Romney Parks Millions in Cayman Islands

Oh come on. The entire Republican party has moved to the right since Reagan. Everyone knows it. Every one of their nominees is more conservative than the last one. For Christ sakes, back in the 90's, their nominee, Bob Dole, authored what became so-called "obamacare" or "socialized medicine".

Are you two living under a rock?

Who the hell wants to go get this one's position and then compare it to that one's. This is what I would call common knowledge. The R party has moved to the right and taken the opposition party with them.

And you guys know it, I think, unless all that football has finally gone to your brains. Or maybe Cawacko and SF are playing football these days? You know what LBJ said about President Ford - that boy has played too much football without a helmet!
 
Dixie said:
First of all, the people we elect to the presidency tend to be wealthier than average because it takes a lot of money to run for president. Through the years, we've whittled down the amount of money candidates can receive in contributions, so it becomes increasingly important the candidate is wealthy, so they can tap into their personal resources when needed.

When you state that the elections are "fixed by corporations and the media" what do you mean? Literally or figuratively? Because, I don't believe that we all go cast our votes, then they just throw the ballots away and put the people in office the corporate machine wants. I just don't think that is what is happening in the reality we live in. Do you? Now, from a figurative sense, millions of dollars spent on ad campaigns, dirt-digging, skeleton-rattlers, fact-finders, etc... Media putting out garbage like the OP above... Yeah, that does influence a lot of really gullible people who should know better. The solution to this problem is for people to be less gullible....good luck with that!

As for the point you make about wealthy people not caring about the rest of us... I disagree. Why is it, you all want to believe that rich people HATE those who aren't rich? That they don't CARE about you, or anyone else in the world? Where the hell does this line of thinking come from? Does it just not occur to you that wealthy people need for the rest of us to be happy, prosperous, content with life? Their investment portfolios only show promise when the people are happy, prosperous, working... When we have massive unemployment, and no economic growth, when people are depressed and lack confidence, the wealthy people aren't making money.
Click to expand...

Seriously?

You REALLY believe that we've "whittled down the amount of money candidates can receive in contributions"?

How much money did the Citizen's United ruling "whittle down"?
 
Superfreak said:
Wow... so essentially you have nothing? YOU stated he was the most right wing. He asked you to describe why you feel Romney is more right wing and you tell him to start naming issues? Surely if you made the statement you can provide a few examples of what makes you believe as you do? Or are you just parroting yet another Dem talking point without knowing why?
Click to expand...


Just compare Romney's tax plan to Bush's tax proposals for starters:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway...enefits-for-the-wealthy-and-a-bigger-deficit/

And Bush's tax proposals were to the right of both Reagan and Nixon.

Then add in the fact that Romney wants to dramatically slash spending (we all know Reagan and Bush increased spending substantially while in office) and you have the most right-wing candidate since Goldwater.
 
Darla said:
Oh come on. The entire Republican party has moved to the right since Reagan. Everyone knows it. Every one of their nominees is more conservative than the last one. For Christ sakes, back in the 90's, their nominee, Bob Dole, authored what became so-called "obamacare" or "socialized medicine".

Are you two living under a rock?

Who the hell wants to go get this one's position and then compare it to that one's. This is what I would call common knowledge. The R party has moved to the right and taken the opposition party with them.

And you guys know it, I think, unless all that football has finally gone to your brains. Or maybe Cawacko and SF are playing football these days? You know what LBJ said about President Ford - that boy has played too much football without a helmet!
Click to expand...

Eisenhower was the last President to reduce the national debt. Nixon didn't run up the debt anywhere near as much as Reagan or Bush. If the party is moving to the right economically how do explain the spending of Reagan and Bush compared to Republican Presidents of the past?
 
Dungheap said:
Just compare Romney's tax plan to Bush's tax proposals for starters:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway...enefits-for-the-wealthy-and-a-bigger-deficit/

And Bush's tax proposals were to the right of both Reagan and Nixon.

Then add in the fact that Romney wants to dramatically slash spending (we all know Reagan and Bush increased spending substantially while in office) and you have the most right-wing candidate since Goldwater.
Click to expand...

You don't think Reagan wanted to dramatically slash spending?
 
cawacko said:
Eisenhower was the last President to reduce the national debt. Nixon didn't run up the debt anywhere near as much as Reagan or Bush. If the party is moving to the right economically how do explain the spending of Reagan and Bush compared to Republican Presidents of the past?
Click to expand...

Cawacko, as I believe you know, the measure of ideology is not how much you spend, but what you spend it on. And I would like to point out that I distinctly remember telling you back on the bush board, that the right wing plan, as authored by Grover Norquist was to first bankrupt the country, and then slash social spending.

The fact is that on taxes they have moved measurably to the far right. I read this great piece about Romney's father the other day. His effective tax rate was 37% and he didn't WANT to pay less. Romney's is "about 15%" (we don't actually know what it is because he refuses to release his tax returns), and he wants to keep it there, or even less.

Again, you might want to ignore it, but the fact that Bob Dole authored something very similar to Obamacare back in the 90's as the conservative counter proposal to so-called "Hillary care" really speaks volumes about the move to the right in this crazy country.
 
Darla said:
Oh come on. The entire Republican party has moved to the right since Reagan. Everyone knows it. Every one of their nominees is more conservative than the last one. For Christ sakes, back in the 90's, their nominee, Bob Dole, authored what became so-called "obamacare" or "socialized medicine".
Click to expand...

Economically speaking both the Dems and the Reps have moved very hard to the LEFT since Reagan.

Are you two living under a rock?
Click to expand...

No, we live in the real world. Not the fantasy land that the Dems keep telling you about.

Who the hell wants to go get this one's position and then compare it to that one's. This is what I would call common knowledge. The R party has moved to the right and taken the opposition party with them.
Click to expand...

Except they haven't. Not even close. Which is why we question people who make such claims.

And you guys know it, I think, unless all that football has finally gone to your brains. Or maybe Cawacko and SF are playing football these days? You know what LBJ said about President Ford - that boy has played too much football without a helmet!
Click to expand...

Yeah... and LBJ killed a LOT of brown people too. So I don't think we should listen to a war criminal. Do you?
 
"Economically speaking both the Dems and the Reps have moved very hard to the LEFT since Reagan."

The regression of tax rates quite simply and effectively disputes this bit of fantasy. It is simply untrue.
 
cawacko said:
Eisenhower was the last President to reduce the national debt. Nixon didn't run up the debt anywhere near as much as Reagan or Bush. If the party is moving to the right economically how do explain the spending of Reagan and Bush compared to Republican Presidents of the past?
Click to expand...

Easily. The spending was for the purpose of making it difficult for following administrations to spend money on liberal priorities.
Clinton couldn't do half of what he wanted to do because he had to pay down 12 years of GOP spending.
Obama is also complety restrained by Bush's 8 year spending spree. Instead, under what should be an ultra liberal administration, tax cuts for the wealthy are extended, medicare is being cut and retirement age for Social Security is being raised.
 
Darla said:
Cawacko, as I believe you know, the measure of ideology is not how much you spend, but what you spend it on. And I would like to point out that I distinctly remember telling you back on the bush board, that the right wing plan, as authored by Grover Norquist was to first bankrupt the country, and then slash social spending.
Click to expand...

Actually it is a measure of what you spend vs. what you make. The ever increasing deficit spending is what makes both parties a LOT further to the left than they were at the time of Reagan. Even Tip O'Neill would be appalled by the reckless spending of the two parties over the past decade.

The fact is that on taxes they have moved measurably to the far right. I read this great piece about Romney's father the other day. His effective tax rate was 37% and he didn't WANT to pay less. Romney's is "about 15%" (we don't actually know what it is because he refuses to release his tax returns), and he wants to keep it there, or even less.
Click to expand...

Funny... because it was Clinton that lowered the Cap gains tax prior to Bush lowering it even further... on cap gains, I am on board with saying it is fucked up. All income should be taxed at the same rate. But overall the tax code is a mess. When you have 70,000 pages in the tax code... THAT is the problem. Everyone has lobbied the two parties for their own special deductions/exemptions/loopholes/subsidies. Neither party can stake a claim to being fiscally conservative of late when it comes to the tax code.

Again, you might want to ignore it, but the fact that Bob Dole authored something very similar to Obamacare back in the 90's as the conservative counter proposal to so-called "Hillary care" really speaks volumes about the move to the right in this crazy country.
Click to expand...

Hillary care was a far left obamanation. (yes, I misspelled it on purpose)

Do link us up to Bob Doles bill you are referring to. Thanks.
 
Return of Dune said:
Easily. The spending was for the purpose of making it difficult for following administrations to spend money on liberal priorities.
Clinton couldn't do half of what he wanted to do because he had to pay down 12 years of GOP spending.
Obama is also complety restrained by Bush's 8 year spending spree. Instead, under what should be an ultra liberal administration, tax cuts for the wealthy are extended, medicare is being cut and retirement age for Social Security is being raised.
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO....

Spending went UP every year of Clintons Tenure.

Not ONE single fiscal year went by where he actually 'paid off' any debt. The debt increased EVERY SINGLE FISCAL YEAR Clinton was in office. Every one.
 
Dungheap said:
I know that spending levels increased dramatically during his tenure.
Click to expand...

Yes. So you are comparing what Romney is saying on the campaign trail to what others did while in office. I would assume I'm preaching to the choir by stating to you that candidates don't often do in office what they claim they would as candidates.
 
Superfreak said:
Actually it is a measure of what you spend vs. what you make. The ever increasing deficit spending is what makes both parties a LOT further to the left than they were at the time of Reagan. Even Tip O'Neill would be appalled by the reckless spending of the two parties over the past decade.
Click to expand...

No, that is just your insistence on putting a "left" name tag on government spending. That's simply untrue. The left and the right spend on different things (generally speaking), but they both spend. Sorry, I'm not going to play by the rules you decide to set down just because an earlier version of Frank Luntz came up with "tax and spend liberals".

You can keep repeating this SF, but it's untrue, and I disagree with it.
 
Superfreak said:
Funny... because it was Clinton that lowered the Cap gains tax prior to Bush lowering it even further... on cap gains, I am on board with saying it is fucked up. All income should be taxed at the same rate. But overall the tax code is a mess. When you have 70,000 pages in the tax code... THAT is the problem. Everyone has lobbied the two parties for their own special deductions/exemptions/loopholes/subsidies. Neither party can stake a claim to being fiscally conservative of late when it comes to the tax code.



Do link us up to Bob Doles bill you are referring to. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is why I said that as the Republican party has moved to the right since Reagan, they took the opposition party (that would be Bill Clinton's party?) with them! Thanks for backing me up on that!

As for linking you up, come on SF, it was a Chafee bill and Dole brought it up, I think he cosponsored it. It was the individual mandate! Were you alive in the 90's? Maybe you are younger than I think? were you high on Similac or something? :Googler::Googler:
 
Superfreak said:
ROFLMAO....

Spending went UP every year of Clintons Tenure.

Not ONE single fiscal year went by where he actually 'paid off' any debt. The debt increased EVERY SINGLE FISCAL YEAR Clinton was in office. Every one.
Click to expand...

It has increased every year during Obama too. That does not disprove my statement.
 
cawacko said:
Yes. So you are comparing what Romney is saying on the campaign trail to what others did while in office. I would assume I'm preaching to the choir by stating to you that candidates don't often do in office what they claim they would as candidates.
Click to expand...


I'm not going to dig up Reagan's campaign materials from 1980. I know for a fact that he campaigned on dramatically increasing defense spending.
 
Darla said:
No, that is just your insistence on putting a "left" name tag on government spending. That's simply untrue. The left and the right spend on different things (generally speaking), but they both spend. Sorry, I'm not going to play by the rules you decide to set down just because an earlier version of Frank Luntz came up with "tax and spend liberals".

You can keep repeating this SF, but it's untrue, and I disagree with it.
Click to expand...

Tell us... what has spending declined on? OR is it that the pace of the increase in growth in particular areas is not fast enough?

As for conservative views... regardless what it is spent on... if you SPEND more than you MAKE on a year-in year-out basis... that is fiscally IRRESPONSIBLE. As Cawacko stated... Not since IKE was President have we seen the national debt paid down. Each year we increase the burden on future generations. Each year we ask them to pay for more of what we WANT today. That is not fiscally responsible. Which means it is most certainly not a fiscally conservative view.

To be clear, I don't think either party has been too particularly concerned with fiscal responsibility... especially looking at Bush and Obama.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top