Now that the general election has more or less started, I'm trying to figure out how Mitt Romney wins with stories like this.
Romney's plan to renovate his La Jolla, California beach house has been known for months. But documents first discovered by Politico, which broke the story Tuesday, show that Romney also plans to add a 3,600-square-foot basement, an outdoor shower, and a car elevator.
Seriously, a car elevator? Nothing says "I know the struggles of every day Americans and can help" like a car elevator in a 12 million dollar home.
I have to give him credit, though, because there some people that are going to buy the fact that someday this is going to be them if only they continue to vote Republican. The haves and the soon-to-haves....
18 comments:
These types of stories only work on the stupid who think good policy is driven by envy.
And for people who think that it's envy.
Faux outrage. You had noooo problem at all supporting John Kerry, who was also worth hundreds of millions of dollars. But he had a D behind his name, he said the right things, and relating to people then must not have been important, so he was cool.
It's funny that you mention John Kerry. In many ways, his flaws are the same ones that Mitt has.
The difference between the two, though, and Democrats in general is that they support policies that would not necessarily be in their best interests personally (hee hee) which I think translates into integrity. President Obama graduated from Harvard Law and could have gotten a job out of school making around 350K to start. Instead, he chose to take a job community organizing for 12-15K a year. What does that tell you about him?
But you're not really getting my point here. Again, I'm asking for a political analysis here. Mitt has stated many times that he supports tax cuts for the wealthy and is building an elevator for his cars in his house. How does that translate with voters?
So you've placed yourself in the democrats heads...and you see Integrity! roflmao.
Of course folks like Kerry and Buffet call for higher taxes - they've structured their financial affairs in such a way that they aren't going to pay at that higher rate anyway, something that has been pointed out to you several times.
You couldn't care less about my political analysis. You just got done talking about my "stated support for Mitt Romney" when the truth is that I've told you I don't care much for him, hence you don't really pay much attention to what I type on here.
they've structured their financial affairs in such a way that they aren't going to pay at that higher rate anyway, something that has been pointed out to you several times.
Uh...huh? This doesn't make any sense when you consider that the law that is named after Buffet would not let them do that anymore. That's what he is pushing for, dude. The president himself is saying he wants his own taxes raised because he can afford it.
You couldn't care less about my political analysis
I would if you offered a serious and critical look at it. How does your party survive? The only way I see it lasting is to chuck the social issues and build around the young people who support Ron Paul. Of course, that may be difficult considering how little Tea Party stuff resonates with the general population. But that could change if they took a more populist tone as they did in the beginning. Lose the xenophobia and sexist shit and latinos and women could be drawn to a movement that wants smaller government that is more transparent.
This doesn't make any sense when you consider that the law that is named after Buffet would not let them do that anymore.
Sure it would. Want to know how?
Buffett sued by the IRS for not paying his taxes.
You can't make this stuff up.
Juris:
No, he doesn't want to know how.
Mark and Math have never met. Here is your Buffet rule results.
Nothing but a political ploy playing on envy. You look like a dupe once again.
According to Obama, the Buffett Rule will reduce income inequality.
The only way taxes reduce income inequality is by taking away from the top. It does nothing to improve the incomes of those at the bottom. This is also why this will not sell to the majority of the American people - they believe in opportunity ahead of equality.
So, when Reagan said the same thing in 1985, he was also wrong? Tsk tsk...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgbJ-Fs1ikA
I think the only reason why you don't like this is because President Obama and the Democrats are espousing it. When Reagan said so, it was just fine.
You're also mis-characterizing this policy. Letting the tax cuts expire alone won't erase the deficit. An improving economy and spending cuts will also be key factors.
Oh poor M trying to throw Reagan at me. Ironic considering that your opinion of Reagan is higher than mine.
Just another lame attempt to label[/libel] me as a Republican. So typical coming from a Democrat stooge.
Taxing the rich does not increase the income of the poor.
Taxing the rich does not increase the income of the poor.
Again, a mis-characterization. I'm talking about our revenue issue which will be partly solved by an increase in revenue from the wealthier people in this country. This revenue can be used to help the country in general which does, in fact, help poorer people. It's called WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING ALL ALONG. And it has been successful.
Increasing govt does not necessarily help poor people. In fact, when it comes to rent-seeking, the rich have it all over the poor.
Plain and simple, taking away from some does not give more to the others. It does sure help you feel like you got back at those that have what you don't though, doesn't it?
And Obama didn't say fuck-all about additional revenue (which it is, if minuscule), he talked about "income inequality". Suck it - your hero is playing the class card and he is playing it hard. It is about NOTHING but ENVY. A Christian ought to understand.
Plain and simple, taking away from some does not give more to the others.
Except it's not really taking away. It's effectively ending a tax break and making things like they were.
It is about NOTHING but ENVY.
No, it's not. Again, that's your perceptual bias. It's really a shame that you will never understand how Democrats and liberals think. My opinion is that you can't conceive of a world where people actually want to help others and do so through the institutions of this country.
It's effectively ending a tax break and making things like they were.
It is taking away more. You can pretend that doesn't mean what it means, but you won't fool anyone but fools.
It's really a shame that you will never understand how Democrats and liberals think.
Perhaps that is because you can't articulate it well. You could make an attempt here, but instead all you do is stroke yourself about how wonderful you and all other liberals are. That is because YOU cannot view the world from another's perspective. I can make better liberal arguments than you can - you can only fuss about liberal piety and shriek "heretic" and "unbeliever" at those who won't worship at the altar of Leftboro Baptist.
You can pretend that doesn't mean what it means, but you won't fool anyone but fools.
Pretend indeed. These cuts were only meant to be temporary. Now, it's a tax hike which is essentially a lie.
Perhaps that is because you can't articulate it well.
No, it's that you behave like an obstinate asshole. If you don't like a fact I presented, than I'm stupid. Not much I can do about that.
I can make better liberal arguments than you can
Oh really? Let's a hear a couple, then. This ought to be good.
Now, it's a tax hike which is essentially a lie.
Hike or elimination of a break - the point is the intent is to collect more tax. Calling it a hike (which I did not, contrary to your assertion) is as much a lie as saying it is about deficit reduction.
No, it's that you behave like an obstinate asshole.
Only because I am not easily swayed by phony facts or loopy logic.
If you don't like a fact I presented, than I'm stupid.
No, the reason I call you stupid is because you can't marshall a set of facts as part of a reasoned argument. You are big on assertions and tiny on facts.
It is a fact that taking more in taxes from the rich does not make the poor better off, even if "inequality" has been reduced. You haven't presented a fact in this entire thread.
Post a Comment