Romney becomes an Anti Gun rights advocate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FastMan

Very true, Rucker. What you and I said are both contributing factors to why our jobs are disappearing. We have no control over what foreign economies pay their workers. We do, however, have control over the tax burden we impose on companies who try to operate here. We have one of the highest corporate tax rate and regulatory environments in the world. It's stupidity.

No, I take that back, it's not stupidity, it's "fairness". Fairness to the detriment of the very people that fairness is suppose to help. Nah, guess I was right in the first place; STUPIDITY.

---

There's the argument that we need to compare effective tax rates rather than statuatory tax rates, but one problem there is how the ETR is calculated. I've seen claims from "The US ETR is well below the world-wide industrial average" to "the ETR is still the highest in the world". GE's 2002-2011 tax figures would indicate someone towards the lower end.

One problem with lowering the STR, and assuming that the ETR goes down as well (not assured) is that tax revenues will decrease as a result, and another is that the other industrial countries could counter with a reduction of their own to retain the current level of capital investment in their own economy, rather than it moving to the US.

And what would it gain us? The Congressional Research Service issued a report in March 2011 that stated

"Regardless of tax differentials, could a U.S. rate cut lead to significant economic gains and revenue feedbacks? Because of the factors that constrain capital flows, estimates for a rate cut from 35% to 25% suggest a modest positive effect on wages and output: an eventual one-time increase of less than two-tenths of 1% of output. Most of this output gain is not an increase in national income because returns to capital imported from abroad belong to foreigners and the returns to U.S. investment abroad that comes back to the United States are already owned by U.S. firms. [Congressional Research Service, 3/31/11]"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FastMan

We have no control over what foreign economies pay their workers. We do, however, have control over the tax burden we impose on companies who try to operate here. .

---

We do agree to trade with china when we float our currency on the free market and they do not. It is estimated that if China floated its currency its value would increase three to four times. When we trade with a country that allows its currency to trade on the free market we have no control over what they pay their workers, not so with China. We have agreed to discount their workers salaries by 75% by agreeing to trade with them when they do not float their currency. The economic distortion that is the trade between the USA and China does not exist freely, it was created. It is not free trade.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FastMan
If you think that then you really aren't listening.

- Cut taxes on business
- Slash regulations that are overwhelming small business people and stifling growth.
- Measures to repatriate corporate profits stuck over seas
- Get tough on China
- Unleash US energy exploration and development.
- Lower capital gains tax
- kill obama care.

That's just a short list off the top of my head. With that list of goals, you will see a major resurgence in the private sector the moment he's declared the winner. Employment will come roaring back. Billions of dollars being held in coffers by corporations because of their fear and uncertainty of how Obama's current initiative will impact them, and what he has up his sleeve for attacking them next, will start to get invested in growth opportunities. The newly surging economy will produce a spike in tax revenue inflow, which will help lower the runaway deficit.

The contrast this election between the courses these two men want to take is could not be more striking, or crucial.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FastMan
Bravo, BP, you've framed the question perfectly. Luckily, it's a choice we don't really have to make, but there is a point to this thread.

Our country is at a crossroad. Too many voters are prioritizing smaller personal pet issues that benefit them, over the big picture issues that will determine the fate of the country. If the country falls, all the personal pet issues will suffer and fall along with it.

This thread was meant to give us a taste of having to sacrifice and put country first, in front of self. It's a choice many are going to have to face and take the high road on if we're to save ourselves. Especially true when half the country is not paying taxes, becoming more and more dependent on the crumbs thrown to them by a government seeking to enslave them.

WHO ARE YOU!? I need to come down to woodland park and buy you a beer!
I underlined the points that are spot on... I couldn't agree more, and with the emotional, void of logic thinking that the left excretes out of their minds and pie holes is just appalling and shameful. They can't look at the bigger picture and see what's better for the nation as a whole, they only think what would be better for their lazy, moronic selves.
__________________


I believe Romey is the clear choice this time because of the economy. Cutting the capital gains tax is a bad idea in my mind. It only benefits those who independantly invest, unlike the majority of us who have to run it through a 401k. We see none of the benefits.

Obama hasn't done anything about gun control because he saved it for his second term, Romney won't do anything about gun control because he will want a second term.

If we get enough congressmen and women who are pro gun it won't be an issue. Our two senators are not very pro gun, but neither is up for reelection this time.

Biger than the next four years is the make up of the SCOTUS for the next 10-25 years. Obama has shown he will nominate extremely liberal justices, can we afford one or two more?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kmanbay

Quote:
Originally Posted by FastMan
If you think that then you really aren't listening.

- Cut taxes on business
- Slash regulations that are overwhelming small business people and stifling growth.
- Measures to repatriate corporate profits stuck over seas
- Get tough on China
- Unleash US energy exploration and development.
- Lower capital gains tax
- kill obama care.

That's just a short list off the top of my head. With that list of goals, you will see a major resurgence in the private sector the moment he's declared the winner. Employment will come roaring back. Billions of dollars being held in coffers by corporations because of their fear and uncertainty of how Obama's current initiative will impact them, and what he has up his sleeve for attacking them next, will start to get invested in growth opportunities. The newly surging economy will produce a spike in tax revenue inflow, which will help lower the runaway deficit.

The contrast this election between the courses these two men want to take is could not be more striking, or crucial.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FastMan
Bravo, BP, you've framed the question perfectly. Luckily, it's a choice we don't really have to make, but there is a point to this thread.

Our country is at a crossroad. Too many voters are prioritizing smaller personal pet issues that benefit them, over the big picture issues that will determine the fate of the country. If the country falls, all the personal pet issues will suffer and fall along with it.

This thread was meant to give us a taste of having to sacrifice and put country first, in front of self. It's a choice many are going to have to face and take the high road on if we're to save ourselves. Especially true when half the country is not paying taxes, becoming more and more dependent on the crumbs thrown to them by a government seeking to enslave them.

WHO ARE YOU!? I need to come down to woodland park and buy you a beer!
I underlined the points that are spot on... I couldn't agree more, and with the emotional, void of logic thinking that the left excretes out of their minds and pie holes is just appalling and shameful. They can't look at the bigger picture and see what's better for the nation as a whole, they only think what would be better for their lazy, moronic selves.
__________________


I believe Romey is the clear choice this time because of the economy. Cutting the capital gains tax is a bad idea in my mind. It only benefits those who independantly invest, unlike the majority of us who have to run it through a 401k. We see none of the benefits.

Obama hasn't done anything about gun control because he saved it for his second term, Romney won't do anything about gun control because he will want a second term.

If we get enough congressmen and women who are pro gun it won't be an issue. Our two senators are not very pro gun, but neither is up for reelection this time.

Biger than the next four years is the make up of the SCOTUS for the next 10-25 years. Obama has shown he will nominate extremely liberal justices, can we afford one or two more?

---

great theory. However Romney signed Massachusetts "assault weapons" ban.
Obama's base is anti gun. [Luck]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rust_shackleford

great theory. However Romney signed Massachusetts "assault weapons" ban.
Obama's base is anti gun. [Luck]

---

True, but Mittens would have a little tougher road to hoe Federally

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kmanbay

I believe Romey is the clear choice this time because of the economy.

---

Google "DJIA ten year history" and "corporate profits sixty years" and let me know what you find. Look up "trickle down" while you're at it.

Mitts quote from the 2008 regarding his stance on gun control-

Quote:

---

"I do not support any new legislation of an assault weapon ban nature, including that against semiautomatic weapons. I instead believe that we have laws in place that if they're implemented and enforced, will provide the protection and the safety of the American people. But I do not support any new legislation, and I do support the right of individuals to bear arms, whether for hunting purposes or for protection purposes or any other reason. That's the right that people have."

---

So Oblammy WILL take our guns, Mitt wants to simply enforce the law as it is already in place.

Also dont forget the bigger picture, Oblammy is setting up to remove the limitations on how many terms the Pres can serve, so he can be the Supreme Leader he sees himself as.

Mitt's flip flops seem to make Kerry look like a solid guy. Also you only have the illusion of choice. Both candidates are owned and you know it.

So Obama is going to do these nefarious things legally? Wouldn't he just do it? If I was in a room with some of you, I'd swear I was in a nut house.


Keep in mind it take a congress to make these changes as well.

There are enough executive orders in place that all it will take is one 'catastrophe' or 'terrorist event' and voila! Permanent presidency with lots of 3-letter agencies with gobs of power and control. And any number of a zillion other chain of events, and we can end up with lots of changes that we never thought 'could' happen.

There's no need for congress to do anything anymore, at least not with the guy who's in charge today.

<tin foil hat put away>