Seriously...why would anyone vote for Obama??

[Amarelooms]

He's had 4 years...sucked ass...is not qualified to be President. Almost by default someone else deserves a chance. Unless black or poor on welfare I can't believe someone would vote for him. God bless sons

:elephant

[AussieFanKurt]

Political forum would be a better place tbh

[mavs>spurs]

tell it to the liberals on this board who think they're soooo smart and trendy and anyone who doesn't agree with their viewpoints are stupid :lol

[lakerhaterade]

tell it to the liberals on this board who think they're soooo smart and trendy and anyone who doesn't agree with their viewpoints are stupid :lol

Don't forget the sexy idea that smart posters vote third party now...doing that, one'll be enamored

[silverblk mystix]

Um...because the alternative is....


ROMNEY.

Pretty fuckin obvious.

[lakerhaterade]

Um...because the alternative is....


ROMNEY.

Pretty fuckin obvious.

sup bro, been wondering where you been.

You're voting for Romney?

[silverblk mystix]

sup bro, been wondering where you been.

You're voting for Romney?

Voting for Romney is equivalent to chickens voting for Col. Sanders.

[lakerhaterade]

Voting for Romney is equivalent to chickens voting for Col. Sanders.

So, yes?

[silverblk mystix]

So, yes?



Lesser of two evils...Obama ftw

[DMC]

Why? Because he's the incumbent. Many people vote straight ticket. Incumbents are hard to beat (Bush won a second term).

[lakerhaterade]

Lesser of two evils...Obama ftw

oh, ok.


So how you doin mayne, haven't seen you in these parts recently?

You ask for the bold, girl?

[silverblk mystix]

Why? Because he's the incumbent. Many people vote straight ticket. Incumbents are hard to beat (Bush won a second term).


Because he is slightly less corrupt.

[silverblk mystix]

oh, ok.


So how you doin mayne, haven't seen you in these parts recently?

You ask for the bold, girl?

No.

I prefer to be a gnsf

[lakerhaterade]

No.

I prefer to be a gnsf

Bullshit.

[silverblk mystix]

Bullshit.



Where you gettin' this "you asked to be bolded" nonsense anyway?

[DMC]

Because he is slightly less corrupt.

There's no way you can know who's more corrupt. Corruption, by definition, generally refers to shady dealings and unless you're an insider you simply wouldn't know. You might suspect, but that's a whole other thread topic.

[lakerhaterade]

Where you gettin' this "you asked to be bolded" nonsense anyway?

no one in their right mind would bold you.

[DMC]

Where you gettin' this "you asked to be bolded" nonsense anyway?

Yeah, I think only Fkla asked to be bolded and to have a flag or have it removed or something. No one else asked. Personally I didn't even notice it until someone mentioned it. I don't get why it matters.

[silverblk mystix]

no one in their right mind would bold you.


can't argue with you there :lol

[lakerhaterade]

can't argue with you there :lol

so wassup with you fam?

Doing alright? Prison guarding been aight?

[silverblk mystix]

so wassup with you fam?

Doing alright? Prison guarding been aight?



Et tu lakerhomoaids? :lol

[lakerhaterade]

Et tu lakerhomoaids? :lol

answer the question faggot, i'm being nice to you, don't make me

[silverblk mystix]

answer the question faggot, i'm being nice to you, don't make me


don't make you what?

swallow a sword?

suck a cock?

take it up the poop chute?


:lmao


faggot

[lakerhaterade]

don't make you what?

swallow a sword?

suck a cock?

take it up the poop chute?


:lmao


faggot

so you haven't change one bit have you, you immature fuck.

[silverblk mystix]

but calling me a prison guard and a faggot was mature....ok...

[lakerhaterade]

you started it by putting homo in my name, I fired back appropriately. It's your fault.

[lakerhaterade]

oh and by no means was i trying to offend you with the prison guard question..

[lakerhaterade]

you seem ashamed, now that i think about it

[silverblk mystix]

oh and by no means was i trying to offend you with the prison guard question..



so who you voting for?

[Lincoln]

You're a faggot with a shitty career :lol. Enjoy checking guys assholes for weapons for the rest of your life you depressed loser.

[DMC]

You're a faggot with a shitty career :lol. Enjoy checking guys assholes for weapons for the rest of your life you depressed loser.

Goddamn that was harsh and out of nowhere lol

[lakerhaterade]

so who you voting for?

third party or nobody, still haven't made up my mind.

I might choose from the lesser of the two evils since my vote will actually count towards something (maybe not, TX resident)

[silverblk mystix]

You're a faggot with a shitty career :lol. Enjoy checking guys assholes for weapons for the rest of your life you depressed loser.


For someone who is a pimply faced wanna be thug who needs dating advice- you sure are a cheeky bastard :lmao

[lakerhaterade]

For someone who is a pimply faced wanna be thug who needs dating advice- you sure are a cheeky bastard :lmao

cheeky?

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllolllllllllllll lllllllllllllllllllllll that's not the right word to use here

[silverblk mystix]

third party or nobody, still haven't made up my mind.

I might choose from the lesser of the two evils since my vote will actually count towards something (maybe not, TX resident)


Or, you could just do the smart thing and vote Obama instead of wasting the vote and end up helping romney

[lakerhaterade]

Or, you could just do the smart thing and vote Obama instead of wasting the vote and end up helping romney

why are you voting for romney?

[silverblk mystix]

why are you voting for romney?

So, reading comprehension was always a weakness for you....

[lakerhaterade]

:lol my bad, wasn't paying attention with what I put. playing some 2k13 tbh.

Why you voting for Obama?

[silverblk mystix]

:lol my bad, wasn't paying attention with what I put. playing some 2k13 tbh.

Why you voting for Obama?

told you...lesser of two evils....less corrupt....etc

[lakerhaterade]

you sound like a very uninformed voter. elaborate

[silverblk mystix]

you sound like a very uninformed voter. elaborate


Elaborate on what? System is rigged and has been for over 200 years...all we can do is hope for the lesser of two evils since no one has the balls to form a revolution.

So we just have to keep taking it up the ass while sheeple continue to play the little game every 4 years.

[lakerhaterade]

How is Romney more corrupt?

[silverblk mystix]

How is Romney more corrupt?



The people who he will work for are worse than the people Obama will work for.

The pockets Romney will fill are dirtier than the pockets Obama will fill.

[oh crap]

lol @ anyone who would base their vote off of club forum thread posts on spurstalk.com

[silverblk mystix]

lol @ anyone who would base their vote off of club forum thread posts on spurstalk.com



as opposed to?


basing your vote off of anything is pretty stupid anyway since the game is already rigged...

[Clipper Nation]

How is Romney more corrupt?
http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2012/10/18/how-mitt-romney-cheated-his-way-to-the-gop-nomination/

[Latarian Milton]

if he got all votes of blacks and the poor food stamp collectors then it'd be an overwhelming victory for him imho. obama will win the election and im calling it a close one like the 00'. obama has proven himself a terrible president but it doesn't mean the team of a mormon and a clown would do anything better

mccain would've been a good president but you guys made the other choice back then, due mainly to your disappointment with GWB and the republican party. at least mccain was once a soldier, and he's a patriot that we can trust

[Proxy]

Economy isn't going anywhere as long as both parties can't agree fundamentally. At the very least we can support the side that preaches logic.

[Edward]

I'm voting for Obama because I'm gonna get an Obamaphone.

I'm actually not voting since none of the candidates represent my views. Gary Johnson and Obama represent some of my views but they also represent a bunch of stuff I find retarded.

[tlongII]

I'll vote for Romney. Obama wants to bankrupt the country. I'm not down with that.

[DMC]

I'll vote for Romney. Obama wants to bankrupt the country. I'm not down with that.

When you're 16 Trillion in the hole, you're bankrupt already, it's just that you're living off of credit cards.

[mavs>spurs]

I'll vote for Romney. Obama wants to bankrupt the country. I'm not down with that.

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAW!!!!!! :buttfuck: :horny:

[DMC]

I'm voting for Obama because I'm gonna get an Obamaphone.

I'm actually not voting since none of the candidates represent my views. Gary Johnson and Obama represent some of my views but they also represent a bunch of stuff I find retarded.

So they represent Phillip?

[mavs>spurs]

sup D, going to buy an remington 870 express super mag today to add to the collection. planning on hunting turkey tbh.

[Edward]

I'll vote for Romney. Obama wants to bankrupt the country. I'm not down with that.

:lol both candidates want to bankrupt the country. Obama wants to bankrupt the country with entitlement programs for fat lazy poor people and Romney wants to bankrupt the country by making it so rich people have even more of a tax vacation than they already have and the military sector gets 2 trillion more in no-bid contracts. Anyone who thinks the deficit won't keep going up at an alarming rate during the next 4 years with either candidate (or Gary Johnson for that matter) is delusional.

[z0sa]

Ron Paul write in!!

[Bill_Brasky]

It takes a very naive person to not see that both of these candidates are jokers.

[TimDunkem]

It takes a very naive person to not see that both of these candidates are jokers.

Yep. A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for "evil".

[Agloco]

It takes a very naive person to not see that both of these candidates are jokers.

This.

[Wild Cobra]

It takes a very naive person to not see that both of these candidates are jokers.


This.
Yes, but who is the lesser of the two evils?

[Clipper Nation]

Ron Paul write in!!

This, tbh.... Gary Johnson is a fraud....

[Clipper Nation]

Yes, but who is the lesser of the two evils?

Anyone who votes for "the lesser of two evils" deserves all the evil they get, tbh.....

[Reck]

People that dont want to vote republican? Just a crazy thought..

[silverblk mystix]

Anyone who votes for "the lesser of two evils" deserves all the evil they get, tbh.....


When you figure out what "lesser of two evils" actually means- then you can pick one.

It is the only choice you actually have and if you decide not to vote then you have actually voted for Romney.

People with money and an interest in getting richer WILL actually vote for Romney...so you either vote for Obama or you are actually helping the rich get richer while simultaneously screwing yourself.

Pretty stupid to screw yourself- but that is what sheeple usually do anyway so no one is surprised.

[Leetonidas]

Because they don't know shit about economics and think a president who keeps printing money and spending will fix our massive debt somehow. Oh and you'll get a free phone i heard

[Amarelooms]

Still no reason to vote for Obama....knew that already. Hopefully for us all Romney wins. God bless

:elephant

[scampers]

You know, I'm no Obama fanboy, I think he's way too much of a liberal, but the whole "he's had 4 years to turn every American's shit into gold" argument is a bunch of bullshit. I would have liked to have seen McCain pull us out of the rubble left behind by the Bush administration. Or anyone for that matter.

FDR made a great campaign speech back in the day that sums presidential campaigns up pretty well. I saw it on the Daily Show the other day.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-october-9-2012/democalypse-2012---vague-against-the-machine---the-numbers-guy
Ignore the liberal advertisement and fast forward to about 1:15.

Fuck politics, especially presidential campaigns. And put this crap in the politics forum.

[Amarelooms]

There you go dummy....blame the person before you when you don't have anything else to stand on. I don't give a shit.....Obama has failed...he loses by default. Wants to tax me to death to pay for lazy ass people who want handouts. No way son...God bless the USA

:elephant

[scampers]

I'd probably vote for Romney if he didn't pussy up and tailor his beliefs to the evangelicals that plague the conservative population. He used to be quite the moderate when it came to religious issues, and I respected him for that. But I understand why he did it, there's no way he'd win without their vote.

[DMC]

When someone gains ultimate power (POTUS) their pandering often falls back to their original ideals since they were pandering to get to where they are, now they are there they can act on their personal beliefs. The caveat being re-election and paying people back who financed their campaign (also ensuring the wealth structure doesn't mushroom as wealth is meaningless if everyone has it).

[scampers]

When someone gains ultimate power (POTUS) their pandering often falls back to their original ideals since they were pandering to get to where they are, now they are there they can act on their personal beliefs. The caveat being re-election and paying people back who financed their campaign (also ensuring the wealth structure doesn't mushroom as wealth is meaningless if everyone has it).

To an extent. However, they still want the support of their party to push policy through the lawmaking process. I don't see Romney backing down on the conservative religious policies, they are too important to too many Republicans. Sadly.

[DMC]

The libs thought Obama was going to go straight from his swearing in to the free-the-fags bill, but it didn't happen. They thought he was going to ban guns or at least revisit the Brady Bill, didn't happen. He said he would close Gitmo, didn't happen. The reasons he was elected basically didn't happen. He never intended to do any of that. He's closer to the median than the liberals like, and Romney has the appearance of being a far right wing conservative but I highly doubt he would do any of the stuff he's peddling to the Limbaugh crowd.

[Agloco]

Yes, but who is the lesser of the two evils?


A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for "evil".

[baseline bum]

Romney will pass his ridiculous tax cuts with reconciliation the same way Bush did if he wins and if the Republicans get 50 seats in the senate. Until he provides numbers, it's just trillions more added to the national debt just like the Bush tax cuts were, and thus much higher taxes in the future to pay that shit off.

[Wild Cobra]

You know, I'm no Obama fanboy, I think he's way too much of a liberal, but the whole "he's had 4 years to turn every American's shit into gold" argument is a bunch of bullshit. I would have liked to have seen McCain pull us out of the rubble left behind by the Bush administration. Or anyone for that matter.

FDR made a great campaign speech back in the day that sums presidential campaigns up pretty well. I saw it on the Daily Show the other day.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-october-9-2012/democalypse-2012---vague-against-the-machine---the-numbers-guy
Ignore the liberal advertisement and fast forward to about 1:15.

Fuck politics, especially presidential campaigns. And put this crap in the politics forum.
Out of the rubble? If anything Obama has been adding to it. Not trying to deduce it. To clean uop the massive scale of rubble we have, you get out of the way of the people who want to clean it up. You don't throw money and regulatory laws at it, hoping it will go away/

[TDMVPDPOY]

neither is the solution, lol no alternative....

[Capt Bringdown]

I can't recall a more meaningless presidential election in my lifetime. Romney or Obama, flip a coin, either way we're getting Bush's 4th term.

[scampers]

Out of the rubble? If anything Obama has been adding to it. Not trying to deduce it. To clean uop the massive scale of rubble we have, you get out of the way of the people who want to clean it up. You don't throw money and regulatory laws at it, hoping it will go away/

Right, you didn't actually argue against anything I said. You still acknowledged that Bush left the US in a pretty bad situation. I never said Obama did anything to clean it up. But I guarantee you there are very few people out that there you could have elected president that would have done much better. It was, and still is, a big big mess.

[Mitt Romney]

I approve this thread....for now that it.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

The libs thought Obama was going to go straight from his swearing in to the free-the-fags bill, but it didn't happen. They thought he was going to ban guns or at least revisit the Brady Bill, didn't happen. He said he would close Gitmo, didn't happen. The reasons he was elected basically didn't happen. He never intended to do any of that. He's closer to the median than the liberals like, and Romney has the appearance of being a far right wing conservative but I highly doubt he would do any of the stuff he's peddling to the Limbaugh crowd.

I'll agree that most libs are pissed Obama hasn't closed Gitmo, but Obama banning guns was nothing more than NRA fear mongering so gun owners would keep voting Republican and buy guns in record amounts the last 4 years fearing that Obama was gonna ban them. Obama never gave any indication he planned to ban guns or restrict gun rights.

Also, free-the-fags is one thing Obama has actually lived up to for the most part (repealing don't ask don't tell, DOMA getting ruled unconstitutional during his presidency, etc.). I'd say liberals are most pissed off at Obama for Gitmo, the Patriot Act, extending Bush's tax cuts, bombing Libya, how long it's taking to get out of Afghanistan, etc.

[Clipper Nation]

When you figure out what "lesser of two evils" actually means- then you can pick one.

It is the only choice you actually have and if you decide not to vote then you have actually voted for Romney.

People with money and an interest in getting richer WILL actually vote for Romney...so you either vote for Obama or you are actually helping the rich get richer while simultaneously screwing yourself.

Pretty stupid to screw yourself- but that is what sheeple usually do anyway so no one is surprised.
The lesser of two evils is still evil, therefore, anyone who votes for the lesser of two evils still casts their vote for evil, tbh.... we have been "strategically voting" like you're arguing in favor of for decades, and it has only left us with two crony status-quo candidates every election cycle and a deeply-entrenched rigged two-party system....

It's time for people to grow some testicles, get some principles, and STOP caving in to the partisan guilt tactics from Team Red and Team Blue....

[Ginobilly]

There you go dummy....blame the person before you when you don't have anything else to stand on. I don't give a shit.....Obama has failed...he loses by default. Wants to tax me to death to pay for lazy ass people who want handouts. No way son...God bless the USA

:elephant

+1

I'm sick and tired of paying for everybody's kids. It's the working class/middle class that keeps America running. How many high class and welfare people get up every morning to go to work and actually contribute to society?

[silverblk mystix]

The lesser of two evils is still evil, therefore, anyone who votes for the lesser of two evils still casts their vote for evil, tbh.... we have been "strategically voting" like you're arguing in favor of for decades, and it has only left us with two crony status-quo candidates every election cycle and a deeply-entrenched rigged two-party system....

It's time for people to grow some testicles, get some principles, and STOP caving in to the partisan guilt tactics from Team Red and Team Blue....


That is why I said earlier- that until sheeple get the balls to revolt- that the game will remain rigged.

So either don't vote out of principal if you feel like it- unfortunately- this will only help the big voters (republicunts).

Or...

Vote Obama and keep a little more of your hard earned salary...

Or vote Romney and help him make his job screwing you easier.

Fast forward a few decades and the sheeplets will realize that a revolution is the way to go and go to war against the people who own the country right now. Haves vs. have nots.

[DMC]

I'll agree that most libs are pissed Obama hasn't closed Gitmo, but Obama banning guns was nothing more than NRA fear mongering so gun owners would keep voting Republican and buy guns in record amounts the last 4 years fearing that Obama was gonna ban them. Obama never gave any indication he planned to ban guns or restrict gun rights.

Also, free-the-fags is one thing Obama has actually lived up to for the most part (repealing don't ask don't tell, DOMA getting ruled unconstitutional during his presidency, etc.). I'd say liberals are most pissed off at Obama for Gitmo, the Patriot Act, extending Bush's tax cuts, bombing Libya, how long it's taking to get out of Afghanistan, etc.

Don't ask, Don't tell is more like imprisoning the fags. I bet fags are flocking to the Army in droves now.

[Clipper Nation]

Vote Obama and keep a little more of your hard earned salary...

Or vote Romney and help him make his job screwing you easier.

Sorry to tell you, but Obama is just as beholden to the 1%-ers and big banks as Willard is, tbh.... personally, I'm writing in Ron Paul....

[silverblk mystix]

Sorry to tell you, but Obama is just as beholden to the 1%-ers and big banks as Willard is, tbh.... personally, I'm writing in Ron Paul....


So you are doing this out of "principal" ... ok...but that only helps Romney- so you are really voting for Romney. Doesn't sound too informed tbh...

I would have voted Ron Paul also - but I knew waaay beforehand that he wouldn't be given a chance so instead of wasting a vote on "principal" I am using it against Romney.

[Clipper Nation]

So you are doing this out of "principal" ... ok...but that only helps Romney- so you are really voting for Romney. Doesn't sound too informed tbh...

Firstly, how does it help Romney? If anything, most Ron Paul write-in voters are conservatives who are voting against Willard, so that would help Obama....

Secondly, you're still trying to reduce the election into the same exact "team sport" mentality that has gotten us nowhere for decades now.... I don't give a shit who people like you think it's "helping," I'm writing in Ron Paul because I feel he's the only person in the race who's qualified to be President, imho.... it's a sad state of affairs when people get shit just for voting their conscience....

Thirdly, I'm not "really voting for Romney," I'm voting for Ron Paul...

[mingus]

Obama's tax rates for people making 250k is something I personally do not agree with. I vote out of self-interest, and I think that is the way it should be, but I also think that his tax plan for people making that amount of money is bad for the country. Romeny is far from perfect/ideal candidate, but it si between him and Obama, who has only run the economy further into the ground with his regulation and tax hikes IMO. Will Romney be able to solve it? probably not, but I think he can do a better job than Obama.

[man on wire]

Obama's tax rates for people making 250k is something I personally do not agree with. I vote out of self-interest, and I think that is the way it should be, but I also think that his tax plan for people making that amount of money is bad for the country. Romeny is far from perfect/ideal candidate, but it si between him and Obama, who has only run the economy further into the ground with his regulation and tax hikes IMO. Will Romney be able to solve it? probably not, but I think he can do a better job than Obama.

I guarantee you the debt will continue to rise under Romney since his math just doesn't add up. He can't cut taxes and revenue and cut spending based on "projections" that are not fact based. Good luck with that.

[silverblk mystix]

Firstly, how does it help Romney? If anything, most Ron Paul write-in voters are conservatives who are voting against Willard, so that would help Obama....

Secondly, you're still trying to reduce the election into the same exact "team sport" mentality that has gotten us nowhere for decades now.... I don't give a shit who people like you think it's "helping," I'm writing in Ron Paul because I feel he's the only person in the race who's qualified to be President, imho.... it's a sad state of affairs when people get shit just for voting their conscience....

Thirdly, I'm not "really voting for Romney," I'm voting for Ron Paul...


Spin it any way you want....Romney thanks you from the bottom of his tax protected billions!

[Clipper Nation]

Spin it any way you want....Romney thanks you from the bottom of his tax protected billions!

And you're begging for my vote while searching through the bottoms of prisoners, B... :lol

[fraga]

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/web05/2012/10/22/23/anigif_enhanced-buzz-29461-1350961248-14.gif

[vander]

obamaphone, foodstamps, "free health care", free school, free food at school, welfare without work, punishing people who are more ambitious and successful than you, etc. etc.

why wouldn't anyone vote for obama?? and by "anyone" I of course mean the degenerate low lives that make up at least half this country



socialism and tyranny are the path to utopia
if you don't already, you will learn to love Big Brother, err, I mean, Dear Leade-no, I mean: our benevolent Government

[baseline bum]

LOL Wild Cobra Jr

[RandomGuy]

tell it to the liberals on this board who think they're soooo smart and trendy and anyone who doesn't agree with their viewpoints are stupid :lol

I have lots of non-stupid friends who I disagree with.

The problem isn't disagreeing per se, but how and why. Aye, there's the rub.

In this country, we have made the mistake of thinking that when there is an issue with two sides to debate that both sides have equal footing. They don't. Quite often one sides arguments are more compelling and better supported by available evidence, and that acknowledgement is missing in a lot of people's thinking.

[mavs>spurs]

Right, dem is the only right side of the argument says you case closed. Gotcha.

Reminds me of something else closed minded people once said.. "If it ain't white, it ain't right." Same school of thought IMHO.

[silverblk mystix]

I have lots of non-stupid friends who I disagree with.

The problem isn't disagreeing per se, but how and why. Aye, there's the rub.

In this country, we have made the mistake of thinking that when there is an issue with two sides to debate that both sides have equal footing. They don't. Quite often one sides arguments are more compelling and better supported by available evidence, and that acknowledgement is missing in a lot of people's thinking.


All a debate is - is one side trying to convince the other that their way is superior. Both are driven by an agenda ($$$) of their interests.

[DPG21920]

As are you - be honest SBM - would you vote for a president who's policies would negatively impact you in a major way personally but would be fantastic for the overall direction of this great country?

[RandomGuy]

Right, dem is the only right side of the argument says you case closed. Gotcha.

Reminds me of something else closed minded people once said.. "If it ain't white, it ain't right." Same school of thought IMHO.

Congratulations, you really showed that strawman. Gave him the what for, indeed.

Democrats do not always have the more compelling arguments. I very carefully avoided saying that, because that isn't what I think.

My comment was more general commentary about our country's intellectual failings when it comes to critical thinking.

Are you trying to say that every time there are two sides or disagreement about something that both sides always have an equally valid/strong case?

[RandomGuy]

All a debate is - is one side trying to convince the other that their way is superior. Both are driven by an agenda ($$$) of their interests.

I'm not. I care what about what generally works, what benefits the most people, and generally strongly consider costs and benefits, even if such things would be to my own detriment.

Sorry. Blanket cynicism is a lazy way to view the world, IMO. There are certainly times when people/parties/groups do represent their interests, but that isn't always a bad thing.

[AmericanPsycho]

I keep who I vote for to myself and to hell with what others think.

[silverblk mystix]

As are you - be honest SBM - would you vote for a president who's policies would negatively impact you in a major way personally but would be fantastic for the overall direction of this great country?


I am being honest. Romney would be in my best financial interests - but I will vote Obama because I live on very little, relatively speaking, and I don't mind paying my fair share.

Is it stupid? Some people would label me as stupid but I don't necessarily need anyone's approval or care about anyone else's opinion.

I do feel that Obama is a waaay lesser evil and therefore gets my vote.

[DPG21920]

That makes sense - I don't think it's stupid. It's not self-serving and some people may view that as stupid, but depends on how you view things.

[Dark Gable]

I will vote for Obama and feel damn good I did.

[CubanMustGo]

Will I pay more in taxes under Obama than Romney? Hell yes.

Will I vote for Romney? Hell no.

Taxes HAVE to go up. Spending HAS to go down. There is not enough discretionary spending that can be reduced to make a dent in the annual deficit, you can cut PBS, NEA, etc. funding 100 times and it's not enough to make one damned bit of difference. Mitt wants to cut the taxes on the rich, like that has done one fucking thing for the economy (compare current high income marginal tax rates with historical amounts - why, they're already at their lowest in decades) and has NO spending plan that will make any difference.

Not to mention he changes his message to suit whatever audience he talks to. The incredible, amazing, ever-changing to get your vote Mitt Romney. No thanks.

[DPG21920]

One thing I don't get is why people believe "the rich" should pay more? It's not their fault they have money. Not in all cases, but a lot of cases, those with money worked very hard to get it. They should not be disproportionally penalized because they earn more to subsidize everyone else. The reason why this country is in debt wasn't because the rich people in this country earned wealth - there were other policies put in place which led to this, but in order to fix it you place a burden on the rich? Makes no sense. All that will do in theory is take away incentive to work hard and go beyond in order to do more when they will just penalize you for it. It's a large reason why you see a lot of practices going out of business due to constraints on insurance, malpractice...Why earn more when you could just coast and not have the stress of being a doctor and you get better tax rates?

There should be a flat tax rate to everyone, regardless of your income (which the rich will technically still end up paying more dollars since they are coming from a larger pool of money). That is the only fair way IMO.

We see Mitt flip flopping during his debates - however, we have seen Obama completely lie and flip flop and make this country worse off as an actual President. So it's tough to say what's worse down the road.

[Mog]

I've got no problem paying my fair share. I've got enough and the rest is just for showing off.

[silverblk mystix]

One thing I don't get is why people believe "the rich" should pay more? It's not their fault they have money. Not in all cases, but a lot of cases, those with money worked very hard to get it. They should not be disproportionally penalized because they earn more to subsidize everyone else. The reason why this country is in debt wasn't because the rich people in this country earned wealth - there were other policies put in place which led to this, but in order to fix it you place a burden on the rich? Makes no sense. All that will do in theory is take away incentive to work hard and go beyond in order to do more when they will just penalize you for it. It's a large reason why you see a lot of practices going out of business due to constraints on insurance, malpractice...Why earn more when you could just coast and not have the stress of being a doctor and you get better tax rates?

There should be a flat tax rate to everyone, regardless of your income (which the rich will technically still end up paying more dollars since they are coming from a larger pool of money). That is the only fair way IMO.

We see Mitt flip flopping during his debates - however, we have seen Obama completely lie and flip flop and make this country worse off as an actual President. So it's tough to say what's worse down the road.


It is not that simple.

Some have gotten rich by hurting a lot of people like the food processors, tobacco companies and chemical companies that has addicted most of the population.

Goddamn right they should pay more.

[DPG21920]

Sure but many issues we have come from subsidizing those who aren't working, wont work and make poor life choices. So should they pay more?

[baseline bum]

LOL retarded flat tax plan completely disregarding the diminishing marginal utility per dollar.

[mavs>spurs]

DPG with the complete packaged goods in here..nice work. Just be warned, on a board full of hardcore liberals your teachings won't be kindly received.

[silverblk mystix]

Sure but many issues we have come from subsidizing those who aren't working, wont work and make poor life choices. So should they pay more?


You are looking down instead of looking up. The elite pay a lot of money to keep people like you looking down and blaming things on the poor while they pillage the country. You were played and are obediently looking down and placing blame on the poor. The very rich thank you for always keeping the focus away from them.

Let the bottom half scrap for the crumbs and fight and blame each other while the top gets richer and richer. The common sentiment is , "why make the rich pay more- they earned it....they will take their money elsewhere....they shouldn't be penalized for being rich....blah-blah..."

Only a true revolution will ever change this - but it won't be in our lifetime.

[silverblk mystix]

DPG with the complete packaged goods in here..nice work. Just be warned, on a board full of hardcore liberals your teachings won't be kindly received.


Suddenly, you are ok with DPG...lol...only when it fits your agenda...

[mavs>spurs]

I'm ok with the points he's making in this thread that's for sure. Couldn't have said it any better. I'm not a republican but I find myself disagreeing with the Dems sometimes more than the Reps I just can't get on board with socialism, entitlements, looking down on people in jealousy for being successful, abortion, and big government. On the flip side, the only thing I really disagree with the republicans on is the war mongering and defense spending, but both sides actually play world police anyway. It's a balancing act and in the end I find myself criticizing the left more but I'll be the first to criticize the right when they fuck up too. Hated bush.

[silverblk mystix]

I'm ok with the points he's making in this thread that's for sure. Couldn't have said it any better. I'm not a republican but I find myself disagreeing with the Dems sometimes more than the Reps I just can't get on board with socialism, entitlements, looking down on people in jealousy for being successful, abortion, and big government. On the flip side, the only thing I really disagree with the republicans on is the war mongering and defense spending, but both sides actually play world police anyway. It's a balancing act and in the end I find myself criticizing the left more but I'll be the first to criticize the right when they fuck up too. Hated bush.


Fox news thanks you for your support and your parroting of their views.

[mavs>spurs]

go tune back into cnn tbh

[Nathan Explosion]

It is not that simple.

Some have gotten rich by hurting a lot of people like the food processors, tobacco companies and chemical companies that has addicted most of the population.

Goddamn right they should pay more.

And some are super rich while moving profits offshore in an effort to avoid paying their "fair share". That's the problem. When I say the rich should pay their fair share, I'm not talking about Lebron James, Tom Cruise or any other millionaire. I'm talking about billion dollar corporations that have offshore accounts and greatly reduce their taxes through creative accounting and lobbyists.

The solution should be simple. Keep your money and labor here, enjoy some tax breaks. Move the money offshore and you're cut off and forced to pay the maximum you're allowed. The company will either run or stay and create jobs and add to our economy while getting breaks for keeping it all in the family so to speak. Of course, the government bureaucracy (read lobbyists with lawmakers on the take in a legal way of course) will find a way to mess it up.

[Agloco]

Sure but many issues we have come from subsidizing those who aren't working, wont work and make poor life choices. So should they pay more?

Hmmmmm.. I wonder if the issues we face with the economy today (or have faced historically) were precipitated by any of the folks you mentioned? In terms of scale and impact, whatever issues we might have with the poor pale in comparison to the issues that arise when "big money" is involved.

To answer if they should pay more: You'd necessarily have to split hairs here, and this is where we venture into truly murky waters.

Why isn't said person working? What constitutes a "poor life choice"? etc, etc.

My opinion is that every American will need to nut up and pay more if we're going to get out of this mess. That and the safety nets we have in place for the poor will need to be scaled down.

[DPG21920]

LOL retarded flat tax plan completely disregarding the diminishing marginal utility per dollar.

Please elaborate (I know what diminishing marginal utility is, but wanted to see what you meant by it). Keep in mind, a lot of economic theory is just that - theory. I was talking about what is fair (i.e. not charging someone more because they make more money from a percentage standpoint) - not what necessarily will happen or needs to happen.

[DPG21920]

You are looking down instead of looking up. The elite pay a lot of money to keep people like you looking down and blaming things on the poor while they pillage the country. You were played and are obediently looking down and placing blame on the poor. The very rich thank you for always keeping the focus away from them.

Let the bottom half scrap for the crumbs and fight and blame each other while the top gets richer and richer. The common sentiment is , "why make the rich pay more- they earned it....they will take their money elsewhere....they shouldn't be penalized for being rich....blah-blah..."

Only a true revolution will ever change this - but it won't be in our lifetime.

I place blame on both ends of the spectrum - however, you rarely hear "hey, let's take more of the poor people's money to make up for it" arguments.

[DPG21920]

And some are super rich while moving profits offshore in an effort to avoid paying their "fair share". That's the problem. When I say the rich should pay their fair share, I'm not talking about Lebron James, Tom Cruise or any other millionaire. I'm talking about billion dollar corporations that have offshore accounts and greatly reduce their taxes through creative accounting and lobbyists.

The solution should be simple. Keep your money and labor here, enjoy some tax breaks. Move the money offshore and you're cut off and forced to pay the maximum you're allowed. The company will either run or stay and create jobs and add to our economy while getting breaks for keeping it all in the family so to speak. Of course, the government bureaucracy (read lobbyists with lawmakers on the take in a legal way of course) will find a way to mess it up.

I agree with this and was not alluding to those with shady practices. I was more referring to those who are in the higher income households and play by the rules in theory should not in any way be adversely harmed because of that.

[DPG21920]

Hmmmmm.. I wonder if the issues we face with the economy today (or have faced historically) were precipitated by any of the folks you mentioned? In terms of scale and impact, whatever issues we might have with the poor pale in comparison to the issues that arise when "big money" is involved.

To answer if they should pay more: You'd necessarily have to split hairs here, and this is where we venture into truly murky waters.

Why isn't said person working? What constitutes a "poor life choice"? etc, etc.

My opinion is that every American will need to nut up and pay more if we're going to get out of this mess. That and the safety nets we have in place for the poor will need to be scaled down.

Perhaps the issues with big money are greater than the issues with the poor, however that doesn't relegate the issues with the poor into nominal territory. It is murky and I agree with your last sentiment, however my main point is about fairness and economic principles: You don't punish those with more just because they have it because there will reach a point where you drive people away from those areas and those are areas of great importance. The more and more you take away incentive to do more/earn more, the greater the issue becomes.

[baseline bum]

Please elaborate (I know what diminishing marginal utility is, but wanted to see what you meant by it). Keep in mind, a lot of economic theory is just that - theory. I was talking about what is fair (i.e. not charging someone more because they make more money from a percentage standpoint) - not what necessarily will happen or needs to happen.

Are you telling me you disagree that the money a middle or lower class family spends to have a car for transportation to/from work doesn't have much greater utility than does an equivalent amount spent by someone looking for something to drive on the weekend or as a status symbol? The diminishing marginal utility of the dollar seems to be a pretty self-evident truth in the sense of say, the postulates of geometry in Euclid's Elements. I think you're going to have a really hard time arguing that a summer vacation home for someone who can afford it has comparable utility to a non-wealthy family's only home. I don't see how one can reasonably expect solid growth in an economy if the majority of people with high marginal utility per dollar who spend their dollars don't have money to spend.

[DPG21920]

So, by default then, you think it is more than acceptable to tax those with more money at a higher rate? To what degree? Do you feel that impacts the incentive to want to be someone with more money the more it evens out due the difference in tax breaks?

[DPG21920]

Also, why would they have no money to spend? If they are getting taxed at their current rate and are able to live full complete lives with everything they need, why would lowering the tax burden on those above them negatively impact the amount of money they have to spend (in theory - obviously if you lower the tax rate from your largest pool of money, it would have to be made up somewhere).

[silverblk mystix]

So, by default then, you think it is more than acceptable to tax those with more money at a higher rate? To what degree? Do you feel that impacts the incentive to want to be someone with more money the more it evens out due the difference in tax breaks?

That is the thing- they arent getting taxed at a higher rate.

They have people on the payroll whose job it is to find loopholes and ways of cheating and hiding income so that they end up paying a lot less. People with the most --actually pay a lower percentage. How is this fair?

A family making 20-75k pays 30-33% taxes while an asshole billionaire like Romney pays 13%. How is this guy even in the running for the presidency? This tax cheating should be more than enough to disqualify him -period. People like you actually respect this kind of dishonesty.

[baseline bum]

Also, why would they have no money to spend? If they are getting taxed at their current rate and are able to live full complete lives with everything they need, why would lowering the tax burden on those above them negatively impact the amount of money they have to spend (in theory - obviously if you lower the tax rate from your largest pool of money, it would have to be made up somewhere).

Um, debt? Is this nation supposed to run on waving flags and USA chants?

[mavs>spurs]

That is the thing- they arent getting taxed at a higher rate.

They have people on the payroll whose job it is to find loopholes and ways of cheating and hiding income so that they end up paying a lot less. People with the most --actually pay a lower percentage. How is this fair?

A family making 20-75k pays 30-33% taxes while an asshole billionaire like Romney pays 13%. How is this guy even in the running for the presidency? This tax cheating should be more than enough to disqualify him -period. People like you actually respect this kind of dishonesty.

lol no, if you make less than 35350 you only pay 15%, and it's really not even that high if you have dependents its like 10%if you make 35k up to like 80 or 90 i forget you still only pay like 20%..but thats just the marginal rate, after dependents you actually pay far less.

[silverblk mystix]

lol no, if you make less than 35350 you only pay 15%, and it's really not even that high if you have dependents its like 10%if you make 35k up to like 80 or 90 i forget you still only pay like 20%..but thats just the marginal rate, after dependents you actually pay far less.



This is untrue.

People that make 75-90 k pay at least 30% some even more.

[mavs>spurs]

if you file jointly and make up to 70,700 you pay 15% federal taxes. up to 142k jointly pays only 20%. but keep in mind these are just marginal rates, once you subtract dependents and other deductions you pay way less. now i keep forgetting that other states have state taxes as well and that would up it a bit, but yeah not here in texas you don't pay no 30%.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

A family making 20-75k pays 30-33% taxes while an asshole billionaire like Romney pays 13%..

The highest tax bracket in this country is 35% and for people making A LOT more than 20-75k, so I'm not sure where you're getting that first piece of info.

[Stringer_Bell]

Wow, how easily people forget that billionaires "who need to pay their fair share" can just say FUCK YOU and close up shop. Tbh, they should be thankful for having enjoyed those tax breaks while not consistently adding jobs for at least the 6 years they enjoyed those breaks without too much of a fuss, but the only person they have to thank is GW - they don't owe America anything.

[DeadlyDynasty]

smh DPG

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

So, by default then, you think it is more than acceptable to tax those with more money at a higher rate? To what degree? Do you feel that impacts the incentive to want to be someone with more money the more it evens out due the difference in tax breaks?

It doesn't impact the incentive at all. Being someone who makes $1,000,000 a year is better than being someone who makes $30,000 as a low level employee for the guy making $1,000,000. The notion that taxes being higher lowers incentive to be rich is total asinine, trickle-down Ronald Reagan bullshit. Every rational person's goal is to maximize after tax wealth and $1,000,000 taxed at 40% is more after tax wealth than $30,000 taxed at 20%. Taxes on the rich are lower than they've been in 50+ years, and it has yet to stimulate the economy like Ronald Reagan and George Bush claimed it would. How much lower do taxes need to be for the rich before twickle down economics will work?

[mavs>spurs]

.

[redzero]

http://www.novelinvestor.com/tax-planning/how-tax-brackets-work/

[mavs>spurs]

interesting i'm glad you posted that, i never took tax and apparently had a misconception about that. dok is right it shouldn't be too much of a disincentive then.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

most people don't have such a clear cut choice as making either 30k or 1 mil. if you're right at the bubble and if you go over, you're going to go up a tax bracket and actually lower your after tax income unless you go wayyyyy over to negate the effects of the higher tax bracket. for example, making 35,000 at 15% tax is better than making 37,000 at 20%. you'd have to make around 40,000 or so to see any appreciable gain in take home pay for your efforts. it's definitely somewhat of a deterrent.

This is a shining example of how you don't understand how America's tax code works at all. If you're right on the bubble and go over, you only pay taxes at the higher rate for your income in excess of the threshold. Your tax rate for income below the threshold doesn't suddenly go up causing you to have less after tax income than you would have if you remained below the threshold. Here is how it works:

http://www.moneycrush.com/wp-content/uploads/single-2010.gif

So lets say someone is right on the edge making $82,400 a year. Yes, if you're ignorant, don't understand how America's tax code works but like to pretend you do while basing your political views on how you think it works, you'd argue "The person making $82,400 a year wouldn't want to earn more and make 84-85k because it would push his tax bracket up and leave him with less after tax income!" When in reality here is how it works:

Taxes due for $82,400: $4,681.25 + .25($82,400 - $34,000) = $16,781.25, $82,400 - $16,781.25 = $65,618.75 after tax income

Taxes due for $84,000: $16,781.25 + .28($84,000 - $82,400) = $17,229.25, $84,000 - $17,229.25 = $66,770.75 after tax income


So an increase in your before tax income WILL ALWAYS result in an increase for your after tax income the way America's tax code is formulated. So, are you going to admit that all of this time, you thought America's tax code could result in a lower after tax income by moving into the next tax bracket and that you were talking out of your ass, or will you try to somehow say you knew what you were talking about? I'm anxious to find out.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

.

Last edited by mavs>spurs; 17 Minutes Ago at 11:13 PM.

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

[mavs>spurs]

17 minutes ago, you really spent a lot of time typing up something in response to a brain fart i had 2 hours after my usual sleep time. i'm beat to hell from work and said something out of character and agreed with you, shoulda just moved on rather than waste your time responding to posts that don't even exist tbh.

[mavs>spurs]

surprisingly in reality america's tax code really isn't all that progressive at all, i'm pleased with the current taxation levels if they could just close up loopholes. those loopholes will have a bigger effect than "marginal rates this marginal rates that" talk tbh. i guess that's the scam though, they pretend to argue while in reality nothing ever changes for the select few.

[Wild Cobra]

surprisingly in reality america's tax code really isn't all that progressive at all, i'm pleased with the current taxation levels if they could just close up loopholes. those loopholes will have a bigger effect than "marginal rates this marginal rates that" talk tbh. i guess that's the scam though, they pretend to argue while in reality nothing ever changes for the select few.
I agree.

I also say that personal exemptions should be limited. People should not be rewarded for having more than two children. I would be happy with seeing no personal exemptions, just a standard deduction, but I know that will never fly.

If we want to favor any group, it should be married with children. The marriage penalty is a real bitch.

[DJ Mbenga]

politcal conversation more active in the club than the politcal forum lol

[Wild Cobra]

LOL...

Sorry...

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

What loopholes need to be closed up?


Be specific.

[ChumpDumper]

i never took taxHave you ever paid taxes?

[RandomGuy]

So, by default then, you think it is more than acceptable to tax those with more money at a higher rate? To what degree? Do you feel that impacts the incentive to want to be someone with more money the more it evens out due the difference in tax breaks?

I can't imagine there is more than a marginal effect on incentive. 1,000,000 or 900,000 is still far more money than a human being needs to survive and live well.

[boutons_deux]

the old incentive bullshit simply doesn't fly in high-tax social democracies like Scandanavia.

and if the 1% gets pissed about increased tax rates, let them GFTO and live offshore with their $100Ms in criminal tax evading accounts and $10Ts in derivative bets.

[Wild Cobra]

I can't imagine there is more than a marginal effect on incentive. 1,000,000 or 900,000 is still far more money than a human being needs to survive and live well.
That is the attitude of the lazy people who stay on government assistance. They have all they need. Do you wish to kill any motivation of people moving up? Kill reasons for innovation? Why work hard if it gets taxed away?

[silverblk mystix]

That is the attitude of the lazy people who stay on government assistance. They have all they need. Do you wish to kill any motivation of people moving up? Kill reasons for innovation? Why work hard if it gets taxed away?


GTFO with that bullshit. The motivation for people who have all they need already and still want more - has a name- it is called GREED.

People living off the gov't - who have all they need? I bet a hundred you don't personally know any. Nor do most fox-news watchers. It is something you parrot after hearing a few right wing fanatics spouting this shit. If people are living off the gov't you are stupidly mistaken if you believe they are actually living well. Those people are barely scraping by- but again- I bet you don't know any and neither do I.


I have all that I need to live for this lifetime and possibly a couple of others and Romney still wouldn't get my vote. Hell, if Romney was on fire I wouldn't even piss on him to save him.

[Wild Cobra]

I bet a hundred you don't personally know any.
Pay up.

I have all that I need to live for this lifetime
I didn't say that. These same people don't look that far.

[tlongII]

GTFO with that bullshit. The motivation for people who have all they need already and still want more - has a name- it is called GREED.

People living off the gov't - who have all they need? I bet a hundred you don't personally know any. Nor do most fox-news watchers. It is something you parrot after hearing a few right wing fanatics spouting this shit. If people are living off the gov't you are stupidly mistaken if you believe they are actually living well. Those people are barely scraping by- but again- I bet you don't know any and neither do I.


I have all that I need to live for this lifetime and possibly a couple of others and Romney still wouldn't get my vote. Hell, if Romney was on fire I wouldn't even piss on him to save him.

You're a damn fool. Increasing our already MASSIVE debt will only hurt our country. And there is no doubt that is what Obama will do.

[silverblk mystix]

You're a damn fool. Increasing our already MASSIVE debt will only hurt our country. And there is no doubt that is what Obama and/or Romney will do.



fify