Doesn't Romney pay by the rules set up by Congress and the IRS? Doesn't Obama? Don't we all?

If it isn't fair, who set it up that way? Congress makes the laws. Romney has never been a member of Congress...Obama, on the other hand, has.

Why hasn't Obama changed the IRS rules in the past 4 years?

why do you ask stupid questions? you're implying Obama has done nothing at all? aren't you the guy who said people who go to casinos are already rich?

People like Romney pay lobbyists to have it "set up" that way. Grow up.

>> ^vaire2ube:

why do you ask stupid questions? you're implying Obama has done nothing at all? aren't you the guy who said people who go to casinos are already rich?
People like Romney pay lobbyists to have it "set up" that way. Grow up.


and who do the lobbyists pay. Lol...

>> ^lantern53:

Doesn't Romney pay by the rules set up by Congress and the IRS? Doesn't Obama? Don't we all?
If it isn't fair, who set it up that way? Congress makes the laws. Romney has never been a member of Congress...Obama, on the other hand, has.
Why hasn't Obama changed the IRS rules in the past 4 years?


I like how you pretend that these two are different, or that electing one or the other will help the common man. Both of them will be crap for you, unless you're a millionaire lantern.

Douche or Turd

Lobbyist or not at the end of the day the congress sets the tax law.

The decision lays at the feet to government who pays what tax. The Democrats had full control to make changes and failed. Now Obama is bitching that Romney does not pay enough. What a fool.

It must be wonderful to be a liberal and live in a alternate reality where Obama has actually done anything he promised he would do for the past 4 years, all the while blaming Republicans for all his failures. Hasn't gotten a budget passed since day one even when dems had control of congress, hasn't closed Gitmo, hasn't been transparent, continues to spend like a druken sailor. Instead of ending military engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan, instead starts more military actions in Libya without Congress approval. Over 10% unemployment if you count those no longer looking for work because they can't find any. Keep living in dream land libs. Your Messiah is a flat out failure.

So many sock puppets...

>> ^lantern53:

Doesn't Romney pay by the rules set up by Congress and the IRS? Doesn't Obama? Don't we all?
If it isn't fair, who set it up that way? Congress makes the laws. Romney has never been a member of Congress...Obama, on the other hand, has.
Why hasn't Obama changed the IRS rules in the past 4 years?


He was going to end the Bush Tax Cuts for the super rich 2 years ago, but when he lost the majorities in the House he had to compromise with the Republicans that want the cuts around forever so they can continue to live like super kings. He allowed the cuts to be extended by two years. They are ending in the next couple months.

Presidents aren't emperors and dictators that can just 'change whatever they feel like or they are liars!' they have to have the house and the senate agree with them under the majority of circumstances.

He had his party in control of congress for almost half his first term. What was the excuse then for getting nothing done? At what point do issues become his rather than blaming Bush, or congress, or Joe from accounting? At some point Barry and his administration need to take a little responsibility for getting nothing done, rather than constantly blame everyone else.

>> ^KnivesOut:

So many sock puppets...


Am I a sock puppet?

>> ^Megsta:

He had his party in control of congress for almost half his first term. What was the excuse then for getting nothing done? At what point do issues become his rather than blaming Bush, or congress, or Joe from accounting? At some point Barry and his administration need to take a little responsibility for getting nothing done, rather than constantly blame everyone else.


What are you talking about nothing done? The rich got saved under Obama, they're getting everything they want, which is his job.

@Yogi the poor did too, more welfare handouts and government dependancy YAY!

>> ^Megsta:

@Yogi the poor did too, more welfare handouts and government dependancy YAY!


No they're not, objectively they're not. I doubt you look at any study done about how many children starve everyday in America. I doubt you bother to look read pretty much anything. So thank you for your input, you don't know anything.

For you douchebags who keep spouting the "He's done nothing he promised he would do" horseshit, here's a list of 200 accomplishments during his first term, with citations:

http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/what-has-obama-done-since-january-20-2009.html


And as for your "he had filibuster proof majority for two years", you are either lying to push your bias, or uneducated.

Thanks for the link. I'm drafting an email to state my case for Obama to send to my R relatives. I have a lot on the why not Mitt, but not so much on the Yes Obama so this helps.

>> ^volumptuous:

For you douchebags who keep spouting the "He's done nothing he promised he would do" horseshit, here's a list of 200 accomplishments during his first term, with citations:
http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/what-has-obama
-done-since-january-20-2009.html

And as for your "he had filibuster proof majority for two years", you are either lying to push your bias, or uneducated.

The much attested "fair tax rate" is a red herring frequently used by politicians of all stripes. A flat rate is "fair" by some measure. Hell, even a flat amount (eg $5000/year) is "fair". Progressive brackets like we have now and an even more drastically progressive taxes are also "fair" by certain measure.

This is all hollow rhetoric written to make you feel as if disagreeing with the speaker is unfair, wrong, immoral. We don't need a fair tax rate; we need an effective, sustainable tax rate whether it's 9% across the board or 0%-80% based on income brackets.

@xxovercastxx agreed 9% of income when your gross is $25,000 is a lot more of a sacrifice than 9% when your gross is $250,000. The whole "flat tax" approach is another thinly-disguised attempt to shift the tax burden downward.

>> ^KnivesOut:

@xxovercastxx agreed 9% of income when your gross is $25,000 is a lot more of a sacrifice than 9% when your gross is $250,000. The whole "flat tax" approach is another thinly-disguised attempt to shift the tax burden downward.


Thanks for being so agreeable but it appears you didn't actually read my comment.

I did, I was specifically agreeing with and expounding on the "We don't need a fair tax rate" statement. Maybe I misunderstood, if you're saying that a 9% is a fair tax, then I disagree with you, for the reasons I gave in my reply.
>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^KnivesOut:
@xxovercastxx agreed 9% of income when your gross is $25,000 is a lot more of a sacrifice than 9% when your gross is $250,000. The whole "flat tax" approach is another thinly-disguised attempt to shift the tax burden downward.

Thanks for being so agreeable but it appears you didn't actually read my comment.

The big problem here is that these folks are entirely ignorant of what "grows an economy", whatever one's opinion of what "fair" means, some economic policies are better for the economy in the long run, and some are better to get the biggest amount of votes for an election.

For the general population, good luck trying to figure out which is which.

>> ^lantern53:

Doesn't Romney pay by the rules set up by Congress and the IRS? Doesn't Obama? Don't we all?
If it isn't fair, who set it up that way? Congress makes the laws. Romney has never been a member of Congress...Obama, on the other hand, has.
Why hasn't Obama changed the IRS rules in the past 4 years?

Gross conceptual error.

The simpler the question, the more complex the answer:
I'll try to respectfully answer your "Why hasn't Obama changed the IRS rules in the past 4 years?" without stating my personal opinion or disagreeing with you.

Obama had 2 years of Democratic controlled congress. That's true; however, one can't stop just there. One would have to look at the bills on an individual basis; It's all on the internet!

If people paid attention to voting patterns of congress, they'd find out that many Democrats and Republicans don't always vote along their party line. This is a little more prevalent in the Democratic circle, but just within the margin of error. Please don't assume that just because a new IRS bill comes out, all Democrats are going to jump on it, thus applying anything Obama says. It just doesn't work that way!

How can a Democratic-controlled congress reject bills you say? What better site to see the marbling of party-line votes other than the official Senate website itself:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_111_1.htm

Pick any bill that's "rejected" and see why it happened.

>> ^lantern53:

Doesn't Romney pay by the rules set up by Congress and the IRS? Doesn't Obama? Don't we all?
If it isn't fair, who set it up that way? Congress makes the laws. Romney has never been a member of Congress...Obama, on the other hand, has.
Why hasn't Obama changed the IRS rules in the past 4 years?

I find it truly shocking how few Americans understand how the system works, or perhaps you understand, but are intentionally obfuscating.

Democrats in Congress are not Obama's plaything, to do with as he wishes. Many of them are right leaning, and either refuse to follow Obama's lead, or they demand concessions, on that bit of legislation or on their own pet projects. Cobbling all that together takes time, and Obama had to make priorities. He chose healthcare, IMO a wise choice. After two years, he managed to push a decent healthcare package through, and a couple of other things, then the Republican Congress came in and roadblocked any further progress.

That is what happened. If you think otherwise then I suggest you look it up, it's called American Democracy (which should by all rights be an oxymoron IMO).

Clutch player!

When tax rates are lowered, government revenue increases.

When tax rates are raised, the wealthy scapegoats remove monies from the system, either by parking them in things like tax-exempt bonds or investing in countries with lower tax rates.

However Obama tries to explain away what we on the right have known and have empirical evidence to back it up, his results have been negative. Such failure should not be rewarded by punishing the rest of us with 4 more years of this rubbish!

As much as I would like to agree with you that the government doesn't feel sorry for spending tax money; we have been led to believe that tax breaks and loopholes for the rich specifically, did not and will create more jobs. After 11 years of practice, this proved to be a fruitless that only benefited the upper echelon. You want an example? Take Romney's money in Switzerland and The Cayman Island for example. I am sure he has the right to do with his money whatever he wants, but a show of good faith would be to invest that money back into the economy (tickle-down) instead of parking it overseas. That, I have a HUGE problem with.

I would be taxed more under a re-elected Obama, and I don't mind that because of the greater good. Today, he is the lesser of two evils. I would vote for Romney if he actually believed what he said, but his actions and his words don't go together - see previous paragraph.

It would be dishonest for anyone to think that lowering taxes alone, or cutting the deficit alone would stop the hemorrhaging.

>> ^quantumushroom:

When tax rates are lowered, government revenue increases.
When tax rates are raised, the wealthy scapegoats remove monies from the system, either by parking them in things like tax-exempt bonds or investing in countries with lower tax rates.
However Obama tries to explain away what we on the right have known and have empirical evidence to back it up, his results have been negative. Such failure should not be rewarded by punishing the rest of us with 4 more years of this rubbish!