Romney 4 Obama 0

Obama said"no new taxes on the middle class". So he lets social security tax go back to past levels everyone now has less in their pay checks. Isn't that a tax? "No new taxes on the middle class" Daughter, married, 4 kids, was told after getting taxes done that next year because her hubby has such good health insurance their taxes will go up a thousand bucks a year for the next 2 years. They have a yearly income under 60k. Can you say Obamacare. But no new taxes on the middle class the back bone of our economy. Romney 4 Obama minus 2.

As I said that SS was a temp. cut to begin with, everyone knew that was coming if Congress didn't renew it. We have to wait & see about the HC, that keeps getting changed as well mine goes up & then down, I gain something & they drop something else I guess it's going to depend on how & if you had HCI before. Personally I think they should have let all the Bush temporary tax cuts expire & start from their, everybody wants something for nothing.

samhill wrote:As I said that SS was a temp. cut to begin with, everyone knew that was coming if Congress didn't renew it. We have to wait & see about the HC, that keeps getting changed as well mine goes up & then down, I gain something & they drop something else I guess it's going to depend on how & if you had HCI before. Personally I think they should have let all the Bush temporary tax cuts expire & start from their, everybody wants something for nothing.

That right Sam. That one is on Congress.

Dan, The reason I point out the Romney defficiencies is that someone else was talking about how great he would have been if only....or why he didn't win the election was because he was so great that America didn't want him because he was going to provide jobs or some such nonesense. Your right. He tried twice and failed and he's done.

guys,

This is just a hunch, but Id bet grandmas "Sunday go to church knickers" that if Mr. Obama had his way you wouldn't have had any increase.Just a hunch........

To me it seems a shame that this HC Bill was what they came up with, with all the other countries that have it if only there would have been some cooperation they could pick & choose the good or not so good ideas & come up with a pretty much ideal plan. But in this country & our form of Gov. they have to appease those lobbyist that pay them, the HI industry has been screwing us for decades but we have to be nice to them. Kinda like the junkies I knew that would buy a bag of who knows what off some jerk dealer & itch up a storm & then go back to the same jerk & buy again because he swears it's good this time. Most of my adult life both parties have been for HC reform then when we have a chance for it they have to take care of the jerk first & foremost.

Dann757 wrote:You got your Marxist Messiah, the tip of a long anti-American spear that continues to wound the principles of free enterprise.

Dan, sometimes you wax positively poetic! I don't agree with you but I appreciate your eloquence.

samhill wrote:Dann, SB whoever, why not give some examples of all these taxes & regulations, all I hear is he did this or that but don't see it anywhere.

http://www.heritage.org/issues/taxes/taxmageddon

I know how you roll; you'll just ignore, deflect, or claim bias.
However, I'm pretty disgusted with both parties myself, and the influence of lobbying and the greed that goes with it. I've heard that old people cling to the past and resist change. I must be old, I'm clinging to old TV shows and longing for better, more innocent days. I'm a lot more likely to accept change if it's positive change that supports the country as it was intended in the Constitution. That's not the way I see things going. Your man is an anti-colonial socialist idealogue, he's not incompetant, his loyalties do not lie with the American way of life. He is using his stack of bad checks to bring us down. I despise socialism, it hasn't worked and it punishes the makers and rewards the takers. He doesn't want a "level playing field", he wants level outcomes and the end of individualism.
=========================================================
Steve, I admit Romney blew it, and I also think republicanism is done for. I'm not vehemently far right; I just would like to regain the sense of security and personal freedom I enjoyed up until about 2008. Romney's mistakes IMO: The Big Bird comment. Millions of liberals and possibly undecideds fall at the feet of NPR and public television. He lost all those votes.
The indications about right- to- life issues were too far right for me; and tens of thousands of pro-choice young women voters.
On the other hand, he would be busy turning the country around right now; you can't recognize that his qualifications were even called "sterling" by Clinton.
=======================

Bob, thanks, we're all gonna gather information that supports our individual political propensities and implement them in our heated discussions. I've heard that democracies only last a couple hundred years; I'd prefer to be in the middle of this one, rather than at the end of it.

Dann, I tried reading your link, guess it's above my 5th grade level, I found it long worded & short on detail, most was out dated. They would say taxes are going to go up by a certain % but give no details, what it does say is most of it will be on upper incomes which was the agreement reached by both sides, much of the other is all projected over 5 to 10 years so it doesn't say if it's a per/year increase or a projected total increase & being outdated much of what they were projecting has been avoided at least for awhile, kicking the can as usual. Nothing there says what got us here to begin with & doesn't address those problems. You are right it is bias, it starts off in some instances as Obama & Congress couldn't but then it is quickly just Obama. The Pres. proposes & the Congress spends the so called entitlements are for the most part contributed to & funded but were misappropriated, to me the unfunded wars & prescription plans along with welfare are the biggest problem. I also don't agree with the UC continuation but I guess for some if it were to stop it would only increase the welfare #s, the big thing is jobs or lack there of which you don't hear much of now, except for the call for rebuilding our infrastructure that is always blocked. What ever you call it unless they work together & quit the petty bickering it's going to be even slower.

Well the best I can say is at least you have someone new this term to blame for everything, does that mean Bush is off the hook for awhile

Dann757 wrote:I'm not vehemently far right; I just would like to regain the sense of security and personal freedom I enjoyed up until about 2008. Romney's mistakes IMO: The Big Bird comment. Millions of liberals and possibly undecideds fall at the feet of NPR and public television. He lost all those votes.

Security ended in 2008 largely due to the financial institutions that both political parties allowed to escape from rational regulation, and have not yet reined in again. And don't worry about NPR and public TV -- they are becoming more like the rest of the entertainment "not-news" media every day, in part by being starved of funding. They ain't what they used to be. So pretty soon even liberals will not pay attention any more.

Plumb, have we paid for the job non-creating tax breaks & all the unfunded Bush spending yet? Have those obligations stopped because we changed Presidents? Anybody with a shread of common sense would know that you cancel tax breaks when you go to war, even Pa Pa Bush figured that one out.

Waahhhh give me some links, give me some facts.........

Dann757 wrote:I know how you roll; you'll just ignore, deflect, or claim bias.

samhill wrote:Dann, I tried reading your link, guess it's above my 5th grade level, I found it long worded & short on detail, most was out dated.