Mitt Romney drumming up money with the well-heeled

[strigori]

I'd just love to see where anyone at all has ever said that taxing the super-wealthy like the rest of us are taxed will solve the debt. Nobody, anywhere, ever, has said that - except for Republican pundits and Fox News. But ... whatever.

 

 

Before today I had never heard of Motherjones. Don't know a thing about it. Got the link off Reddit. Does it matter? Isn't that Romney saying those things? If it isn't, by all means, correct me.

Romney's people are not denying the video. So safe to call it the real deal.

[HSKR]

I'd just love to see where anyone at all has ever said that taxing the super-wealthy like the rest of us are taxed will solve the debt. Nobody, anywhere, ever, has said that - except for Republican pundits and Fox News. But ... whatever.

 

 

Before today I had never heard of Motherjones. Don't know a thing about it. Got the link off Reddit. Does it matter? Isn't that Romney saying those things? If it isn't, by all means, correct me.

 

Post #4 would be a good start.

[sd'sker]

I'd just love to see where anyone at all has ever said that taxing the super-wealthy like the rest of us are taxed will solve the debt. Nobody, anywhere, ever, has said that - except for Republican pundits and Fox News. But ... whatever.

 

 

Before today I had never heard of Motherjones. Don't know a thing about it. Got the link off Reddit. Does it matter? Isn't that Romney saying those things? If it isn't, by all means, correct me.

Romney's people are not denying the video. So safe to call it the real deal.

he stands by his comments:

Mitt Romney Explains '47 Percent' Leak: 'Victims' Comment Not Elegantly Stated

[NUpolo8]

]

 

 

This is true, 30% is different for people of different wealth. However, in a system where everyone is paying the percentage of their income, that is fairness. (in my opinion of course). In California, if you combine the state and federal taxes, the top tax bracket pays over half of what they make to the Government. I hardly think that is what the people who drew up the Countries rules had in mind.

 

Probably should have explained "so easy to decide...." in a different way, or at least worded it differently. In a way, you DO have a say in who pays what. You have a choice and the right to vote for a person who can influence it.

 

I realize this has probably been rehashed a jillion times over here, sorry this is my first time in the forum.

[sd'sker]

]

 

 

This is true, 30% is different for people of different wealth. However, in a system where everyone is paying the percentage of their income, that is fairness. (in my opinion of course). In California, if you combine the state and federal taxes, the top tax bracket pays over half of what they make to the Government. I hardly think that is what the people who drew up the Countries rules had in mind.

who cares what they had in mind? they also had no concept of 'corporations' as we do (or at all). they also did not know we would go off the gold-standard or that fifty-billion dollars would exist in the economy, let alone that one person could possess that much wealth.

[HSKR]

 

enlighten me why the debt and deficit matter? but the way to fix the economy is to increase tax revenue by strengthening the middle-class.

 

You just answered your own question. You want the middle class strengthened? Then have their tax revenue going back to things like infrastructure so they can grow their businesses instead of the revenue going to interest. Problem is we have to get to that point first.

[knapplc]

I'd just love to see where anyone at all has ever said that taxing the super-wealthy like the rest of us are taxed will solve the debt. Nobody, anywhere, ever, has said that - except for Republican pundits and Fox News. But ... whatever.

 

 

Before today I had never heard of Motherjones. Don't know a thing about it. Got the link off Reddit. Does it matter? Isn't that Romney saying those things? If it isn't, by all means, correct me.

 

Post #4 would be a good start.

 

Do me a favor - I'm kinda dense. Quote and underline the part of #4 that says taxing the super-wealthy like the rest of us are taxed will solve the debt.

[sd'sker]

 

enlighten me why the debt and deficit matter? but the way to fix the economy is to increase tax revenue by strengthening the middle-class.

 

You just answered your own question. You want the middle class strengthened? Then have their tax revenue going back to things like infrastructure so they can grow their businesses instead of the revenue going to interest. Problem is we have to get to that point first.

we still have a budget that pays for the infrastructure. are you saying that america is unable to spend money unless there is a surplus? we waged two costly wars while in debt.

[HSKR]

I'd just love to see where anyone at all has ever said that taxing the super-wealthy like the rest of us are taxed will solve the debt. Nobody, anywhere, ever, has said that - except for Republican pundits and Fox News. But ... whatever.

 

 

Before today I had never heard of Motherjones. Don't know a thing about it. Got the link off Reddit. Does it matter? Isn't that Romney saying those things? If it isn't, by all means, correct me.

 

Post #4 would be a good start.

 

Do me a favor - I'm kinda dense. Quote and underline the part of #4 that says taxing the super-wealthy like the rest of us are taxed will solve the debt.

 

 

Na, I will just have to leave it at that.

[NUpolo8]

]

 

 

This is true, 30% is different for people of different wealth. However, in a system where everyone is paying the percentage of their income, that is fairness. (in my opinion of course). In California, if you combine the state and federal taxes, the top tax bracket pays over half of what they make to the Government. I hardly think that is what the people who drew up the Countries rules had in mind.

who cares what they had in mind? they also had no concept of 'corporations' as we do (or at all). they also did not know we

would go off the gold-standard or that fifty-billion dollars would exist in the economy, let alone that one person could possess that much wealth.

 

They had a concept of wealth. Arguing over numbers is purely semantic.

[sd'sker]

]

 

 

This is true, 30% is different for people of different wealth. However, in a system where everyone is paying the percentage of their income, that is fairness. (in my opinion of course). In California, if you combine the state and federal taxes, the top tax bracket pays over half of what they make to the Government. I hardly think that is what the people who drew up the Countries rules had in mind.

who cares what they had in mind? they also had no concept of 'corporations' as we do (or at all). they also did not know we

would go off the gold-standard or that fifty-billion dollars would exist in the economy, let alone that one person could possess that much wealth.

 

They had a concept of wealth. Arguing over numbers is purely semantic.

first, i disagree. second, then what was their unanimous agreement about the tax code?

[HSKR]

 

enlighten me why the debt and deficit matter? but the way to fix the economy is to increase tax revenue by strengthening the middle-class.

 

You just answered your own question. You want the middle class strengthened? Then have their tax revenue going back to things like infrastructure so they can grow their businesses instead of the revenue going to interest. Problem is we have to get to that point first.

we still have a budget that pays for the infrastructure. are you saying that america is unable to spend money unless there is a surplus? we waged two costly wars while in debt.

So you think right now we are putting the same amount into infrastructure then would we had no debt as a nation? I don't by a long shot. You don't think the debt of those two wars has had a negative effect on our economy??? I do and figured you would have agreed.

[NUpolo8]

]

 

 

This is true, 30% is different for people of different wealth. However, in a system where everyone is paying the percentage of their income, that is fairness. (in my opinion of course). In California, if you combine the state and federal taxes, the top tax bracket pays over half of what they make to the Government. I hardly think that is what the people who drew up the Countries rules had in mind.

 

who cares what they had in mind? they also had no concept of 'corporations' as we do (or at all). they also did not know we

would go off the gold-standard or that fifty-billion dollars would exist in the economy, let alone that one person could possess that much wealth.

 

They had a concept of wealth. Arguing over numbers is purely semantic.

 

first, i disagree. second, then what was their unanimous agreement about the tax code?

 

 

Fine, you disagree.

 

They obviously didn't have a unanimous agreement. So, they compromised. They then used this epiphany to flesh out several, rather important compromises, it was decided this should be a crucial part of how this Government should run, and wrote it in.

 

And it's a shame that we as a nation have strayed very, very far away from that.

[sd'sker]

]

 

 

This is true, 30% is different for people of different wealth. However, in a system where everyone is paying the percentage of their income, that is fairness. (in my opinion of course). In California, if you combine the state and federal taxes, the top tax bracket pays over half of what they make to the Government. I hardly think that is what the people who drew up the Countries rules had in mind.

 

who cares what they had in mind? they also had no concept of 'corporations' as we do (or at all). they also did not know we

would go off the gold-standard or that fifty-billion dollars would exist in the economy, let alone that one person could possess that much wealth.

 

They had a concept of wealth. Arguing over numbers is purely semantic.

 

first, i disagree. second, then what was their unanimous agreement about the tax code?

 

 

Fine, you disagree.

 

They obviously didn't have a unanimous agreement. So, they compromised. They then used this epiphany to flesh out several, rather important compromises, it was decided this should be a crucial part of how this Government should run, and wrote it in.

 

And it's a shame that we as a nation have strayed very, very far away from that.

why? why should we be tied down to what mere mortals thought was best for the country over 250 years ago?

[knapplc]

I'd just love to see where anyone at all has ever said that taxing the super-wealthy like the rest of us are taxed will solve the debt. Nobody, anywhere, ever, has said that - except for Republican pundits and Fox News. But ... whatever.

 

 

Before today I had never heard of Motherjones. Don't know a thing about it. Got the link off Reddit. Does it matter? Isn't that Romney saying those things? If it isn't, by all means, correct me.

 

Post #4 would be a good start.

 

Do me a favor - I'm kinda dense. Quote and underline the part of #4 that says taxing the super-wealthy like the rest of us are taxed will solve the debt.

 

 

Na, I will just have to leave it at that.

 

Color me shocked that you didn't support your allegation. Shocked, I say.