Here's What I Think Will Happen in in 2012 Election

[TheNextEra]

Raising taxes on the rich keeps liberals in power because it buys the votes of those not paying higher taxes. Given the choice of not having an increase in taxes vs. having someone else's taxes raised what do you think the individual is going to do?

Whether you disagree with it or not Conservative, Dems in Washington (the rich) raising taxes on the rich, is not hypocrisy. You may think it is wrong to do so but it is not hypocrisy.

 

[TheNextEra]

And now we recycle back to the lack of insider trading laws they have. Remember in Back to the Future II when Biff got the Sports Almanac? That's what we're going through with Congress. Of course Congress doesn't care if we raise corporate taxes. They can just inside trade more to make up the difference!

That's a whole different subject though. It's still not hypocritical for Dems in Washington to raise taxes that they will have to pay. I don't agree with the insider trading being allowed, but again, it's not hypocritical.

 

[Conservative]

Whether you disagree with it or not Conservative, Dems in Washington (the rich) raising taxes on the rich, is not hypocrisy. You may think it is wrong to do so but it is not hypocrisy.

It isn't? Who benefits from raising taxes on the rich, Republicans or Democrats?

 

[TheNextEra]

It isn't? Who benefits from raising taxes on the rich, Republicans or Democrats?

If the Republicans would agree, both would. The Republicans choose not to. Again, no hypocrisy.

 

[MarineTpartier]

That's a whole different subject though. It's still not hypocritical for Dems in Washington to raise taxes that they will have to pay. I don't agree with the insider trading being allowed, but again, it's not hypocritical.

Like I said earlier, this is the fundamental difference. Dems want bigger gov't, so the taxes would help them achieve that.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Mittens will lose to Obama. He's not the tough guy the GOP needs.

 

[TheNextEra]

Like I said earlier, this is the fundamental difference. Dems want bigger gov't, so the taxes would help them achieve that.

Republicans have increased government as well. To pretend otherwise is intellectual dishonest. Homeland security, TARP, Patriot, etc. are all examples of Republicans increasing government.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Like I said earlier, this is the fundamental difference. Dems want bigger gov't, so the taxes would help them achieve that.

Oh please. The Rep's have increased the Gov't in more ways then the Demo's have.

 

[disneydude]

Newt is not out by any means. Sure...the next few rounds favor Romney by quite a lot, however, very few delegates are at stake in these states. Super Tuesday includes many Southern states where Newt will do quite well. After Super Tuesday, I believe that Newt will be back up, neck and neck with Romney. There is still hope for a Newt victory.

 

[Zyphlin]

Well, it sure ain't Warren Buffett, is it? The problem for you defenders of the rich is that there are a lot more Paris Hilton's than you want to admit.

Got anything to back up your assertion that many if not most of "The rich" are "Paris Hilton" types that were simply given their money through inheritence? Or are you just blowing **** out your ass and expecting people to take your completely baseless word as if it actually has worth?

 

[Harshaw]

Oh please. The Rep's have increased the Gov't in more ways then the Demo's have.

And you base this on what?

 

[Teleco2]

I pray that's not the case! I really can't decide who's the worst one we could put in office, Romney or Newt Gingrich! I think both of them are worse then Obama and that's a shame cause I think Obama is not worth a ****!

 

[Teleco2]

Does it really matter??? Both groups are worthless! They both caused us to get where we are and neither have any idea what they are doing except "playing" politics with Americans dreams!

 

[TheNextEra]

And you base this on what?

Patriot Act, TARP, Homeland security, Department of Veteran Affairs, defense spending, ...... Need more?

In all honesty I wouldn't claim either side has increased govt. more than the other. They both have in different ways. Government spending is a different story.

The fact is though Republicans have increased government when they have gotten into power as well. So if someone is using the Republicans don't increase government, you would be wrong.

 

[iguanaman]

And you base this on what?

We can start with the last Republican President, someone who grew the Federal Govt. more than any before him. Why am I not surprised you don't know this?
Here's something from that "lefty" CATO institute.

•Increased federal domestic discretionary spending (even before the bailout) faster than any president since Lyndon Johnson.
•Enacted the largest new entitlement program since the creation of Medicare and Medicaid, an unfunded Medicare prescription drug benefit that could add as much as $11.2 trillion to the program’s unfunded liabilities;
•Dramatically increased federal control over local schools while increasing federal education spending by nearly 61 percent;
•Signed a campaign finance bill that greatly restricts freedom of speech, despite saying he believed it was unconstitutional;
•Authorized warrantless wiretapping and given vast new powers to law enforcement;
•Federalized airport security and created a new cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security;
•Added roughly 7,000 pages of new federal regulations, bringing the cost of federal regulations to the economy to more than $1.1 trillion;
•Enacted a $1.5 billion program to promote marriage;
•Proposed a $1.7 billion initiative to develop a hydrogen-powered car;
•Abandoned traditional conservative support for free trade by imposing tariffs and other import restrictions on steel and lumber;
•Expanded President Clinton’s national service program;
•Increased farm subsidies;
•Launched an array of new regulations on corporate governance and accounting; and
•Generally did more to centralize government power in the executive branch than any administration since Richard Nixon.

Of Course That Implies He Had Principles… | Cato @ Liberty

 

[Conservative]

Patriot Act, TARP, Homeland security, Department of Veteran Affairs, defense spending, ...... Need more?

In all honesty I wouldn't claim either side has increased govt. more than the other. They both have in different ways. Government spending is a different story.

The fact is though Republicans have increased government when they have gotten into power as well. So if someone is using the Republicans don't increase government, you would be wrong.

Name for me one Republican President that had three straight years of trillion dollar deficits and another one on the horizon? Republicans increased the size of govt. but Obama has put that spending on steroids

 

[Conservative]

We can start with the last Republican President, someone who grew the Federal Govt. more than any before him. Why am I not surprised you don't know this?
Here's something from that "lefty" CATO institute.


Of Course That Implies He Had Principles… | Cato @ Liberty

So that gives Obama permission to put that spending on steroids? has Obama shrunk the size of govt. or increased it? you demonize Bush for spending but isn't that what liberals want?

 

[TheNextEra]

Name for me one Republican President that had three straight years of trillion dollar deficits and another one on the horizon? Republicans increased the size of govt. but Obama has put that spending on steroids

The point is Republicans are trying to run that they don't increase government when in fact they do. What is it about conservatism that blinds people to reality?

 

[Wiggen]

"Defenders of the rich"?

If the Libbos don't haterich people, like they claim, there shouldn't be any need to defend them. Yes?

No.

LIbbos? Is that anything like Lesbos - another word coined by the Extreme Right?

 

[Conservative]

The point is Republicans are trying to run that they don't increase government when in fact they do. What is it about conservatism that blinds people to reality?

Does it matter what other Republicans have done since Obama has put all that spending on steroids? name for me one Republican President that had 3 straight years of trillion dollar deficits?

 

[TheNextEra]

So that gives Obama permission to put that spending on steroids? has Obama shrunk the size of govt. or increased it? you demonize Bush for spending but isn't that what liberals want?

And you demonize Obama's spending when you voted for Bush's spending twice. Yet, you want Liberals and others to vote GOP for spending just with an R in front of the president's name. Are you insane?

 

[Wiggen]

It isn't? Who benefits from raising taxes on the rich, Republicans or Democrats?

Well, since the Republicans are owned by the Rich, clearly raising taxes on them benefits everybody else.

 

[TheNextEra]

Does it matter what other Republicans have done since Obama has put all that spending on steroids? name for me one Republican President that had 3 straight years of trillion dollar deficits?

Of course it matters, because the precident is still spending no matter whether there is a D or an R in front of their name. Name for me one Republican president in the last 30 years that the debt didn't raise under?

 

[upsideguy]

It isn't? Who benefits from raising taxes on the rich, Republicans or Democrats?

The US economy; therefore both.

 

[AdamT]

Name for me one Republican President that had three straight years of trillion dollar deficits and another one on the horizon? Republicans increased the size of govt. but Obama has put that spending on steroids

There hasn't been one. Nor has there been a Democratic President who's had three straight years of trillion dollar deficits. Bush had two and Obama has had two.