There have to be some serious, serious skeletons in that closet.
I would say I called it, but... That's like predicting noon when it's 11:45, I don't think I'm allowed to take credit.
On the bright side, Romney has now hit three of the five worst employees in Office Space - Joanna (doing the bare minimum, nothing more), Tom (having a job without actually doing anything), and Lumburgh (being a monolithic tool). Think he can get Peter and Milton by the end of the race?
You don't think the constant blubbering from the Romney camp sounds a lot like "I think you have my stapler, it was a red Swingline stapler, I want my stapler back..."?
Nah Milton had more backbone than the Romney campaign.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
There have to be some serious, serious skeletons in that closet.
I would say I called it, but... That's like predicting noon when it's 11:45, I don't think I'm allowed to take credit.
On the bright side, Romney has now hit three of the five worst employees in Office Space - Joanna (doing the bare minimum, nothing more), Tom (having a job without actually doing anything), and Lumburgh (being a monolithic tool). Think he can get Peter and Milton by the end of the race?
You don't think the constant blubbering from the Romney camp sounds a lot like "I think you have my stapler, it was a red Swingline stapler, I want my stapler back..."?
Nah Milton had more backbone than the Romney campaign.
How about willingness to burn the place down to get what he wants?
+1
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
There have to be some serious, serious skeletons in that closet.
I would say I called it, but... That's like predicting noon when it's 11:45, I don't think I'm allowed to take credit.
On the bright side, Romney has now hit three of the five worst employees in Office Space - Joanna (doing the bare minimum, nothing more), Tom (having a job without actually doing anything), and Lumburgh (being a monolithic tool). Think he can get Peter and Milton by the end of the race?
You don't think the constant blubbering from the Romney camp sounds a lot like "I think you have my stapler, it was a red Swingline stapler, I want my stapler back..."?
Nah Milton had more backbone than the Romney campaign.
Well, he did take a shitload of shadily-gotten gains to a tropical island...
I continue to insist that Ayn Rand was one of the worst people of the 20th century. Which is an impressive group.
In her defense, a lot of the bullshit in her books can probably be traced to her drug habit.
Or possibly by seeing everyone she knew, and everything she called home destroyed by the Russian Revolution?
Mebe that left a little psychic trauma?
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
There have to be some serious, serious skeletons in that closet.
I would say I called it, but... That's like predicting noon when it's 11:45, I don't think I'm allowed to take credit.
On the bright side, Romney has now hit three of the five worst employees in Office Space - Joanna (doing the bare minimum, nothing more), Tom (having a job without actually doing anything), and Lumburgh (being a monolithic tool). Think he can get Peter and Milton by the end of the race?
You don't think the constant blubbering from the Romney camp sounds a lot like "I think you have my stapler, it was a red Swingline stapler, I want my stapler back..."?
Nah Milton had more backbone than the Romney campaign.
Stop attacking Ann Romney guys, jeez its not like she's a campaign spokesman! But did you hear about moochels fat ass? Damn that girl is fucking fatty fat, I bet Obama is cheating on her with Monica Lewinsky.
Last night on Mark Levin's show, he was attacking her for joking with one of the Olympic gymnastic team members on a talk show. The talk show host asked how the gymnastics team celebrated their gold, the girl said they went out to McDonalds, and Michelle said "You're setting me back years [in my quest to end childhood obesity]!" It was obviously all joking, the gymnast was laughing throughout it all, but Levin was just appalled that Michelle would say such a thing.
Needless to say, this is at odds with the argument he is making today, which is that the best way to speed the recovery is to cut spending. And it again raises a question: Is Mitt Romney a closet Keynesian?
In 2008, Romney was running for president, and during a debate in January of that year, John McCain was asked what short term government fix he’d support, given that the economy looked like it was headed for a downturn. McCain said: “the first thing we need to do is stop the out-of- control spending.”
Romney, seeking to distinguish himself from McCain, rolled out his own $250 billion stimulus plan in an interview with John Harwood later that month, a plan that mostly consisted of tax cuts, some of which were targeted at low and moderate incomes. He explicitly criticized McCain’s claim that cutting spending would help the economy, claiming: “That’s not stimulative.”
When Harwood followed up by asking him whether his own stimulus plan would boost the deficit, Romney replied: “If we go into recession, the cost to our balanced budget is going to be far more severe than the cost of this program.”So it’s okay to allow the deficit to increase in the short term to help the economy?
To be sure, Romney defended his stimulus plan at the time by noting it contained no additional federal spending. But his criticism of McCain’s spending cuts, his own stimulus plan, and his justification for it were pure Kenyesianism, said Jared Bernstein, a former White House adviser.
“That’s an absolutely cogent, Keynesian idea, about the impact of spending cuts on jobs in a down economy,” Bernstein told me. “And it would be great if Governor Romney would remember his former view on that.”
The broader context here is that before Obama was president, none of this stuff was really controversial. Bush passed a stimulus in 2008; Romney’s proposed stimulus was far bigger than that of the former president. Indeed, as Jonathan Cohn has written, even Paul Ryan used to agree that Keynesian fiscal policy during bad economies is not only a good idea, but should err in the direction of making it bigger.
Not long ago, Romney accidentally revealed his closet Keynesianism when he said that sharply cutting the budget during his first year would harm the economy. This was widely treated as a momentary lapse on his part, but we now see he’s said something very similiar before. And it’s directly at odds with the central case about spending and deficits the GOP has made against Obama for years now.
Romney: Flip flopping forever.
"At that time the economy was far worse than it was today, and the kind of stimulus I suggested was a good idea. But now that the economy has moved towards recovery we should be looking to fostering better long-term economic policies, rather than the band-aids that I suggested in 2008. Which means we should cut spending and lower tax rates on job creators."
How's that sound? Wait, crap, that would weaken his position that the economy is still terrible.
Man I'm bad at this pretending-to-be-Romney thing.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Needless to say, this is at odds with the argument he is making today, which is that the best way to speed the recovery is to cut spending. And it again raises a question: Is Mitt Romney a closet Keynesian?
In 2008, Romney was running for president, and during a debate in January of that year, John McCain was asked what short term government fix he’d support, given that the economy looked like it was headed for a downturn. McCain said: “the first thing we need to do is stop the out-of- control spending.”
Romney, seeking to distinguish himself from McCain, rolled out his own $250 billion stimulus plan in an interview with John Harwood later that month, a plan that mostly consisted of tax cuts, some of which were targeted at low and moderate incomes. He explicitly criticized McCain’s claim that cutting spending would help the economy, claiming: “That’s not stimulative.”
When Harwood followed up by asking him whether his own stimulus plan would boost the deficit, Romney replied: “If we go into recession, the cost to our balanced budget is going to be far more severe than the cost of this program.”So it’s okay to allow the deficit to increase in the short term to help the economy?
To be sure, Romney defended his stimulus plan at the time by noting it contained no additional federal spending. But his criticism of McCain’s spending cuts, his own stimulus plan, and his justification for it were pure Kenyesianism, said Jared Bernstein, a former White House adviser.
“That’s an absolutely cogent, Keynesian idea, about the impact of spending cuts on jobs in a down economy,” Bernstein told me. “And it would be great if Governor Romney would remember his former view on that.”
The broader context here is that before Obama was president, none of this stuff was really controversial. Bush passed a stimulus in 2008; Romney’s proposed stimulus was far bigger than that of the former president. Indeed, as Jonathan Cohn has written, even Paul Ryan used to agree that Keynesian fiscal policy during bad economies is not only a good idea, but should err in the direction of making it bigger.
Not long ago, Romney accidentally revealed his closet Keynesianism when he said that sharply cutting the budget during his first year would harm the economy. This was widely treated as a momentary lapse on his part, but we now see he’s said something very similiar before. And it’s directly at odds with the central case about spending and deficits the GOP has made against Obama for years now.
Romney: Flip flopping forever.
"At that time the economy was far worse than it was today, and the kind of stimulus I suggested was a good idea. But now that the economy has moved towards recovery we should be looking to fostering better long-term economic policies, rather than the band-aids that I suggested in 2008. Which means we should cut spending and lower tax rates on job creators."
How's that sound? Wait, crap, that would weaken his position that the economy is still terrible.
Man I'm bad at this pretending-to-be-Romney thing.
You made a stance on a position that is easily defined. Problem #1.
Problem #2 - You are likely not a quantum-based Romneybot.
I would say I called it, but... That's like predicting noon when it's 11:45, I don't think I'm allowed to take credit.
On the bright side, Romney has now hit three of the five worst employees in Office Space - Joanna (doing the bare minimum, nothing more), Tom (having a job without actually doing anything), and Lumburgh (being a monolithic tool). Think he can get Peter and Milton by the end of the race?
You don't think the constant blubbering from the Romney camp sounds a lot like "I think you have my stapler, it was a red Swingline stapler, I want my stapler back..."?
Nah Milton had more backbone than the Romney campaign.
Well, he did take a shitload of shadily-gotten gains to a tropical island...
shadily gotten gains from the destruction of an American company, no less....
Needless to say, this is at odds with the argument he is making today, which is that the best way to speed the recovery is to cut spending. And it again raises a question: Is Mitt Romney a closet Keynesian?
In 2008, Romney was running for president, and during a debate in January of that year, John McCain was asked what short term government fix he’d support, given that the economy looked like it was headed for a downturn. McCain said: “the first thing we need to do is stop the out-of- control spending.”
Romney, seeking to distinguish himself from McCain, rolled out his own $250 billion stimulus plan in an interview with John Harwood later that month, a plan that mostly consisted of tax cuts, some of which were targeted at low and moderate incomes. He explicitly criticized McCain’s claim that cutting spending would help the economy, claiming: “That’s not stimulative.”
When Harwood followed up by asking him whether his own stimulus plan would boost the deficit, Romney replied: “If we go into recession, the cost to our balanced budget is going to be far more severe than the cost of this program.”So it’s okay to allow the deficit to increase in the short term to help the economy?
To be sure, Romney defended his stimulus plan at the time by noting it contained no additional federal spending. But his criticism of McCain’s spending cuts, his own stimulus plan, and his justification for it were pure Kenyesianism, said Jared Bernstein, a former White House adviser.
“That’s an absolutely cogent, Keynesian idea, about the impact of spending cuts on jobs in a down economy,” Bernstein told me. “And it would be great if Governor Romney would remember his former view on that.”
The broader context here is that before Obama was president, none of this stuff was really controversial. Bush passed a stimulus in 2008; Romney’s proposed stimulus was far bigger than that of the former president. Indeed, as Jonathan Cohn has written, even Paul Ryan used to agree that Keynesian fiscal policy during bad economies is not only a good idea, but should err in the direction of making it bigger.
Not long ago, Romney accidentally revealed his closet Keynesianism when he said that sharply cutting the budget during his first year would harm the economy. This was widely treated as a momentary lapse on his part, but we now see he’s said something very similiar before. And it’s directly at odds with the central case about spending and deficits the GOP has made against Obama for years now.
Romney: Flip flopping forever.
"At that time the economy was far worse than it was today, and the kind of stimulus I suggested was a good idea. But now that the economy has moved towards recovery we should be looking to fostering better long-term economic policies, rather than the band-aids that I suggested in 2008. Which means we should cut spending and lower tax rates on job creators."
How's that sound? Wait, crap, that would weaken his position that the economy is still terrible.
Man I'm bad at this pretending-to-be-Romney thing.
"Stimuli can be good in some situations, but not others. The current economic problems are too deep to be solved with high spending and taxes, and Obama naively believes that throwing money at any problem will make it go away. My own budget plan may or may not include increased spending in certain departments, but you'll have to ask me about that later."
There have to be some serious, serious skeletons in that closet.
I'm sorry if this insults your friend's professionalism SKFM, but this actually makes me think there is something illegal in there.
Actually no, it depends on the context. What she said was a terrible choice, politically speaking, because it admits there is something that they don't want seen but implies it is whatever we last asked about, i.e. that Romney paid "no taxes" (by at least one metric). This is only a sound strategy if taking the hit from skeevey-but-legal tax dodging is preferable to taking a hit from illegal tax evasion.
But the article implies she might have just had a violent outburst because she was being asked a question that little people aren't supposed to ask their betters, and "went off-message" with it. In which case she just screwed up and said what she meant instead of blathering political-speak.
Needless to say, this is at odds with the argument he is making today, which is that the best way to speed the recovery is to cut spending. And it again raises a question: Is Mitt Romney a closet Keynesian?
In 2008, Romney was running for president, and during a debate in January of that year, John McCain was asked what short term government fix he’d support, given that the economy looked like it was headed for a downturn. McCain said: “the first thing we need to do is stop the out-of- control spending.”
Romney, seeking to distinguish himself from McCain, rolled out his own $250 billion stimulus plan in an interview with John Harwood later that month, a plan that mostly consisted of tax cuts, some of which were targeted at low and moderate incomes. He explicitly criticized McCain’s claim that cutting spending would help the economy, claiming: “That’s not stimulative.”
When Harwood followed up by asking him whether his own stimulus plan would boost the deficit, Romney replied: “If we go into recession, the cost to our balanced budget is going to be far more severe than the cost of this program.”So it’s okay to allow the deficit to increase in the short term to help the economy?
To be sure, Romney defended his stimulus plan at the time by noting it contained no additional federal spending. But his criticism of McCain’s spending cuts, his own stimulus plan, and his justification for it were pure Kenyesianism, said Jared Bernstein, a former White House adviser.
“That’s an absolutely cogent, Keynesian idea, about the impact of spending cuts on jobs in a down economy,” Bernstein told me. “And it would be great if Governor Romney would remember his former view on that.”
The broader context here is that before Obama was president, none of this stuff was really controversial. Bush passed a stimulus in 2008; Romney’s proposed stimulus was far bigger than that of the former president. Indeed, as Jonathan Cohn has written, even Paul Ryan used to agree that Keynesian fiscal policy during bad economies is not only a good idea, but should err in the direction of making it bigger.
Not long ago, Romney accidentally revealed his closet Keynesianism when he said that sharply cutting the budget during his first year would harm the economy. This was widely treated as a momentary lapse on his part, but we now see he’s said something very similiar before. And it’s directly at odds with the central case about spending and deficits the GOP has made against Obama for years now.
Romney: Flip flopping forever.
"At that time the economy was far worse than it was today, and the kind of stimulus I suggested was a good idea. But now that the economy has moved towards recovery we should be looking to fostering better long-term economic policies, rather than the band-aids that I suggested in 2008. Which means we should cut spending and lower tax rates on job creators."
How's that sound? Wait, crap, that would weaken his position that the economy is still terrible.
Man I'm bad at this pretending-to-be-Romney thing.
You made a stance on a position that is easily defined. Problem #1.
Problem #2 - You are likely not a quantum-based Romneybot.
There have to be some serious, serious skeletons in that closet.
I'm sorry if this insults your friend's professionalism SKFM, but this actually makes me think there is something illegal in there.
Actually no, it depends on the context. What she said was a terrible choice, politically speaking, because it admits there is something that they don't want seen but implies it is whatever we last asked about, i.e. that Romney paid "no taxes" (by at least one metric). This is only a sound strategy if taking the hit from skeevey-but-legal tax dodging is preferable to taking a hit from illegal tax evasion.
But the article implies she might have just had a violent outburst because she was being asked a question that little people aren't supposed to ask their betters, and "went off-message" with it. In which case she just screwed up and said what she meant instead of blathering political-speak.
Most likely, Romeny paid very little taxes for many years. Most likely he did silly things like putting profits in an IRA and legally taking advantage of cayman accounts. These things would probably be very damaging to his political campaign, but instead there's the Ryan budget to talk about so it's off the airwaves. Same with Bain and outsourcing. Instead of talking about shady Bain deals now Ayn Rand is suddenly a subject of import.
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
There have to be some serious, serious skeletons in that closet.
The statements, "We have nothing to hide," and "Showing our returns will only give [the opposition] more ammunition," are mutually inclusive statements.
Someone should explain to her what "nothing to hide" means.
I means "the state of not withholding damaging, illegal, and/or incriminating materials."
What she could mean is that they did nothing wrong, but the returns are so complex that people will misread and sensationalize them. To be honest, this is probably true, assuming "nothing wrong" means nothing illegal. Of course, that is not the case when we are talking about a political issue regarding the small amount of taxes paid by a very rich man who wants to be our president at a time when many people are struggling and feel overburdened by their own taxes, which they are much less equipped to pay than Romney is. Romney can afford to pay the full "sticker price" of his tax bill and chooses not to, while other people cannot afford their sticker price rates and have no choice in the matter.
Or he [b built dozens of Mormon funeral homes where churches once stood[/b].
Main Temple does a lot to fuck around with zoning and try to get rid of their opponent's properties/planned constructions.
Most of the time it's Southern Baptist, but they made the Quakers take their signage down and kept the Unitarians Universalists/Metros from moving in til they just fucking gave up.
Spacekung droppin' truth bombs. We have every reason to believe that "nothing wrong" simply means nothing literally illegal under the tax code. And that's not what's at issue. Voters want to know if Mitt Romney is a billionaire who has paid little to no taxes already, even as he hems and haws about tax reforms that further enfranchise wealthy elites like...well, Mitt Romney. Nobody is accusing Romney of criminality, only hypocrisy.
There have to be some serious, serious skeletons in that closet.
The statements, "We have nothing to hide," and "Showing our returns will only give [the opposition] more ammunition," are mutually inclusive statements.
Someone should explain to her what "nothing to hide" means.
I means "the state of not withholding damaging, illegal, and/or incriminating materials."
What she could mean is that they did nothing wrong, but the returns are so complex that people will misread and sensationalize them. To be honest, this is probably true, assuming "nothing wrong" means nothing illegal. Of course, that is not the case when we are talking about a political issue regarding the small amount of taxes paid by a very rich man who wants to be our president at a time when many people are struggling and feel overburdened by their own taxes, which they are much less equipped to pay than Romney is. Romney can afford to pay the full "sticker price" of his tax bill and chooses not to, while other people cannot afford their sticker price rates and have no choice in the matter.
I think the crux of the problem is that his entire platform (at present) seems to be based on the idea that he and people like him pay far too much in taxes.
If that's true, then it would be easy to demonstrate if he showed us his taxes. If his taxes contradict that message, then it undercuts his entire campaign AND the Ryan Budget AND the current Republican Platform. The idea that he can't even massage his taxes to make them palatable to the masses conveys a terrifying message as to how low they must be.
It is extremely embarassing to make your policy platform center on reducing taxes for the rich when your own taxes prove how fucking little the rich actually pay. It would also put the lie to the absurd theory that high taxes are strangling job creation, because
1. your taxes ain't that high son, I'd like to introduce you to our friend, The 1950's;
2. you take advantage of every available loophole to reduce your quote-unquote burden even further;
3. given 1 & 2, how many jobs have you created with your sub-15% tax rate?
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
There have to be some serious, serious skeletons in that closet.
The statements, "We have nothing to hide," and "Showing our returns will only give [the opposition] more ammunition," are mutually inclusive statements.
Someone should explain to her what "nothing to hide" means.
I means "the state of not withholding damaging, illegal, and/or incriminating materials."
What she could mean is that they did nothing wrong, but the returns are so complex that people will misread and sensationalize them. To be honest, this is probably true, assuming "nothing wrong" means nothing illegal. Of course, that is not the case when we are talking about a political issue regarding the small amount of taxes paid by a very rich man who wants to be our president at a time when many people are struggling and feel overburdened by their own taxes, which they are much less equipped to pay than Romney is. Romney can afford to pay the full "sticker price" of his tax bill and chooses not to, while other people cannot afford their sticker price rates and have no choice in the matter.
I think the crux of the problem is that his entire platform (at present) seems to be based on the idea that he and people like him pay far too much in taxes.
If that's true, then it would be easy to demonstrate if he showed us his taxes. If his taxes contradict that message, then it undercuts his entire campaign AND the Ryan Budget AND the current Republican Platform. The idea that he can't even massage his taxes to make them palatable to the masses conveys a terrifying message as to how low they must be.
Also the fact that he couldn't even bring himself to massage those taxes from 2009-2011, knowing damn well that he was going to run for President again, proves how short-sighted and avaricious he is.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
Best case for Romney is his tax returns look just like the one year he did release. Most likely he paid less than that, and even with nothing illegal in there it will be a problem.
I'd bet when / if he releases this years return (probably in October) that he paid a higher rate this year, just so he can try to counter some of the negative claims late in the election. Which is why it's good Obama is starting to hammer him on this early.
There have to be some serious, serious skeletons in that closet.
The statements, "We have nothing to hide," and "Showing our returns will only give [the opposition] more ammunition," are mutually inclusive statements.
Someone should explain to her what "nothing to hide" means.
I means "the state of not withholding damaging, illegal, and/or incriminating materials."
What she could mean is that they did nothing wrong, but the returns are so complex that people will misread and sensationalize them. To be honest, this is probably true, assuming "nothing wrong" means nothing illegal. Of course, that is not the case when we are talking about a political issue regarding the small amount of taxes paid by a very rich man who wants to be our president at a time when many people are struggling and feel overburdened by their own taxes, which they are much less equipped to pay than Romney is. Romney can afford to pay the full "sticker price" of his tax bill and chooses not to, while other people cannot afford their sticker price rates and have no choice in the matter.
I think the crux of the problem is that his entire platform (at present) seems to be based on the idea that he and people like him pay far too much in taxes.
If that's true, then it would be easy to demonstrate if he showed us his taxes. If his taxes contradict that message, then it undercuts his entire campaign AND the Ryan Budget AND the current Republican Platform. The idea that he can't even massage his taxes to make them palatable to the masses conveys a terrifying message as to how low they must be.
Also the fact that he couldn't even bring himself to massage those taxes from 2009-2011, knowing damn well that he was going to run for President again, proves how short-sighted and avaricious he is.
Not sure about avaricious with these facts but definitely short-sighted. Mitt Romney has surprised even Mitt Romney by getting this far in the process this time around.
Romney knew he was running for president 4 years ago after losing to McCain. It always surprised me that his advisers didn't tell him to pay the maximum tax rate for a few years so he could release those records. It would be a great way to to show he isn't "gaming" the system and buy credibility with his talking point about the rich paying too much. It seems like a damn fine investment politically.
Best case for Romney is his tax returns look just like the one year he did release. Most likely he paid less than that, and even with nothing illegal in there it will be a problem.
I'd bet when / if he releases this years return (probably in October) that he paid a higher rate this year, just so he can try to counter some of the negative claims late in the election. Which is why it's good Obama is starting to hammer him on this early.
If Mitt Romney's October Surprise is that--aha! do you see Obama's tax policies at work?--Romney paid 16% in income taxes in a subsequent year instead of 13.9%, I will laugh and laugh and laugh and laugh some more.
Romney didn't pay more in taxes because he's rich and probably feels taxes are theft. He wouldn't want to see the government get anymore of his money than the already miniscule amount it gets.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Who in the world, you know, in the world, thinks that Paul Ryan is attractive? This has been bothering me since he was picked. I do not understand this. I just simply do not.
I'm baffled by most politicians who are deemed "attractive" or "sexy". I never thought Clinton was attractive; it looked like he was stung in the nose repeatedly by a very grumpy wasp. Reagan in his later years was basically a giant wrinkle with an impenetrable black pompadour (though he was better looking in his youth). I really don't get how GWB was considered attractive, but apparently lots of people thought he was. JFK, I always thought, had funky eyes and his features seemed oddly positioned, like a Mr. Potato Head with the holes bored out too much so that everything just sort of hangs weird.
That said, I can see how Ryan is deemed attractive. I think it's mostly the eyes. He has pretty eyes. Decent bone structure, too. Too bad about the Munster hair, but whatever.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Romney knew he was running for president 4 years ago after losing to McCain. It always surprised me that his advisers didn't tell him to pay the maximum tax rate for a few years so he could release those records. It would be a great way to to show he isn't "gaming" the system and buy credibility with his talking point about the rich paying too much. It seems like a damn fine investment politically.
This is what I mean by avaricious. Dude's got more money than god, but he just couldn't bring himself to forego the yachtload of deductions and loopholes for a measly four years so he'd have a better shot at getting elected.
But as it's always been with him, it's all about the benjamins.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
There is no way to reduce rates and keep deductions on a revenue neutral basis. Either his plan is incoherent or he is cutting revenue.
"with additional growth that comes by virtue of the stimulative action"
Silly me, I always thought the claim that Romney was sucking off the upper-class was just a metaphor.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Re: my running Office Space gag: Ok, so he's got Milton covered, too. Shame he can't cover Peter by the election - I don't think at this point he'll just wake up and decide, "You know I never really liked politics. I don't think I'm going to do it anymore." I suppose he could just get promotelected and rob the place blind.
Romney knew he was running for president 4 years ago after losing to McCain. It always surprised me that his advisers didn't tell him to pay the maximum tax rate for a few years so he could release those records. It would be a great way to to show he isn't "gaming" the system and buy credibility with his talking point about the rich paying too much. It seems like a damn fine investment politically.
This is what I mean by avaricious. Dude's got more money than god, but he just couldn't bring himself to forego the yachtload of deductions and loopholes for a measly four years so he'd have a better shot at getting elected.
But as it's always been with him, it's all about the benjamins.
The worst part of all this? He threw a lot of his own money down a fucking black hole for his election, not to mention a lot of other people's money good-after-bad style. Probably a great deal more than he could have just given the government for some easy credibility and good will. It's not just all about the Benjamins, it's some fundamental THING about taxes - he'd rather throw a billion in the furnace than give a million to the government.
Hevach on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
Who in the world, you know, in the world, thinks that Paul Ryan is attractive? This has been bothering me since he was picked. I do not understand this. I just simply do not.
I'm baffled by most politicians who are deemed "attractive" or "sexy". I never thought Clinton was attractive; it looked like he was stung in the nose repeatedly by a very grumpy wasp. Reagan in his later years was basically a giant wrinkle with an impenetrable black pompadour (though he was better looking in his youth). I really don't get how GWB was considered attractive, but apparently lots of people thought he was. JFK, I always thought, had funky eyes and his features seemed oddly positioned, like a Mr. Potato Head with the holes bored out too much so that everything just sort of hangs weird.
That said, I can see how Ryan is deemed attractive. I think it's mostly the eyes. He has pretty eyes. Decent bone structure, too. Too bad about the Munster hair, but whatever.
It's all about your context. Compared to other politicians, Ryan, Clinton, and Romney are probably up there.
It's like how I hear people being described as "a law-school 10"
Re: my running Office Space gag: Ok, so he's got Milton covered, too. Shame he can't cover Peter by the election - I don't think at this point he'll just wake up and decide, "You know I never really liked politics. I don't think I'm going to do it anymore." I suppose he could just get promotelected and rob the place blind.
Romney knew he was running for president 4 years ago after losing to McCain. It always surprised me that his advisers didn't tell him to pay the maximum tax rate for a few years so he could release those records. It would be a great way to to show he isn't "gaming" the system and buy credibility with his talking point about the rich paying too much. It seems like a damn fine investment politically.
This is what I mean by avaricious. Dude's got more money than god, but he just couldn't bring himself to forego the yachtload of deductions and loopholes for a measly four years so he'd have a better shot at getting elected.
But as it's always been with him, it's all about the benjamins.
The worst part of all this? He threw a lot of his own money down a fucking black hole for his election, not to mention a lot of other people's money good-after-bad style. Probably a great deal more than he could have just given the government for some easy credibility and good will. It's not just all about the Benjamins, it's some fundamental THING about taxes - he'd rather throw a billion in the furnace than give a million to the government.
I thought Romney had very little of his own money in his campaign?
Yeah, it's not that he doesn't see anything wrong with leveraging a high-powered team of lawyers and accountants to squeeze every last penny of a deduction out of his taxes. That's all perfectly legal.
What gets me is that he's so far detached from the rest of humanity that he can't comprehend how anyone else could find a moral fault with what he does to minimize his tax burden to levels unimaginable by the rest of society, while simultaneously advocating for further reductions in his initial liability.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
Perhaps Mitt Romney somehow genuinely believes that closing the loopholes he is using to pay very little in taxes will actually result in him paying more? I mean if you can game the system to pay half or less of your expected tax burden, it is possible that you think everybody is able to do the same thing. Of course, endorsing that Paul Ryan abortion of a budget proposal kind of shoots that theory down pretty convincingly . . .
Re: my running Office Space gag: Ok, so he's got Milton covered, too. Shame he can't cover Peter by the election - I don't think at this point he'll just wake up and decide, "You know I never really liked politics. I don't think I'm going to do it anymore." I suppose he could just get promotelected and rob the place blind.
Romney knew he was running for president 4 years ago after losing to McCain. It always surprised me that his advisers didn't tell him to pay the maximum tax rate for a few years so he could release those records. It would be a great way to to show he isn't "gaming" the system and buy credibility with his talking point about the rich paying too much. It seems like a damn fine investment politically.
This is what I mean by avaricious. Dude's got more money than god, but he just couldn't bring himself to forego the yachtload of deductions and loopholes for a measly four years so he'd have a better shot at getting elected.
But as it's always been with him, it's all about the benjamins.
The worst part of all this? He threw a lot of his own money down a fucking black hole for his election, not to mention a lot of other people's money good-after-bad style. Probably a great deal more than he could have just given the government for some easy credibility and good will. It's not just all about the Benjamins, it's some fundamental THING about taxes - he'd rather throw a billion in the furnace than give a million to the government.
I thought Romney had very little of his own money in his campaign?
Early on he claimed he did, though that balance has probably shifted massively since he's shifted from primary mode to November mode and started doing his weekly dinner parties for six digits a plate. He's also said he mostly self-funded his previous races. So he's far from self-financed, but at least if you take his word for it (I say with a straight face) he's got a lot of skin in the game.
Finally some cuts Romney would make that would totally shore up the budget!
"[T]here are programs I would eliminate. Obamacare being one of them but also various subsidy programs -- the Amtrak subsidy, the PBS subsidy, the subsidy for the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities. Some of these things, like those endowment efforts and PBS I very much appreciate and like what they do in many cases, but I just think they have to stand on their own rather than receiving money borrowed from other countries, as our government does on their behalf."
Yes the trillions we spend on amtrak, pbs, NEA and NEH are totally gone, see you suckers later, budget FIXED!
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Posts
Nah Milton had more backbone than the Romney campaign.
pleasepaypreacher.net
How about willingness to burn the place down to get what he wants?
Well, he did take a shitload of shadily-gotten gains to a tropical island...
Or possibly by seeing everyone she knew, and everything she called home destroyed by the Russian Revolution?
Mebe that left a little psychic trauma?
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
oh shit son
Uncanny Magazine!
The Mad Writers Union
Last night on Mark Levin's show, he was attacking her for joking with one of the Olympic gymnastic team members on a talk show. The talk show host asked how the gymnastics team celebrated their gold, the girl said they went out to McDonalds, and Michelle said "You're setting me back years [in my quest to end childhood obesity]!" It was obviously all joking, the gymnast was laughing throughout it all, but Levin was just appalled that Michelle would say such a thing.
"At that time the economy was far worse than it was today, and the kind of stimulus I suggested was a good idea. But now that the economy has moved towards recovery we should be looking to fostering better long-term economic policies, rather than the band-aids that I suggested in 2008. Which means we should cut spending and lower tax rates on job creators."
How's that sound? Wait, crap, that would weaken his position that the economy is still terrible.
Man I'm bad at this pretending-to-be-Romney thing.
You made a stance on a position that is easily defined. Problem #1.
Problem #2 - You are likely not a quantum-based Romneybot.
Uncanny Magazine!
The Mad Writers Union
"Stimuli can be good in some situations, but not others. The current economic problems are too deep to be solved with high spending and taxes, and Obama naively believes that throwing money at any problem will make it go away. My own budget plan may or may not include increased spending in certain departments, but you'll have to ask me about that later."
I'm sorry if this insults your friend's professionalism SKFM, but this actually makes me think there is something illegal in there.
Actually no, it depends on the context. What she said was a terrible choice, politically speaking, because it admits there is something that they don't want seen but implies it is whatever we last asked about, i.e. that Romney paid "no taxes" (by at least one metric). This is only a sound strategy if taking the hit from skeevey-but-legal tax dodging is preferable to taking a hit from illegal tax evasion.
But the article implies she might have just had a violent outburst because she was being asked a question that little people aren't supposed to ask their betters, and "went off-message" with it. In which case she just screwed up and said what she meant instead of blathering political-speak.
Because I still like it:
posted November 27, 2011.
ahahahahaha
Like her attempting to represent his campaign and opening her mouth doesn't do that already.
Most likely, Romeny paid very little taxes for many years. Most likely he did silly things like putting profits in an IRA and legally taking advantage of cayman accounts. These things would probably be very damaging to his political campaign, but instead there's the Ryan budget to talk about so it's off the airwaves. Same with Bain and outsourcing. Instead of talking about shady Bain deals now Ayn Rand is suddenly a subject of import.
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
Stop attacking Ann Romney, she's not a campaign surrogate, even when she's bashing Obama for taking vacation. SHES OFF LIMITS!
pleasepaypreacher.net
What she could mean is that they did nothing wrong, but the returns are so complex that people will misread and sensationalize them. To be honest, this is probably true, assuming "nothing wrong" means nothing illegal. Of course, that is not the case when we are talking about a political issue regarding the small amount of taxes paid by a very rich man who wants to be our president at a time when many people are struggling and feel overburdened by their own taxes, which they are much less equipped to pay than Romney is. Romney can afford to pay the full "sticker price" of his tax bill and chooses not to, while other people cannot afford their sticker price rates and have no choice in the matter.
Main Temple does a lot to fuck around with zoning and try to get rid of their opponent's properties/planned constructions.
Most of the time it's Southern Baptist, but they made the Quakers take their signage down and kept the Unitarians Universalists/Metros from moving in til they just fucking gave up.
I think the crux of the problem is that his entire platform (at present) seems to be based on the idea that he and people like him pay far too much in taxes.
If that's true, then it would be easy to demonstrate if he showed us his taxes. If his taxes contradict that message, then it undercuts his entire campaign AND the Ryan Budget AND the current Republican Platform. The idea that he can't even massage his taxes to make them palatable to the masses conveys a terrifying message as to how low they must be.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
1. your taxes ain't that high son, I'd like to introduce you to our friend, The 1950's;
2. you take advantage of every available loophole to reduce your quote-unquote burden even further;
3. given 1 & 2, how many jobs have you created with your sub-15% tax rate?
Also the fact that he couldn't even bring himself to massage those taxes from 2009-2011, knowing damn well that he was going to run for President again, proves how short-sighted and avaricious he is.
I'd bet when / if he releases this years return (probably in October) that he paid a higher rate this year, just so he can try to counter some of the negative claims late in the election. Which is why it's good Obama is starting to hammer him on this early.
Not sure about avaricious with these facts but definitely short-sighted. Mitt Romney has surprised even Mitt Romney by getting this far in the process this time around.
If Mitt Romney's October Surprise is that--aha! do you see Obama's tax policies at work?--Romney paid 16% in income taxes in a subsequent year instead of 13.9%, I will laugh and laugh and laugh and laugh some more.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I'm baffled by most politicians who are deemed "attractive" or "sexy". I never thought Clinton was attractive; it looked like he was stung in the nose repeatedly by a very grumpy wasp. Reagan in his later years was basically a giant wrinkle with an impenetrable black pompadour (though he was better looking in his youth). I really don't get how GWB was considered attractive, but apparently lots of people thought he was. JFK, I always thought, had funky eyes and his features seemed oddly positioned, like a Mr. Potato Head with the holes bored out too much so that everything just sort of hangs weird.
That said, I can see how Ryan is deemed attractive. I think it's mostly the eyes. He has pretty eyes. Decent bone structure, too. Too bad about the Munster hair, but whatever.
Usuper in chief being radical again.
pleasepaypreacher.net
This is what I mean by avaricious. Dude's got more money than god, but he just couldn't bring himself to forego the yachtload of deductions and loopholes for a measly four years so he'd have a better shot at getting elected.
But as it's always been with him, it's all about the benjamins.
Silly me, I always thought the claim that Romney was sucking off the upper-class was just a metaphor.
The worst part of all this? He threw a lot of his own money down a fucking black hole for his election, not to mention a lot of other people's money good-after-bad style. Probably a great deal more than he could have just given the government for some easy credibility and good will. It's not just all about the Benjamins, it's some fundamental THING about taxes - he'd rather throw a billion in the furnace than give a million to the government.
It's all about your context. Compared to other politicians, Ryan, Clinton, and Romney are probably up there.
It's like how I hear people being described as "a law-school 10"
I thought Romney had very little of his own money in his campaign?
What gets me is that he's so far detached from the rest of humanity that he can't comprehend how anyone else could find a moral fault with what he does to minimize his tax burden to levels unimaginable by the rest of society, while simultaneously advocating for further reductions in his initial liability.
Man never forget there is literally a travelling band of nuns specifically calling him out on being a horrible person.
Early on he claimed he did, though that balance has probably shifted massively since he's shifted from primary mode to November mode and started doing his weekly dinner parties for six digits a plate. He's also said he mostly self-funded his previous races. So he's far from self-financed, but at least if you take his word for it (I say with a straight face) he's got a lot of skin in the game.
Yes the trillions we spend on amtrak, pbs, NEA and NEH are totally gone, see you suckers later, budget FIXED!
pleasepaypreacher.net