Republicans are realizing Mitt is not their best choice?
Mopeder
2012/05/03 13:11:44
|
|
|||||
|
41 votes
|
|
44% | |||
|
52 votes
|
|
56% | |||
Come on people, you know President Obama is the best choice.
Top Opinion
-
No they will never get it
+26Republicans are more ashamed and disgusted of the fact that Obama has DOUBLED the national deficit despite his promise to cut it in half after his first term. Republicans will not let ANYONE off the hook if they fail to reduce spending and reduce the deficit. Obama is a proven failure and Romney, a successful business man that needs to take over and get the spending under control, stimulate the economy by job creation and making our country more small business friendly. If Romney fails, he too will be a one term President like Obama.
![Accept - Metal Heart [Full Album]](http://images.sodahead.com/polls/003702865/5651702370_0_large.jpeg "Accept - Metal Heart [Full Album]")
Romney certainly wasn't MY first choice! Hell, he wasn't my fifth of the original six choice's (that I can remember) either!
But I'll say this, he's STILL a damn better choice that the POS we have in office right now!
but, apparently they think romney is the best choice, but you never know with republicans, because they are pretty dense and don't understand most things they preach.
Sometimes it takes 'baby steps' for improvement. The dems have been taking baby steps for decades to initiate their agenda!
Romney may not be my first choice as was with quite a few people that wanted Hillary instead of bama, but I'd rather have him than bama any day.
Did you know that jeffery immelt, bama's best friend, was placed as "jobs czar" and sent thousands of jobs overseas?
Hmmmmm? Who loves rich people? bama does. He just had a 35K fund raiser dinner. You don't think poor people came do you?
I earned it every single working day making smart purchases and NEVER going into debt to buy something I didn't need. Today I own a 640+ acre ranch/farm that is fully self-sustaining. I don't have to buy power from a power company because I generate my own from wind, solar and now hydro-electric.
I've worked hard for what I have and it pisses me off no end to see theives like Romney, Beck, Limbaugh and dozens of others steal from the public with false and misleading claims.
You sir should look around and see just where your at in your life. I made sure I was protected from these people and I'll be damned if I'll have the Religious right and the Republican Party take it way form my family.
You didn't answer my question did you.
The Bush tax cuts are an affront to the most fundamental principles of fairness. They are skewed in favor of those who already pay less than their rightful share of taxes and shift the burden even farther onto the shoulders of the most overtaxed. In other words, the Bush tax cuts are unfair to the rich.
I know there's a lot of hype to the contrary, but look at the numbers. If you and your spouse have a taxable income of $60,000 a year, you've had almost a 24 percent income tax cut since President Bush took office. (And ditto if your income was just $20,000.) Meanwhile, the folks who make $350,000 a year got a cut of only about 12.5 percent; those who make $1 million a year got an even smaller cut.
Advertisement
Pre-Bush, the $1 million a year couple paid 33 times as much as the $60,000 couple; today they pay more than 38 times as much. Here's the big picture:
Overall, the biggest percentage cuts went to the poorest of the poor (those with incomes in the $10,000 range) and the next biggest to those making about $60,000. After that, with some minor dips up and down, the relative size of your tax cut falls off as your income rises.
...
The Bush tax cuts are an affront to the most fundamental principles of fairness. They are skewed in favor of those who already pay less than their rightful share of taxes and shift the burden even farther onto the shoulders of the most overtaxed. In other words, the Bush tax cuts are unfair to the rich.
I know there's a lot of hype to the contrary, but look at the numbers. If you and your spouse have a taxable income of $60,000 a year, you've had almost a 24 percent income tax cut since President Bush took office. (And ditto if your income was just $20,000.) Meanwhile, the folks who make $350,000 a year got a cut of only about 12.5 percent; those who make $1 million a year got an even smaller cut.
Advertisement
Pre-Bush, the $1 million a year couple paid 33 times as much as the $60,000 couple; today they pay more than 38 times as much. Here's the big picture:
Overall, the biggest percentage cuts went to the poorest of the poor (those with incomes in the $10,000 range) and the next biggest to those making about $60,000. After that, with some minor dips up and down, the relative size of your tax cut falls off as your income rises.
From Article Printed December 2007
The New York Times reported recently that the average family in America with an income of $10 million or more received a half-million-dollar tax cut, while the middle class got crumbs (less than $100 shaved off their tax bill). If we examine the taxes paid in a static world—that is, if we assume that there was no change in behavior and economic performance as a result of the tax code—then these numbers are meaningful. Most of the tax cuts went to the super wealthy.
But Americans did respond to the tax cuts. There was more investment, more hiring by businesses, and a stronger stock market. When we compare the taxes paid under the old system with those paid after the Bush tax cuts, the rich are now actually paying a higher proportion of income taxes. The latest IRS data show an increase of more than $100 billion in tax payments from the wealthy by 2005 alone. The number of tax filers who claimed taxable income of more than $1 million increased from approximately 180,000 in 2003 to over 300,000 in 2005. The total taxes paid by these millionaire households rose by about 80 percent in two years, from $132 billion to $236 billion.
To see actual Revenue Increases and decreases. look here:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.or...