Election of 2012....Who ya got?

[ax1]

I understand where you are coming from.
But I really don't think the Republican Party & Democratic Party are close to the same.

Its a duopoly. The way you conquer competition is to infiltrate and/or buy out your own competition and give people an illusion of choice. Become your own competition.

We can have China and split it into 2 parties today, China Red and China Blue and let people vote and end up with the same exact people in office.

When it comes to big issues both parties are in line with each other such as wars and supporting the corporate order....and most of the polititions are funded by the same people.

Obama and Romney both have the same bankster campaign contributors for example, them two are a carbon copy of each other.

Campaign contributors for both Obama and Romney
Goldman Sachs
Credit Suisse Group
Morgan Stanley
Bank of America
JP Morgan Chase
UBS
Citigroup
Wells Fargo
Barclays
Bain Capital
and more....................

 

[DerickVonD]

Paul only really has to beat Romney. Neither Newt or Santuram are on the ballot in every state.

 

[ax1]

Paul only really has to beat Romney. Neither Newt or Santuram are on the ballot in every state.

There is something else up for grabs as well...if Paul gets enough delegates he will secure a major time slot to speak at the Republican convention.

 

[EasyEJL]

There is something else up for grabs as well...if Paul gets enough delegates he will secure a major time slot to speak at the Republican convention.

that he's guaranteed to get as he's smart enough to be putting some advertising effort into some of the later small states after supertuesday that nobody else gives a crap about.

He still has a chance, although small. His best shot would be for Newt to win florida I think. It takes romney down a few notches then, and as was obvious in last night's debate its not that hard to get under newt's skin. he looked apoplexic at one moment and actually lost the ability to speak.

 

[AE14]

that he's guaranteed to get as he's smart enough to be putting some advertising effort into some of the later small states after supertuesday that nobody else gives a crap about.

He still has a chance, although small. His best shot would be for Newt to win florida I think. It takes romney down a few notches then, and as was obvious in last night's debate its not that hard to get under newt's skin. he looked apoplexic at one moment and actually lost the ability to speak.

Newt is a disaster, and on a national scale, is entirely unelectable. He seems always on the verge of a self destruction. Which is funny to watch.

Should Newt somehow get the nomination, he will never win, and will get blown out badly. I dont think any of the Republicans will win a general, but Newt will be embarrassed.

 

[Conagher]

Newt is a disaster, and on a national scale, is entirely unelectable. He seems always on the verge of a self destruction. Which is funny to watch.

Should Newt somehow get the nomination, he will never win, and will get blown out badly. I dont think any of the Republicans will win a general, but Newt will be embarrassed.

Agreed.Newt is a joke.Honestly,if the Republicans keep pushing their far rightwing agenda,I do not see a Republican retaking the Presidency for a long time.The majority of Americans are either moderate or liberals and unless they are being hypocritical,cannot identify with these so called "social conservatives".

 

[AE14]

Agreed.Newt is a joke.Honestly,if the Republicans keep pushing their far rightwing agenda,I do not see a Republican retaking the Presidency for a long time.The majority of Americans are either moderate or liberals and unless they are being hypocritical,cannot identify with these so called "social conservatives".

exactly, the social conservative agenda does not resonate with people right now. If they were to focus on more of the moderates while still slamming the uber-liberals they would have a far better opportunity.

 

[EasyEJL]

Newt is a disaster, and on a national scale, is entirely unelectable. He seems always on the verge of a self destruction. Which is funny to watch.

Should Newt somehow get the nomination, he will never win, and will get blown out badly. I dont think any of the Republicans will win a general, but Newt will be embarrassed.

Oh yeah, I don't want newt to win nationally, but since his campaign already blew being on the ballot in a numbe of states, it would be difficult for him to win anyhow. Plus we're back to the dollars in campaign funds issue too, newt just doesn't have the dollars yet, or organization yet to be truly nationally competitive. If you look, here's what we got over the next 6 weeks, and newt doesn't have time to get it all running in all states.

January 3

• Invalid Link Removed

January 10

• Invalid Link Removed

January 21

• Invalid Link Removed

January 31

• Invalid Link Removed

February 4

• Invalid Link Removed

February 4–11

• Invalid Link Removed

February 7

• Invalid Link Removed
• Invalid Link Removed
• Invalid Link Removed

February 28

• Invalid Link Removed
• Invalid Link Removed

March 3

• Invalid Link Removed

March 6 (Super Tuesday)

• Invalid Link Removed
• Invalid Link Removed
• Invalid Link Removed
• Invalid Link Removed
• Invalid Link Removed
• Invalid Link Removed
• Invalid Link Removed
• Invalid Link Removed
• Invalid Link Removed
• Invalid Link Removed

but newt winning florida would make romney appear weaker, and give the existing establish Paul organizations a much bigger shot at more of those later states.

I had been going to vote for romney rather than paul in the primary just because florida says they are a winner take all state (and i'd rather have help newt not win it, regardless of my rationale above). But the RNC says they never approved florida being winner take all, so it likely will go proportionate so i'm back to voting for Paul.

 

[Conagher]

Paul does seem like our only legitimate candidate for any real change to the status quo.Any one else is just more of the same.Sad times for America.

 

[EasyEJL]

it is funny how much importance is placed on those first 3 primaries/caucuses. Together less than 50 delegates, need what is it 1144 for the nomination?

 

[ax1]

it is funny how much importance is placed on those first 3 primaries/caucuses. Together less than 50 delegates, need what is it 1144 for the nomination?

Its just the corporate/banking/republicrat run media, they like to get things over with asap especially in situations when they are trying to blackout Ron Paul from gaining real momentum.

 

[ax1]

Just saw the clown shoes on MSNBC having a discussion on how Newt went along in his speach and how he acted as if Santorum didnt even exist, lol. Of course lets double down and not even mention how Newt went along in his speach and how he acted as if Ron Paul didnt even exist, lol.

 

[AE14]

Just saw the clown shoes on MSNBC having a discussion on how Newt went along in his speach and how he acted as if Santorum didnt even exist, lol. Of course lets double down and not even mention how Newt went along in his speach and how he acted as if Ron Paul didnt even exist, lol.

After another poor showing, to most Paul doesnt exist. He is the only one in the race that has not won anything yet.

 

[ax1]

After another poor showing, to most Paul doesnt exist. He is the only one in the race that has not won anything yet.

It wasnt a poor showing, it was a no show. With limited financing and resources unfortunatly they decided not to even waste any money in florida especially when you cant get any delegates unless your first.

The reason Paul doesnt exist is because the corporations dont want him to exist.

I know Im being repetitive, but really TV can market Paul to win. Its really up to the "tube" on who wins the elections, with the combination of the corporate powers financing the election and marketing them to win. Thats the reason Obama won with his remarkable slick 5th grade audience acting skills. The entire elections is primarily a fraud.

Romney is a corporate carbon copy of Obama, he gets the most support and people think he is the polar opposite when he is just a reflection in the mirror of the current dictatorial regime.

 

[EasyEJL]

After another poor showing, to most Paul doesnt exist. He is the only one in the race that has not won anything yet.

and with all the electoral votes allocated so far between the 4 contests, its not 10% of whats required to be the nominee. Its a sad state of our instant gratification society that with no candidate having gotten 5% of the necessary delegates that anyone calls it over.

 

[AE14]

and with all the electoral votes allocated so far between the 4 contests, its not 10% of whats required to be the nominee. Its a sad state of our instant gratification society that with no candidate having gotten 5% of the necessary delegates that anyone calls it over.

true, but history has shown us all how momentum plays a prominant role in all of this. Additionally, certain demographics are more powerful for certain candidates. Nevada with a high Mormon population....etc...

At the end of the day, I honestly think some of Paul's supporters were more of a hindrance than a help. They espouse such utter nonsense about him as the "only true hope", etc.. that people begin to put the blame on him and it turns a lot of people off.

As I have said, I dont dislike his economic policies, it is his foreign policy i have issue with. However, none of these folks are "saviors"

 

[AE14]

It wasnt a poor showing, it was a no show. With limited financing and resources unfortunatly they decided not to even waste any money in florida especially when you cant get any delegates unless your first.

The reason Paul doesnt exist is because the corporations dont want him to exist.

I know Im being repetitive, but really TV can market Paul to win. Its really up to the "tube" on who wins the elections, with the combination of the corporate powers financing the election and marketing them to win. Thats the reason Obama won with his remarkable slick 5th grade audience acting skills. The entire elections is primarily a fraud.

Romney is a corporate carbon copy of Obama, he gets the most support and people think he is the polar opposite when he is just a reflection in the mirror of the current dictatorial regime.

Please see my post above.

Additionally, rightfully or wrongfully, Paul is not "sellable". He appeals to no distinguishable base, and his supporters are a downright turn off to borderline supporters. They are rabid animals (no offense)

 

[EasyEJL]

Please see my post above.

Additionally, rightfully or wrongfully, Paul is not "sellable". He appeals to no distinguishable base, and his supporters are a downright turn off to borderline supporters. They are rabid animals (no offense)

that defines Obama pretty well i'd think too

 

[EasyEJL]

Invalid Link Removed

 

[ax1]

At the end of the day, I honestly think some of Paul's supporters were more of a hindrance than a help. They espouse such utter nonsense about him as the "only true hope", etc.. that people begin to put the blame on him and it turns a lot of people off.

As I have said, I dont dislike his economic policies, it is his foreign policy i have issue with. However, none of these folks are "saviors"

Thats just like all the other candidates, Romeny and Gangrich, but Id say they have more rabbid animals than Paul currently. The more recent example of utter nonsense, and to the most extreme marketing of a candidate was Obama, and he won. Obama still has a large group of rabid animals who drool at every word he reads off the telepromter.

Please see my post above.

Additionally, rightfully or wrongfully, Paul is not "sellable". He appeals to no distinguishable base, and his supporters are a downright turn off to borderline supporters. They are rabid animals (no offense)

Yes, there is a issue with sell-able, but the base is becoming distinguishable for sure. It seems that your looking to pick on a movement's negatives due to the lack of instant gratification, when really this is a long term timely process that by far does not involve one man and the opposition has vast and unlimited resources along with military might.

The "sellable" part is a tough one, I know this is an issue with society. With a government/corporate monopoly on public education, and government/corporate monopoly of all the mainstream media its hard work to break apart conditioning that started at early childhood.

 

[AE14]

Thats just like all the other candidates, Romeny and Gangrich, but Id say they have more rabbid animals than Paul currently. The more recent example of utter nonsense, and to the most extreme marketing of a candidate was Obama, and he won. Obama still has a large group of rabid animals who drool at every word he reads off the telepromter.

no doubt, Obama's rabid animals are prolific Very similarly to Paul. I have not met one person who felt that way about anyone else though. I am amazed at many of the extreme Paul fanatics who truly believe he is the little old Mr. Magoo-savior (sorry for the cartoon reference) It is entirely unrealistic

Yes, there is a issue with sell-able, but the base is becoming distinguishable for sure. It seems that your looking to pick on a movement's negatives due to the lack of instant gratification, when really this is a long term timely process that by far does not involve one man and the opposition has vast and unlimited resources along with military might.

The "sellable" part is a tough one, I know this is an issue with society. With a government/corporate monopoly on public education, and government/corporate monopoly of all the mainstream media its hard work to break apart conditioning that started at early childhood.

What I am referring to by base, is the standard bases that exist. Paul is out on his own, and is using the republican party to get his own agenda off the ground. He is no more a republican than Obama

Additionally, he does not do himself any favors during debates and appearances when he fumbles his words and stutters along and does not seem to make a coherrent sentence. Not trying to be nit picky or anything on that ilk, but Paul is in many instances his own worse nightmare.

Either way, regardless of who gets elected, nothing is going to change.

 

[AE14]

that defines Obama pretty well i'd think too

Couldnt agree more!

 

[ax1]

What I am referring to by base, is the standard bases that exist. Paul is out on his own, and is using the republican party to get his own agenda off the ground. He is no more a republican than Obama

Additionally, he does not do himself any favors during debates and appearances when he fumbles his words and stutters along and does not seem to make a coherrent sentence. Not trying to be nit picky or anything on that ilk, but Paul is in many instances his own worse nightmare.

Either way, regardless of who gets elected, nothing is going to change.

I dont think standard bases should even exist, Im all for ending the political party as it is known in America. All of them including Libertarian's and Independents (somehow being an Independent appears to be a "party") and all future parties become inflitrated and corrupted.

All elections should be based on the individual, not "hes a republican" or "hes a christian", etc...

I really dont mind if Paul fumbles in the debates, policy has nothing to do with acting skills. I think your picking on him more so because you dont like his policy plans to begin with which is ok I do the same. Its unfortunate that people to vote based on looking "presidential."

 

[EasyEJL]

no doubt, Obama's rabid animals are prolific Very similarly to Paul. I have not met one person who felt that way about anyone else though. I am amazed at many of the extreme Paul fanatics who truly believe he is the little old Mr. Magoo-savior (sorry for the cartoon reference) It is entirely unrealistic

What I am referring to by base, is the standard bases that exist. Paul is out on his own, and is using the republican party to get his own agenda off the ground. He is no more a republican than Obama

Additionally, he does not do himself any favors during debates and appearances when he fumbles his words and stutters along and does not seem to make a coherrent sentence. Not trying to be nit picky or anything on that ilk, but Paul is in many instances his own worse nightmare.

Either way, regardless of who gets elected, nothing is going to change.

you are right in a sense, that he's mostly using it to have a vocal front for a non-religion based constitutionalism/libertarian movement. He would like to win the nomination and election but if he can't making sure more people hear the simple common sense things he says. Audit the fed. Stop foreign aid to our enemies. Close some (if not all) of the over 1000 military bases we have on foreign soil. Establish fiscal responsibility. etc.

With the economy the way it is, and people seeing what is happening in greece and the rest of europe these things are starting to sound reasonable to more and more people. There isnt a credit card with indefinite limit for the US government, with the CBO's latest projections if you take the "not wearing rosy eyed glasses" numbers our debt servicing cost on the national debt will reach more than the cost of social security within the decade. At that point, you are looking at needing to reach tax rates of 25% for low income people scaling up to 60% on high income solely to keep social security and other social welfare programs, the debt servicing and the military afloat.

 

[AE14]

I dont think standard bases should even exist, Im all for ending the political party as it is known in America. All of them including Libertarian's and Independents (somehow being an Independent appears to be a "party") and all future parties become inflitrated and corrupted.

All elections should be based on the individual, not "hes a republican" or "hes a christian", etc...

I really dont mind if Paul fumbles in the debates, policy has nothing to do with acting skills. I think your picking on him more so because you dont like his policy plans to begin with which is ok I do the same. Its unfortunate that people to vote based on looking "presidential."

agreed on the parties, but you know as well as I do that a change that you are hoping for will never happen.

The problem with Paul on a stage is how that comes off. It looks like a lack of intelligence. One of the things about Newt (who I dislike immensely) is that he sounds intelligent, can articulate a vision and plan. Paul struggles with that

you are right in a sense, that he's mostly using it to have a vocal front for a non-religion based constitutionalism/libertarian movement. He would like to win the nomination and election but if he can't making sure more people hear the simple common sense things he says. Audit the fed. Stop foreign aid to our enemies. Close some (if not all) of the over 1000 military bases we have on foreign soil. Establish fiscal responsibility. etc.

With the economy the way it is, and people seeing what is happening in greece and the rest of europe these things are starting to sound reasonable to more and more people. There isnt a credit card with indefinite limit for the US government, with the CBO's latest projections if you take the "not wearing rosy eyed glasses" numbers our debt servicing cost on the national debt will reach more than the cost of social security within the decade. At that point, you are looking at needing to reach tax rates of 25% for low income people scaling up to 60% on high income solely to keep social security and other social welfare programs, the debt servicing and the military afloat.

There are certain issues I support him on, and fiscal policy happens to be one. However, it is his foreign policy that is of grave concern to me, as in all honesty, anyone that thinks Iran is not a concern is not paying attention.

 

[ax1]

agreed on the parties, but you know as well as I do that a change that you are hoping for will never happen.

The problem with Paul on a stage is how that comes off. It looks like a lack of intelligence. One of the things about Newt (who I dislike immensely) is that he sounds intelligent, can articulate a vision and plan. Paul struggles with that

There are certain issues I support him on, and fiscal policy happens to be one. However, it is his foreign policy that is of grave concern to me, as in all honesty, anyone that thinks Iran is not a concern is not paying attention.

Of course not, Im realistic with that. What it comes down to is I do not care what party people belong to when I vote, if I vote.

I think what your pointing out is morso personal interpetation. He does have a articulate vision and plan, and its high deph but when on stage things need to be simplified for the average viewer at home (my opinion).

Iran in not a concern...I think at the moment the way NATO and Washington markets Iran as some evil country out to destroy Isreal any second is a unrealistic possibilty and in Iran's shoes the concern is the west especially the way we have bombarded a handful of Middle Eastern countries and now Africa (edit: sorry for the run-on mr. school teacher, lol.) Just because Iran gets a ability to lauch Nuke's (if that even happens but if it does) doesnt mean that the country wants to be on a suicide mission. They are a average government just like any other government seeking money and power, and have no interest in being wiped out over stupidity. Why isnt Isreal a grave concern? Look at their Eugenics program in regards to the Palestine people.

 

[EasyEJL]

Why isnt Isreal a grave concern? Look at their Eugenics program in regards to the Palestine people.

or their other human rights violations

like

Israel's High Court has narrowly upheld a law denying Palestinians from the West
Bank and Gaza married to Israeli citizens the right to live in the country with
their spouses.

or the more recent expansion of that

Human Rights Watch has denounced on Tuesday recent judgements by the Israeli High Court in a report titled “Israel: High Court Rulings Undermine Human Rights”.​

The report deals with two recent rulings by the Israeli High Court regarding the Citizenship & Entry Into Israel law and the use of quarries located in the West Bank by Israeli companies, with Middle East Director Sarah Leah Witson stating,

“With these rulings, Israel’s highest court has veered seriously off course in serving as a final bastion for upholding human rights. For the system of legal checks against rights abuses to break down like this is one more indication of the unraveling of protections for rights and freedom in Israel.”

The Citizenship & Entry Into Israel law prohibits Palestinians from moving into the State of Israel, in which Israel includes occupied East Jerusalem, to live with their spouses if they are from the Occupied Palestinian Territories and other Middle Eastern countries in which Israel deems “operations that constitute a threat to the State of Israel are being carried out”.

 

[AE14]

Of course not, Im realistic with that. What it comes down to is I do not care what party people belong to when I vote, if I vote.

I think what your pointing out is morso personal interpetation. He does have a articulate vision and plan, and its high deph but when on stage things need to be simplified for the average viewer at home (my opinion).

Iran in not a concern...I think at the moment the way NATO and Washington markets Iran as some evil country out to destroy Isreal any second is a unrealistic possibilty and in Iran's shoes the concern is the west especially the way we have bombarded a handful of Middle Eastern countries and now Africa (edit: sorry for the run-on mr. school teacher, lol.) Just because Iran gets a ability to lauch Nuke's (if that even happens but if it does) doesnt mean that the country wants to be on a suicide mission. They are a average government just like any other government seeking money and power, and have no interest in being wiped out over stupidity. Why isnt Isreal a grave concern? Look at their Eugenics program in regards to the Palestine people.

to me, Paul is not able to articulate his plan (if it is as strong as you suggest) which is a problem. Considering how many times he has run for President

I totally disagree on Iran. I do believe they are more of a problem than you might suggest, and in this day and age an isolated approach is not feasible.

or their other human rights violations

like



or the more recent expansion of that

Regarding Israel, I will always take the Kissinger approach, I support their existence, not their aggression. With that said, I have family there, and I can tell you, the aggression is not so one sided, which I am sure you are aware

 

[fueledpassion]

Invalid Link Removed

I love this, lol

 

[fueledpassion]

Of course not, Im realistic with that. What it comes down to is I do not care what party people belong to when I vote, if I vote.

I think what your pointing out is morso personal interpetation. He does have a articulate vision and plan, and its high deph but when on stage things need to be simplified for the average viewer at home (my opinion).

Iran in not a concern...I think at the moment the way NATO and Washington markets Iran as some evil country out to destroy Isreal any second is a unrealistic possibilty and in Iran's shoes the concern is the west especially the way we have bombarded a handful of Middle Eastern countries and now Africa (edit: sorry for the run-on mr. school teacher, lol.) Just because Iran gets a ability to lauch Nuke's (if that even happens but if it does) doesnt mean that the country wants to be on a suicide mission. They are a average government just like any other government seeking money and power, and have no interest in being wiped out over stupidity. Why isnt Isreal a grave concern? Look at their Eugenics program in regards to the Palestine people.

I find myself agreeing with you increasingly the more you speak up, AX. The world isn't in the business of military warfare like it used to be. The world is concerned with economic warfare these days and I'm inclined to think Iran is the same as anyone else.

 

[EasyEJL]

I totally disagree on Iran. I do believe they are more of a problem than you might suggest, and in this day and age an isolated approach is not feasible.

thats just silly. Iran is saber rattling, nothing more. We've had them under sanctions how long? They want a right to sit at the adults table. Considering the number of other countries in the area that have nuclear weapons, who cares if they get them too? The rhetoric of destroying Israel is just that, rhetoric. They know that upon launch of a single nuclear weapon that their capital and all their power and oil facilities would be taken out by nukes in turn by Israel.

Regarding Israel, I will always take the Kissinger approach, I support their existence, not their aggression. With that said, I have family there, and I can tell you, the aggression is not so one sided, which I am sure you are aware

Oh for sure, I have close friends there too. But the "I'm going to kill your brother because your brother killed my brother" never ends. Israel isn't smart enough to get that. Let the palestinians have all the lands seized in 67. We haven't had any other country annex territory by war and let it stand in a century, but with israel, its ok.

 

[fueledpassion]

to me, Paul is not able to articulate his plan (if it is as strong as you suggest) which is a problem. Considering how many times he has run for President

I totally disagree on Iran. I do believe they are more of a problem than you might suggest, and in this day and age an isolated approach is not feasible.

Regarding Israel, I will always take the Kissinger approach, I support their existence, not their aggression. With that said, I have family there, and I can tell you, the aggression is not so one sided, which I am sure you are aware

Regarding the bold print, I agree. I wish RP could simplify his explanations a bit more for the uneducated and "average" americans. His economic policies really mean well. From what I can tell, RP wants to take us back to an economic freedom of the early 1900's which is just liberating to think about. However, a majority of people in this country don't seem to know much about our political history and the gradual changes that have been made to sway us from the original constitutional policies and laws that this country became great with.

He'll never win but I truly still think the man wants to give americans their freedoms back - especially regarding interstate commerce.

Basically, to understand what Ron Paul is saying, you gotta get a decent post-secondary business/history background education to see what he sees and since most of america does not have this type of education - well, most people don't get what he is saying or how it is relevant to current matters. I know I'm not crazy to think this either because statistics show that the vast majority of younger, college-attending and post-college students/business men and women are the demographics that followed him. I am one of them and I didn't follow him until I got the education in business law and history.

 

[ax1]

I find myself agreeing with you increasingly the more you speak up, AX. The world isn't in the business of military warfare like it used to be. The world is concerned with economic warfare these days and I'm inclined to think Iran is the same as anyone else.

Fact is a small group of people will find a war with Iran good for their own selfish business. The first thing that will happen with a war in Iran is that they will try to seize control of all the oil fields and have private contractors (who make a crap load more than our military) protect companies such as Halliburton. Second, once everything is all settled they will try to find where all the gold is and seize that (all the digital money was seized prior to the war) as well, and finally they will create a private central bank to run the currency of the country which will enslave the Iranians for life.

 

[ax1]

Mainstream media really needed to spend hours yesterday and today explaining how Romney has no concerns for poor people. Im so glad for the clarification out of his own mouth, this is surprising news to me. I never knew.

 

[AE14]

Mainstream media really needed to spend hours yesterday and today explaining how Romney has no concerns for poor people. Im so glad for the clarification out of his own mouth, this is surprising news to me. I never knew.

Ax...tsk, tsk, you are being just a shady as the MSM. You are taking it out of context, as he clearly stated that the "poor" have safety nets in place to help them, and if there is a need for more help, it will be provided.

 

[EasyEJL]

I think his issue was the inordinate amount of time the media spent on a partial sentence taken out of context.

 

[ax1]

Regardless of what the media says (I agree its a joke,) I was already convinced in regards to poor people he is really interested in getting something out of them and keeping them that way.

 

[ax1]

Regardless of what the media says (I agree its a joke,) I was already convinced in regards to poor people he is really interested in getting something out of them and keeping them that way.

Ill add that he doesnt care about the middle class either, and most rich people (rich, not wealthy). He just wants to get something out of them too.

 

[EasyEJL]

Regardless of what the media says (I agree its a joke,) I was already convinced in regards to poor people he is really interested in getting something out of them and keeping them that way.

Hey look, I found something to disagree with you on! One of the big issues I think we face is how we have continued to reduce how much in taxes we collect at the lower end (average family making $40,000 in 1980 paid more in dollars + % than a family making $80,000 today) and built that culture of entitlement. People acted "shocked" at Romney's 15% rate, but most people talk about the rate their income falls into, not their effective rate which is QUITE different. I pretty well doubt most people making under $200,000 a year pay much higher percentage as an effective rate.

but the turning lower + middle class into serfs is nothing new

Invalid Link Removed

 

[ax1]

Hey look, I found something to disagree with you on! One of the big issues I think we face is how we have continued to reduce how much in taxes we collect at the lower end (average family making $40,000 in 1980 paid more in dollars + % than a family making $80,000 today) and built that culture of entitlement. People acted "shocked" at Romney's 15% rate, but most people talk about the rate their income falls into, not their effective rate which is QUITE different. I pretty well doubt most people making under $200,000 a year pay much higher percentage as an effective rate.

but the turning lower + middle class into serfs is nothing new

Invalid Link Removed

#'s can be very deceptive. They can lower "official tax" but then they can tax you in many other ways. For example, the state starts forcing people to buy license plates, mandatory health insurance or face a large fine for not buying their insurance product, raise property tax.

Also...any candidate not forcing the issue of the Federal Reserve and currency is ultimately a counter balance to any future tax drops with inflation (much of inflation caused by stolen money by the Fed. and unlimited unkown printing) Poor people and those on social security are getting pay cuts monthly due to rapid inflation. 4-5 years its a big difference. Romney supports the Fed even though Ron Paul's partial audit that passed revealed 16 trillion dollars in secret loans in a small time period Romney will not attack the issue and most likely grant the Fed more powers the same way Obama (and officially) granted the Fed more powers.

Nice article by the way....the problem with socialism and government entitlements is that its never meant with any good intent when its coming from a government that murders its own people, its usually a bigger power grab. Wall Street financed Karl Marx. In the end these hand outs and entitlements are just chicken feed to keep society under control.

 

[EasyEJL]

that is the area where democrats have been most successful. By making businesses less profitable, and charging higher taxes on job creators (with just the progressive tax system) they've created a serf class dependent on government services. And that serf class votes with the democrats more often, because they continue to promise bread and circuses. The part the serfs don't realize is that a huge part of the reason they are dependent on government handouts is the very same tax structure that supports them. Its a zero sum game in the end, even Bernanke finally said it.

 

[ax1]

that is the area where democrats have been most successful. By making businesses less profitable, and charging higher taxes on job creators (with just the progressive tax system) they've created a serf class dependent on government services. And that serf class votes with the democrats more often, because they continue to promise bread and circuses. The part the serfs don't realize is that a huge part of the reason they are dependent on government handouts is the very same tax structure that supports them. Its a zero sum game in the end, even Bernanke finally said it.

Also forcing job creators to buy mandatory insurance on their employees...another example of hidden taxes, fees, etc...Ultimately its the mega corporations such as Wall Mart that can maintain to exist in the long run and the little guy shutting down.

You know, the entire police system has been turning into a revenue collection system, and with the police being federalized from coast to coast by the Department of Homeland Security it looks like the revenue collecting system is being transformed from a local/state cellecting system into a federal government revenue collection system, just another example how society is being financially enslaved in all 50 states.

 

[AE14]

Just thought I would throw this out there, since we have talked about Iran
Invalid Link Removed


Interesting read

 

[DerickVonD]

No one is talking about Nevada? What a cluster **** that has turned out to be. And what is up with the delegates anyone know? I heard Paul could still get more delegates, than Romney, because none of Romney's voters are willing to put in the work to be dlegates. Is this true?

 

[Conagher]

that is the area where democrats have been most successful. By making businesses less profitable, and charging higher taxes on job creators (with just the progressive tax system) they've created a serf class dependent on government services. And that serf class votes with the democrats more often, because they continue to promise bread and circuses. The part the serfs don't realize is that a huge part of the reason they are dependent on government handouts is the very same tax structure that supports them. Its a zero sum game in the end, even Bernanke finally said it.

Is their really that much of a tax burden on the rich?It also begs the question that if the government eased the amount of taxes on the upper 1%,would they reinvest that money in business growth or would they simply sit on the money like the banks did when they got that huge government bail out?

 

[EasyEJL]

Is their really that much of a tax burden on the rich?It also begs the question that if the government eased the amount of taxes on the upper 1%,would they reinvest that money in business growth or would they simply sit on the money like the banks did when they got that huge government bail out?

The rich didn't get to be rich by putting their money in gold coins in a vault and playing with them like Scrooge mcduck. There is too much of a tax burden on the rich as we have almost half of the working population posting no federal income taxes. The average family making $80,000 a year now pays less in taxes (in dollars) than a family making $40,000 did in the 80s. Upper income peoples effectivetax rates have not gone down nearly that much.

 

[EasyEJL]

And the banks didn't sit on the bailout money just to sit on it. What got us into the mess? Banks giving loans to people who they shouldn't have. Is it surprising that their lending policies are tighter now?

 

[Conagher]

And the banks didn't sit on the bailout money just to sit on it. What got us into the mess? Banks giving loans to people who they shouldn't have. Is it surprising that their lending policies are tighter now?

The money did flow free and easy for too long.A melt down was inevitable under the state it was in.There are so many factors contributing to the financial mess we are in now.
The only question that remains is there any viable candidates smart enough to turn this thing around.I don`t see any.

 

[carpee]

you also have reports of economic terrorism coming out. bin laden is on record many times saying they should be attacking the us economy

then outrageously wealthy elite...george soros who bets on countries' currency to flop so he can cash in...and he uses his media to help it happen.
he made a billion overnight in the 90s

 

[EasyEJL]

The money did flow free and easy for too long.A melt down was inevitable under the state it was in.There are so many factors contributing to the financial mess we are in now.
The only question that remains is there any viable candidates smart enough to turn this thing around.I don`t see any.

At least some of Ron Paul's policies would help. Like with many thing s, the real issue is do you want to have a long drawn out low pain over decades, or a short sharp pain over 3-5 years. Most people are dumb, and would want the lower pain spread out. Net total of that suffering ends up being far worse. Look at Japan, they still haven't really recovered from their crash 20 years ago. the Nikkei index never reached its 1991 levels, today its roughly at 1985-1988 levels....