Your daily dose of dishonesty: Romney: "I'll Take A Lot Of Credit' For Auto Industry"

[Don K]

I recall that things were ok during the Bush years, and then when the Democrats held the house and senate things started to change.

I do enjoy the Liberal viewpoint though. 3.5 years into Obamas rein and it's still all Bush's fault. Please....

Also, tax cuts for the rich aren't a bad idea? Have you ever worked for a poor person? Probably not. Also, "tax cuts" for the rich brought their taxes down to something like 33% of their income. Middle class people don't even pay 15% in income tax.

I kind of recall the Bush years as years of stagnation for the middle class, myself. Kind of "meh" as far as incomes went. YMMV. That's until the bottom fell out of the housing market, and everything went to hell.

Yeah, I'll blame Bush, because the starting point was so bad. Oh, and one of my rules of thumb is that whatever happens economically in about the first six months of a President's administration belongs to the predecessor, because it takes that long for a new administration's policies to pass through Congress and take effect. It's not as though the new President can wave a wand and change the direction of the economy on Jan. 20. And I'm willing to say the same about the transition between Clinton and Bush in '01.

Finally, anyone who's truly rich and is paying ~33% in taxes has really crappy tax advisors. Mitt seems to have stabilized his tax payments around 15% or so; meanwhile, I have a comfortable income [[not too many extravagances, but comfortable), and I paid around 21% last year. In any event, is there any evidence that continual tax decreases for the top 5%, or 1%, or 0.1% are associated with better economic performance?

[jerrytimes]

I kind of recall the Bush years as years of stagnation for the middle class, myself. Kind of "meh" as far as incomes went. YMMV. That's until the bottom fell out of the housing market, and everything went to hell.

Yeah, I'll blame Bush, because the starting point was so bad. Oh, and one of my rules of thumb is that whatever happens economically in about the first six months of a President's administration belongs to the predecessor, because it takes that long for a new administration's policies to pass through Congress and take effect. It's not as though the new President can wave a wand and change the direction of the economy on Jan. 20. And I'm willing to say the same about the transition between Clinton and Bush in '01.

Finally, anyone who's truly rich and is paying ~33% in taxes has really crappy tax advisors. Mitt seems to have stabilized his tax payments around 15% or so; meanwhile, I have a comfortable income [[not too many extravagances, but comfortable), and I paid around 21% last year. In any event, is there any evidence that continual tax decreases for the top 5%, or 1%, or 0.1% are associated with better economic performance?

Of course Mitt's taxes are at 15%. That's because he's retired, and his income is Capital Gains, and Capital Gains tax is 15% since he alreay paid income tax on the money that he originally used to purchase stocks. What ever money you make with those stocks is called Capital Gains. Why don't Liberals get that?

So, I can understand giving someone six months for their policies to kick in until it's really on them. That's fair, so Obamas policies have been in effect for 3 years now. Sure, in Michigan things have been better lately, but there are other states that have been much worse and are now suffering like we were, not that everything is perfect here.

[Bobl]

Tell a lie, the bigger the better. Repeat often. Build it, and the voters will come.

[poobert]

Case and point. The best pitch for Romeny we've gotten from the ultra-conservatives on here is their trying to justify his outrageous income tax. Again, not really appealing to most Americans...

Oh, then the ever-predictable socialist schtick. Let's review socialism, for the ignorant here:
"is an economic system characterised by social ownership and/or control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy"
Well, he hasn't done that. At all. My family survived the Nazis, and the Nazis were a far right political movement, and Romney also falls on the right, but that doesn't make Mitt Romney a Nazi. Let's make an effort to exist in reality for a moment.

So the contribution from the far right is that Romney pays his fair share of income tax and Obama is a socialist. Great platform guys, really great.

I don't think Obama has worked miracles and there is a lot I am disappointed with, however I don't expect a president to work miracles. I believe he has worked hard and especially done what is best for the struggling middle and working class. Then you take into account his opponent, who appears to be nothing but a walking corporation, and it's not a difficult decision.

[firstandten]

Of course Mitt's taxes are at 15%. That's because he's retired, and his income is Capital Gains, and Capital Gains tax is 15% since he alreay paid income tax on the money that he originally used to purchase stocks. What ever money you make with those stocks is called Capital Gains. Why don't Liberals get that?

What you described is how the 99 percenters get the income in order to pay capital gains tax. Work hard, make some investments, hope you get a payoff of those investments, pay capital gains tax on the income. Liberals do understand that.

Mitt is part of the 1% and he gets to his income in which he pays capital gains taxes a little differently. You need to understand how companies like Bain Capital operate. In many cases its cold-blooded and cold-hearted. Capitalism at its best [[worst ?). The overriding concern is bringing a profit to its investors[[who also tend to be 1 percenters). So if they create jobs..fine ! If they destroy jobs... thats ok also. Liberals have a little harder time understanding that concept.

[Danny]

Romney didn't take the credit for bailing out the auto industry, President Obama did! Romney used his phase to reach the auto unions for his "bread and circuses" presidential race. He will NEVER win Michigan after what his father did as he tried to run for president in 1968 about the Anti-Vietnam comments his made while being interviewed on WXYZ TV's Channel 7 Spotlight.

Romney may got the primary bid, but I will not be President of the United States.

Obama 2012, four more years

[jerrytimes]

What you described is how the 99 percenters get the income in order to pay capital gains tax. Work hard, make some investments, hope you get a payoff of those investments, pay capital gains tax on the income. Liberals do understand that.

Mitt is part of the 1% and he gets to his income in which he pays capital gains taxes a little differently. You need to understand how companies like Bain Capital operate. In many cases its cold-blooded and cold-hearted. Capitalism at its best [[worst ?). The overriding concern is bringing a profit to its investors[[who also tend to be 1 percenters). So if they create jobs..fine ! If they destroy jobs... thats ok also. Liberals have a little harder time understanding that concept.

So, let me see if I understand this right. Since Mitt who is part of the 1% [[just like the current president and all the others before him) He should have to pay a higher capital gains tax? I can understand the argument in that, but at the same time, I don't buy into punishing people for making money. If Mitt makes 1Million in stocks this year, [[I'm sure it will be more) he would pay $150,000 in capital gains tax. If you or I make $1000, we pay $150. Monetarily he's paying a ton more in tax than we would. Also, raising CG Tax on the rich will also cause them to invest less in some cases. That's not good for the economy. Obama has you all brainwashed with this hate the rich stuff. That's the smallest of this countries problems and he's deflecting us from what matters, which I sated before....JOBS..... If there are more jobs for rich and poor, there are more taxes paid to federal and local governments. There would be more people buying houses and cars and things in general. There would be less people in massive debt. The government would be in less debt. MORE people would be insured if a percentage of those jobs offered insurance. Example, a friend of mine is married with two kids. He has a middle class job that offers insurance. His job provides medical, dental, and optical insurance for all 4 people in his family. In my mind, this is our biggest problem and Obama has failed miserably at solving it.

Obama only talks about things that people think matter to our society, but if he actually acted on the one thing that we need he would win in a landslide. In no way do I think that he will definitely lose, but if he does win it will be by the narrowest of margins. He is a failure to our country as Bush was in his second term.

[firstandten]

Jerrytimes, I try to be mindful of the rules of this forum and I see our conversation veering off into more of a non-Detroit discussion so I will respond to your post over in that area under the winning the future thread.

[jerrytimes]

Jerrytimes, I try to be mindful of the rules of this forum and I see our conversation veering off into more of a non-Detroit discussion so I will respond to your post over in that area under the winning the future thread.

The topic veered off of Detroit before I chimed in, and anyway, since when does discussing a man running for president of the United States not belong in a forum about Detroit?

[poobert]

If Mitt makes 1Million in stocks this year, [[I'm sure it will be more) he would pay $150,000 in capital gains tax. If you or I make $1000, we pay $150. Monetarily he's paying a ton more in tax than we would. Also, raising CG Tax on the rich will also cause them to invest less in some cases. That's not good for the economy.

Well I'm sure you have a lockdown on the millionares and billionares for Mitt, except for those like Warren Buffett who feel they should pay their fair share.
I'm not sure what you don't get here, or if you even understand how bizarre your message sounds to the average American. $150 is a tremendous amount of money for me, a blue collar worker. In fact it is all I fucking have until my next payday. I don't know if it is the same for Mitt, but I'm willing to bet he has more to fall back on.
He also pays higher taxes than me, despite me being virtually poor as shit. Yet in your fucked up world that's somehow fair. I miss a paycheck and I'm sunk. I think Mitt can coast for a while. I don't want to rob the guy or anything, but I manage my money well and can barely make it by. If he is obscenely wealthy, unlike you, I do not believe he should not be paying a lower tax rate than me, but maybe that just makes me a communist.
As a working class person, I can guarantee you I will have to spend virtually all of that $150 of mine over the next week to do things like, you know, eat. I will be pumping money into the local economy. If you can show me something besides fear-mongering that taxing the wealthy a modest amount they can reasonably afford would somehow cause them to "invest" less, I'd be interested.
Yes, fantastic policy, let the rich evade taxes in hopes that they MIGHT create jobs for us wretched masses. Keep repeating that through November. You guys are going to lose so, so hard and you know it.

[Occurrence]

Is Mitt Romney the best the Respublicans can come up with?

That's pretty depressing. Who actually takes this guy seriously? Someone must, he gets votes. Someone actually supports this hack. Mediocrity must be an accomplished goal these days.

[firstandten]

Is Mitt Romney the best the Respublicans can come up with?

That's pretty depressing. Who actually takes this guy seriously? Someone must, he gets votes. Someone actually supports this hack. Mediocrity must be an accomplished goal these days.

The Repubs have lost their focus. Instead of focusing on whats best for this country it became a anybody but Obama slugfest. Then they took the one electable moderate in the party and turned him into a buffoon by forcing him to go far to the right to just get his parties nomination. But to answer your question yes, thats the best they can come up with. Your more mainstream moderate Repubs are running for the hills afraid that a tea party challenge will take their jobs.

[Zacha341]

Well, with all do respect president Obama was all the dems could pull out their hat in 2008 to get rid of Bush... and he won. So maybe Romney will get in? Hah!

Nah! Of course Romney cannot win, so my thing is what do we do to course correct where needed, and apply push-back to our present POTUS relative to pending policies we'll have over the next four years? That's the issue.

Is Mitt Romney the best the Respublicans can come up with?

That's pretty depressing. Who actually takes this guy seriously? Someone must, he gets votes. Someone actually supports this hack. Mediocrity must be an accomplished goal these days.

[Occurrence]

Well, with all do respect president Obama was all the dems could pull out their hat in 2008 to get rid of Bush... and he won. So maybe Romney will get in? Hah!

2008 was the end of Bush's second term, so he was gone regardless.

[firstandten]

Well, with all do respect president Obama was all the dems could pull out their hat in 2008 to get rid of Bush... and he won. So maybe Romney will get in? Hah!

Thou not a supporter I believe the Dems could have run H. Clinton out there and won as well.

[rb336]

Nah! Of course Romney cannot win, so my thing is what do we do to course correct where needed, and apply push-back to our present POTUS relative to pending policies we'll have over the next four years? That's the issue.

no, what needs to be done is a return to civility and give an take instead of the extremism shown by the republicans - even to the extent of voting against their own proposals after Obama agreed to them

[Zacha341]

Yes, let's that needs to happen TOO! It's both sides full of bull, not an 'either/ or' thing! I'm not a very partisan bonded person - believing the repubs are all so perfect and without contradictions.

no, what needs to be done is a return to civility and give an take instead of the extremism shown by the republicans - even to the extent of voting against their own proposals after Obama agreed to them

[ejames01]

Well, with all do respect president Obama was all the dems could pull out their hat in 2008 to get rid of Bush... and he won. So maybe Romney will get in? Hah!

Nah! Of course Romney cannot win, so my thing is what do we do to course correct where needed, and apply push-back to our present POTUS relative to pending policies we'll have over the next four years? That's the issue.

That's silly. Obama had HUGE support in 2008

[Zacha341]

What's the problem or argument? President Obama's is getting back in - problem solved for some. I did not say he did not have huge support, but it was not a landslide...

Obama 52.9%
McCain 45.7%

Obama won by 7.2%

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_perce...#ixzz1uqMMAYDz

That's silly. Obama had HUGE support in 2008

[firstandten]

What's the problem or argument? President Obama's is getting back in - problem solved for some. I did not say he did not have huge support, but it was not a landslide...

Obama 52.9%
McCain 45.7%

Obama won by 7.2%

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_perce...#ixzz1uqMMAYDz

Actually Obama more than doubled the number of electorial votes than McCain which of course is how we really elect a president. The way the system is set up you can get a majority of numerical votes and still lose .. its rare but it could happen.

[ejames01]

What's the problem or argument? President Obama's is getting back in - problem solved for some. I did not say he did not have huge support, but it was not a landslide...

Obama 52.9%
McCain 45.7%

Obama won by 7.2%

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_perce...#ixzz1uqMMAYDz

Isn't this discussion about Romney being disliked by Republican voters and people in general. If the other leading GOP candidates weren't batshit crazy, they would have destroyed him in the primaries.

[ghettopalmetto]

Give me an Obama accomplishment other than getting the troops out of Iraq? Sure, he's a nice guy, sure, he's a good speaker, but he is one of the worst presidents ever. From day one his goal should have been JOBS JOBS JOBS, but no, it was health care, which ended up really being a law that requires you to purchase health insurance. That worked out well.

Why do you think the government owes you a job?

[ejames01]

Why do you think the government owes you a job?

Actually, the economy is doing MUCH better than when President Obama took office. It is obviously when you consider that union jobs have been reduced, government jobs [[at every level) have been reduced and money from the fraudulently inflated real estate market have been eliminated.

It isn't government's fault that American's aren't adjusting to a new global economy.

[Zacha341]

Outside of reasonably required government mandates and compliances, if the government could 'GET OUT OF THE WAY' more small business could grow stronger it can be argued. Which would create more jobs...

For example, the looming Obamacare [[vote for it to "find out what's in it...", Pelosi construct) pending swamp of regulations and costs some companies are not hiring as they would. Other regulations and the growing 9000+ page tax codes...

Oye. I would not want to start a business now.

Actually, the economy is doing MUCH better than when President Obama took office. It is obviously when you consider that union jobs have been reduced, government jobs [[at every level) have been reduced and money from the fraudulently inflated real estate market have been eliminated.

It isn't government's fault that American's aren't adjusting to a new global economy.

[ghettopalmetto]

Outside of reasonably required government mandates and compliances, if the government could 'GET OUT OF THE WAY' more small business could grow stronger it can be argued. Which would create more jobs...

For example, the looming Obamacare [[vote for it to "find out what's in it...", Pelosi construct) pending swamp of regulations and costs some companies are not hiring as they would. Other regulations and the growing 9000+ page tax codes...

Oye. I would not want to start a business now.

How, exactly is government "in the way"? Could you be just a bit more specific?

Most of the provisions of the Health Care Act don't take effect until 2014, so it's just a *tad* disingenuous to claim that these regulations are hampering businesses at present.