Romney: We Don’t Need ‘More FIREMEN, More POLICEMEN, More TEACHERS’

[Soul Crusher]

spending is the problem.  but neitehr candidate is going to reign that in.

Obama is running on spending more.  

Romney is running on cutting.


Lets give romney a chance we know obama wont and romney is promising to do so.  

If he doesnt, we vote his ass out in 2016.


Makes sense no?  

[OzmO]

Obama is running on spending more.  

Romney is running on cutting.


Lets give romney a chance we know obama wont and romney is promising to do so.  

If he doesnt, we vote his ass out in 2016.


Makes sense no?  

I like it, but you know he's gonna spend.

[Soul Crusher]

I like it, but you know he's gonna spend.

I already said i give him a 50% - 85% chance of sucking ass.   I am voting for the 15% chance he will be ok. 

[OzmO]

I already said i give him a 50% - 85% chance of sucking ass.   I am voting for the 15% chance he will be ok. 

so......you are voting for a 15% chance of success.............  we suck. 

[Soul Crusher]

so......you are voting for a 15% chance of success.............  we suck. 

It is what it is.

 

[GigantorX]

so......you are voting for a 15% chance of success.............  we suck. 

It is what it is.

 

I spit some coffee out when I read these....

This perfectly sums up the current American political landscape and voter apathy.

[GigantorX]

Of course it is... but we certainly don't need MORE cops.

That's a true statement.

Yup. I had a discussion with my wife about this and even my brother in law who is a "up the chain of command" in a police department.

We all agreed, it's not about having more police everywhere, instead, it's how you do the policing.

[Soul Crusher]

[ Invalid YouTube link ]

[War-Horse]

the EFFECT is a tax increase.  But it's not the ACTION of obama that caused it.

Congress introduced and approved a SHORT TERM tax CUT bill.

THey could have intro'd a 10-year bill.  They didn't.  it was a short-term special.  it wasn't the new standard baseline level.  It was a cut, a temporary reduciton by definition.

240. where do you get the patience to talk to these idiots like gigantor?  I see you try every angle in the book for him to see that it NEVER WAS A BASELINE and he thinks its a taxhike.   Like he said dumbasses.....mcdonalds doesnt give you a 50% off coupon to use for eternity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is a temporary thing.......good lord 240 said he was a teacher right? that must be where he gets his patience.

[GigantorX]

240. where do you get the patience to talk to these idiots like gigantor?  I see you try every angle in the book for him to see that it NEVER WAS A BASELINE and he thinks its a taxhike.   Like he said dumbasses.....mcdonalds doesnt give you a 50% off coupon to use for eternity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is a temporary thing.......good lord 240 said he was a teacher right? that must be where he gets his patience.

I would assume that you would be in the minority with that assertion, pal.

Next time, grow set a balls and address me directly like every other poster on this board is capable of doing whether we agree on issues or not.

Do you lack the necessary mental acuity to have a logical argument? Using your post as evidence, I would assume that you do.

By all means, prove me wrong.

And I'm sorry, temporary, to me at least, is a year, a month, a few weeks. You don't pass a law to lower tax rates for a 8-10 years or more and, when you let that law expire, not call it a tax hike. If it was for 20 years and the law was left expire would you still consider it not a tax hike? I see where 240 is arguing from, but I disagree. I believe we both laid out arguments and neither one of us will change the others mind. That's fine.

[War-Horse]

I would assume that you would be in the minority with that assertion, pal.

Next time, grow set a balls and address me directly like every other poster on this board is capable of doing whether we agree on issues or not.

Do you lack the necessary mental acuity to have a logical argument? Using your post as evidence, I would assume that you do.

By all means, prove me wrong.

And I'm sorry, temporary, to me at least, is a year, a month, a few weeks. You don't pass a law to lower tax rates for a 8-10 years or more and, when you let that law expire, not call it a tax hike. If it was for 20 years and the law was left expire would you still consider it not a tax hike? I see where 240 is arguing from, but I disagree. I believe we both laid out arguments and neither one of us will change the others mind. That's fine.

Ill address any mental midget like you, however I want. I may even let others do the addressing as I spent years here trying to do what your doing.
And no its not a tax hike. Its the end of the contract. Very simple.

[tonymctones]

Ill address any mental midget like you, however I want. I may even let others do the addressing as I spent years here trying to do what your doing.
And no its not a tax hike. Its the end of the contract. Very simple.

then why does obama and the dems call the increase on student loans rates a "rate hike"?

 

[GigantorX]

Ill address any mental midget like you, however I want. I may even let others do the addressing as I spent years here trying to do what your doing.
And no its not a tax hike. Its the end of the contract. Very simple.

1.)What am I trying to do here?

2.)It's the expiration of a law, fine, but when that law expires our taxes go up. Hence the term "Tax hike". To clarify, I'm not saying that a politician is actually writing a law to raise our taxes, I'm simply saying that an existing law will be expiring and because of it our taxes will be raised.

I think this is a case of 6 of one, half dozen of another.

[tonymctones]

1.)What am I trying to do here?

2.)It's the expiration of a law, fine, but when that law expires our taxes go up. Hence the term "Tax hike". To clarify, I'm not saying that a politician is actually writing a law to raise our taxes, I'm simply saying that an existing law will be expiring and because of it our taxes will be raised.

I think this is a case of 6 of one, half dozen of another.

NONSENSE, when dems want to extend the bill(even though reps want to as well) its a tax hike

when the reps want to extend the bill its just an expiration and going back to normal rates.

you have to look at it through the eyes of a liberal!!!

[Dos Equis]

I would assume that you would be in the minority with that assertion, pal.

Next time, grow set a balls and address me directly like every other poster on this board is capable of doing whether we agree on issues or not.

Do you lack the necessary mental acuity to have a logical argument? Using your post as evidence, I would assume that you do.

By all means, prove me wrong.

And I'm sorry, temporary, to me at least, is a year, a month, a few weeks. You don't pass a law to lower tax rates for a 8-10 years or more and, when you let that law expire, not call it a tax hike. If it was for 20 years and the law was left expire would you still consider it not a tax hike? I see where 240 is arguing from, but I disagree. I believe we both laid out arguments and neither one of us will change the others mind. That's fine.

Yes he's in the minority.

[Shockwave]

1.)What am I trying to do here?

2.)It's the expiration of a law, fine, but when that law expires our taxes go up. Hence the term "Tax hike". To clarify, I'm not saying that a politician is actually writing a law to raise our taxes, I'm simply saying that an existing law will be expiring and because of it our taxes will be raised.

I think this is a case of 6 of one, half dozen of another.

Yeah, I think you guys are arguing semantics, although I tend to agree with you. If a law is passed lowering taxes for a long period of time, and then the law expires, IMHO, its a tax hike.
If it was a very short term thing (Say a couple months), then I would agree with War Horse.

[tu_holmes]

Yeah, I think you guys are arguing semantics, although I tend to agree with you. If a law is passed lowering taxes for a long period of time, and then the law expires, IMHO, its a tax hike.
If it was a very short term thing (Say a couple months), then I would agree with War Horse.

Did we need the tax lowering in the first place at the time?

While I actually think it's truly just semantics... Taxes get raised and lowered and no one does anything about it... like voting in or out those responsible anyway.

[whork]

Its a BIG mistake to lower taxes in a up-turn. Taxes should be raised to create a healthy surplus and then lowered during hard times to create keep to down turn in check.

So we should be lowering taxes now unfortuanetly we can thank Bush for having already blown our options when the economy was bubbling

A few people got even richer and our country is fucked

Vote Republican, Romney 2012 if you want more of this shit

[dario73]

What upturn? This economy keeps getting worse. It's a bad idea to raise taxes on anyone at this time. What needs to be done is what the dumb Dems don't ever want to do. Cut government expenses. Cut expenses on entitlement programs that are not needed. Eliminate government subsidies to stupid green companies whose ideas will never see the light of day because their inventions are impractical. Lower taxes and lower the cost of doing business in America in order to attract foreign corporations and investment.

[whork]

What upturn? This economy keeps getting worse. It's a bad idea to raise taxes on anyone at this time. What needs to be done is what the dumb Dems don't ever want to do. Cut government expenses. Cut expenses on entitlement programs that are not needed. Eliminate government subsidies to stupid green companies whose ideas will never see the light of day because their inventions are impractical. Lower taxes and lower the cost of doing business in America in order to attract foreign corporations and investment.

True but nobody is gonna do this