obama was a one term president.

If that is why you elect people to the Congress then maybe that attitude is what is bad for America.

 

[JCSr]

No, I think of them preservers of liberties and common sense. So many of Obama's proposals are just plain wrong for this country, I am overjoyed when they can be prevented.

Correction. You believe many of Obama's proposals are just plain wrong for this country. Many of us disagree with you.

 

[TeddyReceptus]

...proven inability to work with Republicans ...

HIS proven inability?

Mitch McConnell: Top Priority, Make Obama a One Term President - YouTube

I don't know about how you vote, but personally I'd rather pay my congressperson to do the job of legislating rather than PLAYING PURE POLITICS.

I didn't send my congressperson to Washington to unseat someone. I sent them there to legislate.

(But then I'm not a conservative so I believe in paying for a service and actually getting it.)

 

[TeddyReceptus]

No one can work with anyone who stated on the very day they were inagurated to not work with them.

The failure is the GOP for not doing what they are paid to do, and it appears you want to reward them.

Apparently we have a bunch of voters in the U.S. who want to pay Congresspeople to just go in and act as political hitmen.

I am surprised because I would think people who are actually pro-America would pay legislators to LEGISLATE.



They've made it quite clear. History will ultimately judge but the GOP left a really good record. They will not escape this time without a black eye self-delivered.

The record speaks for itself. That's why the Repubs need FoxNews to constantly re-write history for them! And thankfully much of the Republican base is now apparently made up of amnesiacs who can't remember much before the last Sean Hannity broadcast, let alone life before 2008. And they certainly don't seem to know much about American history.

 

[RedPaddy]

This is Tea Party Rhetoric. The U.S. government functions precisely because compromises are made.

Please explain to me how it is "wrong for this country" to demand that any and all balancing of the budget be done at the expense of the poor while explicitly preserving near-historic low top marginal tax rates for the rich?

I do not know of anyone who has advocated for such. Increased tax rates and and tax revenues do not equate, rather they are opposing. Look at the rates and revenues from 1921 to 1925, during the Kennedy administration, and the Reagan administration for evidence of this.

I applaud the Republicans for even their attempts to reduce our deficit while the democrats spend like drunken fools money they do not have.

Seems to me our country was doing relatively well during the middle-latter part of the 1950's and guess what? The income inequality wasn't nearly as bad as it is now, the rich paid a much higher top marginal tax rate.

were the number of those filing taxes with incomes in the top 10% growing or shrinking? were tax revenues on the top 10% growing or shrinking? You can raise the rate of taxation but all you are doing is affecting behavior. Those affected by the rate increase end up paying less since they are putting their money outside of the reach of the tax man. This is worth a read if yoiu have the time, it is longer than most posts.

Compromise is how government works.

compromise does not mean capitulation.

The GOP decided that their main goal was NOT to serve the American people but rather to ensure that Obama was a one term president.

by striving for the latter they refuted your bolded premise here. They served admirabley.

 

[TeddyReceptus]

One years worth. Not sure why he thinks he is better then anyone else.

Here's how it works (I lived in Mass when Mitt wanted to be Governor there). The world is a hard and cruel place so Mitt gets people to "fix" things for him! When he wanted to be governor of a state that has rather set "residency requirements" for the candidates, Mitt realized he had given up that right in order to be big king man of SLC Olympics. Well being the savior of the Olympics was fun and good and made him look good, but now Mitt wanted to be governor of Massachusetts! What is a widdle boy to do who has more money than God? Well somehow the rules got changed in Mass and Mitt was allowed to get around the rules.

Mitt wanted to be CEO of Bain Capital as long as he could and he wanted to be involved in politics, but when it looked like Bain was doing things while he was still nominall CEO on SEC filings (which are legal documents) that might make Mitt look bad, they had to make up "retroactive retirement" for him! (Since Mitt doesn't even have enough money to get someone to invent him a time machine).

No the world is hard, but unlike you and me and presumably nearly half of the American population who are too lazy to take care of their own lives, MITT HAS PEOPLE TO TAKE CARE OF INCONVENIENT REALITY FOR HIM!

So Mitt only shows us as much tax returns as he feels is required and that's probably fine. Who knows? Maybe this last year Mitt "opted" to pay a reasonable amount of taxes to make it look like he cares about America?

I don't believe the trash talk about Mitt not paying taxes. I just think Mitt knows his tax rate is so gawdawful low and we know he stashes some money in off-shore tax havens that it would look distinctly unamerican for him to show us how much of his hard earned money he gets to keep.

As for the "We Built This", I love that line too. Mitt, to my knowlege, never "built" anything. He managed a capital firm. At best he threw some money at people who actually did build something. But then throwing money at things is probably pretty hard work.

He must be one of those who doesn't pay taxes he talks about

I think it is reasonable to assume Mitt pays taxes and always has, but the thing is Mitt is more rich than you or I and probably has the best kick-*** accountants money can buy so he gets every single deduction and coupled with offshore tax havens he is probably able to keep far more of his money percentage wise than you or I.

He doesn't worry about the lazy leeches that make up half of America in his view, but he does need to worry about the rest of American and he knows he's battling for 5-10% of the population. He can't afford to lose even one of those votes.

And letting us know how much better America is for Mitt would not make Mitt look good.

 

[RedPaddy]

I don't know about how you vote, but personally I'd rather pay my congressperson to do the job of legislating rather than PLAYING PURE POLITICS.

So how many budgets did your party submit that received any votes whatsoever in either house? I honestly do not know of one that received votes other than those submitted by republicans. IIRC obama's sumitted budget didn't even get a single democrat vote. (please correct me if I am misinformed).

 

[JCSr]

So how many budgets did your party submit that received any votes whatsoever in either house? I honestly do not know of one that received votes other than those submitted by republicans. IIRC obama's sumitted budget didn't even get a single democrat vote. (please correct me if I am misinformed).

TeddyReceptus is not displaying a party icon. How do you know what party he belongs to?