Welcome to PatsFans.com

Romney Victory emails...

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PatsFanInVa, Dec 7, 2012.

  1. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,531
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +45 / 0 / -2

    The Romney Victory operation is still sending fundraising e-mails... explaining how every dollar they raised went toward a Romney victory in November :)

    No, it's not a delayed-send thing they forgot about or something. They're basically reaffirming that they spend the money they raised on attempting to unseat the president. But you have to wonder, to what end?

    This guy seems very concerned to reassure everybody that he only lost because too many people voted, and that the money they threw away went to attack ads and not a new yacht.

    Interesting.
  2. IllegalContact

    IllegalContact Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    9,644
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +13 / 1 / -2

    well.....you're still talking about the election

    between you and darryl, patters, and shmessy, the election does not seem to have happened yet
  3. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,531
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +45 / 0 / -2

    Oh no, no, no, we say things like

    The Republicans Lost

    and

    Elections have consequences... the majority voted for higher taxes on the rich. Cope.

    You can tell the difference in the Dem's forward focus: Now that we've won, we can work on improving our country.

    To their credit, the pubbies now understand this. A lot of them say "Now that we've lost, we will have to knuckle under to the Democrats in this next deal."

    Of course there are still twits running around babbling about staying pure to the "never tax anybody ever" principles they "stand for." But the air's all but out of that balloon. Boehner's gone on record saying he wants to "soak the rich," as the pubbie crowd would have said a month ago... now he just wants to retain some fig leaf, like opposing higher rates.

    So no, I'm very clear on it: The Republicans lost. America rejected their "makers and takers, us vs. them" rhetoric. America voted for President Barack Hussein Obama for a second term.

    Thank you for giving me cause to clarify this. The American people did, indeed, choose the Democratic party over the Republican party.

    PFnV
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2012
  4. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,315
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    Do not take my name in vain...

    Mitt also bought 25K in fireworks, are they still in his trunk????
  5. IllegalContact

    IllegalContact Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    9,644
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +13 / 1 / -2

    LOL....the majority did not vote for higher taxes for the rich....they voted for obama and his overall platform......he's an abortion opinion away from being not releected.

    I am coping fine........you clowns can't move on and stop talking about romney......its an esteem issue that forces your need to continue justifying the results....

    maybe you need to learn to cope

    the last time I checker, the republicans are still running the house, but don't let facts get in your way.

    nobody won.....nothing has changed......your perspective is juvenile

    Last edited: Dec 7, 2012
  6. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,531
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +45 / 0 / -2

    WHAT? NO THIRD TERM? YOU TAKE THAT BACK!

    ah, back to the previous topic: Election's over. He did get reelected.

    Oh no no no, there's no "justifying" going on, this is what's referred to as "revelling in."

    Ohhhhhhh, so they're still running one-half of the legislative branch? Color me impressed.

    Why are they acting like they have to take a Democratic deal now with higher revenue coming from the rich? Why are they saying that the revenue increases have to come from the rich? In fact, compared to their standard bearers in the pubbie primaries, even raising revenues at all is supposed to be pubbie anathema.

    Your leaders have abandoned their "principles," misguided as they were, because they lost the election, and they're trying not to make a habit of it.

    You should rejoice. This is a good thing. Right now, the pubbies are starting their long trek back to the attitudes of the American people -- that should be good for them.

    :rofl::rofl::rofl:

    Back to "that election never happened," I see.

    http://bostinno.com/2012/11/08/2012...tos/#ss__256679_255785_0__256679_256015_0__ss
  7. IllegalContact

    IllegalContact Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    9,644
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +13 / 1 / -2

    revel away.......small things amuse small minds

    like I said.......nobody voted for higher taxes for the rich....it was not on any ballot

    just you people with your hands out.......revelling


  8. Patradomous

    Patradomous Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2007
    Messages:
    2,718
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -1

    #87 Jersey

    Don't worry IC.
    By the time Obama's four years are done. There will be a huge majority that wished Romney victory emails were true and had been sent.

    The worst has yet to come with this marxist moron.
  9. JackBauer

    JackBauer Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    15,158
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +18 / 0 / -0

    Voters support raising taxes on the rich by, at minimum, a margin of 2-1.

    So...yeah.
  10. JackBauer

    JackBauer Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    15,158
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +18 / 0 / -0

    I'm pretty sure you said more or less the same thing the first time he got elected.

    Deal with it.
  11. Tunescribe

    Tunescribe PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    Messages:
    15,910
    Likes Received:
    40
    Ratings:
    +56 / 0 / -0

    #61 Jersey

    You must have a highly reflective computer screen. ;)
  12. IllegalContact

    IllegalContact Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    9,644
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +13 / 1 / -2

    LOL.....at least the voters with their hands out....like you
  13. IllegalContact

    IllegalContact Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    9,644
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +13 / 1 / -2

    oh fricking jeez.......I know you are, but what am I?

    seals the deal for you.......keep revelling ..... with your hand out
  14. IllegalContact

    IllegalContact Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    9,644
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +13 / 1 / -2

    It's simply amazing how many people are in tune with getting something for nothing.....


    don't worry, go ahead and set your aspirations low.......the government will be there to take of you and your useless degree in standing there with your hand out
  15. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,531
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +45 / 0 / -2

    What's that, like 3 straight posts ending "with your hand out"?

    Has anybody on this board every asked you directly for money?

    Speaking for myself, I am advocating that the wealthy pay slightly more in taxes, but I don't complain about my own tax burden, and will gladly pay more if we do it in a smart way, not hitting the middle class first and hardest.

    I will gladly accept a national choice to do so, because I'm not a selfish forktard.

    However, nobody here has ever "put their hand out" asking to ultimately receive the higher taxes paid by the rich. I favor using them for the common obligations of all of us... including some small amount that we use in "welfare" programs.

    I favor keeping the middle-class programs like social security and medicare solvent and healthy.

    IC, if you're really wealthy enough that you'd be hit by a higher top marginal rate beginning at $250k/year income, I can understand how if you're immature enough, you'd look at the rest of your countrymen as "with their hands out."

    But I doubt that's your point of view.

    More likely, you're just toeing the party line, and for recreation saying that everybody who disagrees with you on national tax policy has their hands out.

    Once again... that failed class-warfare tactic lost the pubbies the last election. You're the last guy in America who thinks that one's a winner.

    Get with the program already, there's only something like 20 days until the Mayan Apocalypse when this all becomes irrelevant. Don't you want to be right about something before the end?

    PFnV
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2012
  16. Nunchucks

    Nunchucks Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,721
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -1

    Yet Obama won because middle-class folks voted for him...people who do nothing but pay and can't write off income like those making lots of money.
  17. IllegalContact

    IllegalContact Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    9,644
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +13 / 1 / -2

    LOL......I'm not the one sitting here saying that the majority of the people in this country voted for a tax hike......there are people like you who insist that people voted for a tax hike for the rich, but so what? that sounds exactly like a person standing there with their hand out ....... because that's what it is.....

    there is no smart way to implement a tax hike as long as the idiots in DC are as incompetent as they are with that money........ sorry, but to me its about accountability, because that's what its about for every single one of us in the private sector.

    don't give me this crap about taxing the rich when it is largely the politicians who would get rich(er) off such a ploy......damn you people are naive

    I refuse to get with the beggars

    I don't make $250K and have nothing to gain either way......I'm in the dead zone where it seems tax cuts have never helped me, but somehow will wind up paying more in the end.

    people are making such a stink about taxing the rich when the notion itself on lends to generating 3-4% of the revenue needed to balance the budget

    I know you hate to hearit, but this government needs to spend less. and anyone....ANYONE who thinks they should spend more is a complete idiot

    Last edited: Dec 7, 2012
  18. JackBauer

    JackBauer Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    15,158
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +18 / 0 / -0

    It's interesting you should say this, considering you don't know a thing about me. Then again, snarky crap from you is nothing new -- it's pretty much all you're capable of.

    But it's good to know your original point was bunk and you understand the president is pursuing what is both good public policy and the will of the people.
  19. Kid~Brady

    Kid~Brady Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2009
    Messages:
    2,796
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Lol, and you wonder why you get banned from political threads?

    C'mon Illegal, we are having a political conversation, no need to throw personal insults, which are really assumptions in this case.
  20. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,531
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +45 / 0 / -2

    Seriously... anybody who disagrees with you has to have their hand out or be an idiot... yet on the merits, you have a great deal of trouble proving your point.

    Here's the deal, Illegal and everybody else: how important is balancing the budget/paying down the debt to you?

    If you think it's more important than economic growth -- and you'd be wrong -- you really do have to get behind tax hikes, and they will eventually hit everybody.

    If you really think balancing the budget/paying down the debt is extremely important, and you don't want your taxes going higher, regardless of what you trim from spending, you're looking at higher taxes on the rich.

    If you want to spread out the hit of higher taxes, you can hit the rich harder than the middle class. This is also the more stimulative policy.

    If you want to "kick the can down the road," you don't take the hit to growth.

    If you want to cut your way to Nirvana, you end up destroying economic growth, as every estimate of the effect of the "Fiscal Cliff" teaches us.

    The whole damn question's like a balloon. Squeeze it somewhere and somewhere else it bulges back out. We all claim to be in favor of a set of mutually exclusive goals -- you included, Illegal.

    It's easy to stand around saying everybody else is an "idiot" or "has his hand out." It's hard to come up with good public policy.

    Here's some info we can all appreciate: One reason we're getting to where the 100% of GDP level will become a drag on the economy, is that currently we're at $356 billion in annual debt service costs alone -- never mind the debt itself. So if you've got a deficit for the year of $1.1 trillion, 1/3 of it is pure interest payments. (Since the interest we're paying is low, surprisingly, that's the lowest amount we've paid since 2005).

    Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding

    Allowing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to expire is estimated to be worth about $1 trillion over a decade.

    Like it or not, everybody -- D and R alike -- is aiming for $4 trillion in a combination of cuts and taxes over 10 years.

    Do the math; including spending cuts and tax hikes, nobody proposes to balance the budget in a zero-growth environment. $4 trillion a year is 400 billion a year, a "decrease to the increase" in debt.

    Why is this okay?

    Because the decrease-to-the-increase strategy is valid in an other-than-zero-growth environment.

    What's needed is healthy proportionate debt, in the foreseeable future.

    So anybody selling you this "OMG even if we did X we wouldn't solve everything overnight!" bill of goods is just stating the obvious. Both parties have accepted that we won't fix it overnight, and that ultimately we'll adopt ideal habits and hope that growth does, in fact, still exist.

    It would be nice to go on a jag of high growth, but nobody's counting on that. The sustainable path is to plan to make progress assuming 3% growth over decades -- and the question is, can we get our revenue and spending balanced in such a way that the comparison of debt to GDP gets away from the "red zone" and into a more manageable zone, say the 40-60% range?

    Guess what? That's what Simpson-Bowles was about. Guess what else? Simpson-Bowles looks a lot like the apocalyptic scenario we hear about in connection with the fiscal cliff.

    Would that be going too far? Right now you're damn right it would be. It's signing our own death warrant; you'd contract your own economy and then complain that nobody's making any money to collect revenue on. You'd just foist misery on your own populace for no apparent benefit. Bully! We'd be spending less! But we'd also have less to put into the coffers to address the spending that remained.

    I understand the impulse to "fix everything right now!"

    I don't understand how people maintain that they have an easy fix -- "government's always terrible and not accountable enough" -- in the absence of system-wide evidence for the posited position.

    So like I say, yeah, trim the fat. But that's been an ongoing project forever. Cut waste, fraud, and abuse. Same deal -- apparently if you could get to it all, that's $17 billion a year out of 1,100 billion in deficit spending.

    But if you're trying to make sure Grandma never gets plugged in in the first place so the monopoly guy can get a new monocle, I'm thinking that's a bit misguided.

    The "moral argument" about "handouts" seems to always pertain when we're talking about the other guy.

    When we're talking about the rich, a 15% rate for capital gains or the carried interest deduction are never defended on moral grounds. It's always defended on pragmatic grounds.

    Well the fact is that the rich end up paying a lower effective rate than many of their servants -- psst, that's me and you.

    So one or the other: you want pragmatic economic growth grounds? Then stop talking about handouts.

    You want moral grounds? Then tax the rich their fair share. Take away the loopholes the rest of us never see. Take away hidden income, or income they internationalize into tax havens, so it doesn't even show up as income they don't pay tax on. Cuz that's a hand-out.

    PFnV
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2012
  21. scout

    scout Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    7,625
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    #15 Jersey

    There it is, Match, point, game! Just like when members here guaranteed a Romney victory, can not spin it. Not that members here will not dispute a recovery or say the economy cycles sometimes, etc, etc. In addition, congress will soon vote for higher taxes for the rich, thus, another Obama 'failed' fiscal policy.
    What say you when we have economic success?
  22. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,531
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +45 / 0 / -2

    Come on you know the script:

    "Despite, not because of, Obama"
    "The Republican House of Representatives did it"
    "Would have happened faster and better if we did it."

    I doubt very seriously that they'll have anything other than the above. It's been their script repeatedly as Dems on average preside over twice the job creation than their Republican counterparts.

    CNN Fact Check: Clinton arithmetic holds up on jobs - CNN.com

    So they'd have to have a playbook for Democratic presidents' more successful economic policies.

    PFnV
  23. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ---- JAG ----- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    36,493
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +25 / 1 / -0

    #87 Jersey

  24. Hamar

    Hamar Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,098
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    The GOP needs to put up or shut up. If they really believe in what they say then they just all agree to vote present on any new taxes, cuts and stimulus. The democrats would have to own the economy good or bad. No more crying and calling foul from either side.

    One side will be right and the other won't be.
  25. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ---- JAG ----- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    36,493
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +25 / 1 / -0

    #87 Jersey


    I don't blame the economy on either side ... there are plenty of economic studies clearly pointing out how our economy and the world's economy has been changing for the last 20 years (give or take). The wars and the bloated entitlements have not helped any either. I do think they can further restrict military and entitlement spending to more bare bones. i do not favor any cuts to our elderly but I do think SSI eligibility will have to be changed at some point - we are living longer.

    I will fault either side more than ever how they deal with the budget deficit. Neither side can cry foul and the public support is there for them to be brave and do the right thing. Not everyone will be happy but we have known for years that fixing the budget will not be painless.
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2012
  26. Hamar

    Hamar Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,098
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    It is not going to happen though. As long as they can just keep pointing the finger at each other nothing is going to get fixed.
  27. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ---- JAG ----- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    36,493
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +25 / 1 / -0

    #87 Jersey

    In a post in another thread I pointed out where there are less moderates in congress which is a major problem. We have too many left and right and not enough in the center to sway bills that are badly needed. The blue dog conservative democrats used to be 54 now they are less than 20 ... a huge problem when crafting budgets and $$$ bills IMO.
  28. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,315
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    Obama made a comment today about how in the 80's he would be called a moderate republican.. things have swung both ways...

    The Ultra Right Wingers have certainly done their share..
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2012
  29. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ---- JAG ----- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    36,493
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +25 / 1 / -0

    #87 Jersey


    They are angry ... like dinosaurs going extinct.
    today Bobby Jindal moderated his contraception stance ... a wise choice.
  30. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,315
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    Michigan also is reconsidering their gun legislation efforts as well... without regard we all grew up in a time of negotiation, and unfortunately that has also gone the way of dinosaurs..

    "My way or the highway", mentality is the order of the day..
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2012

Share This Page