[PassedOut]

VMars, on 2012-October-17, 22:28, said:

This may be a question more for PassedOut, but I don't really understand why people aren't screaming more about Romney's proposed cap on deductions. Even if it's $17,000 (the smallest number I've heard), this wouldn't affect me personally, but it would raise taxes on some of my married friends who earn more than I do, and have more deductions.

But what I'm really confused by is wouldn't this be disastrous for businesses who file taxes as individuals (what the Republicans categorize as "small businesses")? I mean, if I had profits of $300,000, and costs of $150,000, I would be making a decent profit as a business. But I thought that I would file as if I made $300,000 and had $150,000 of deductions. Is that not true? Because if it's true, then this proposal is EXTREMELY anti-business. Of course, I could incorporate and file as a business, but this involves a big cost, and anyway I thought that the Republicans wanted to protect the individual-filer business.

I understand Romney to be talking about Schedule A deductions, not all business deductions (or folks would truly be screaming).

A typical small business owner who files individually completes Schedule C (Profit or Loss from Business) and Schedule SE (Self-Employment Tax). Business expenses and income appear on Schedule C, with the net being reported as income on Form 1040. Social security and medicare taxes from Schedule SE are reported as other taxes on Form 1040.

The problem with Romney's plan is that a 20% tax cut cannot be made revenue neutral by reducing Schedule A deductions. Forget about the $17,000 (or $25,000) cap on deductions. If you eliminate all of the Schedule A deductions for every taxpayer, you can only reduce the tax rate by 4% to keep it revenue neutral. And Romney refuses to explain how he plans to cover all of the missing revenue.

Couple that with the spending increases that Romney has promised and you get the Bush fiscal situation all over again. Only this time we haven't recovered yet from the Bush years, so we'd be starting from an even worse position.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on 2012-October-18, 07:15, said:

How do you reconcile this statement with the quotes that Passed Out and I posted yesterday (I have conveniently reposted mine at the close of this email:

A. You don't bother to read what other people post
B. You are unable to retain information that conflicts with your world view
C. You do not accept the New York Times as a legitimate source of information
D. You're not here to exchange information / You're trolling
E. Other

i'll go with a little of C and a little of A (depending on whose post it is)... as for the nyt quote, it's hard to reconcile that with the administration now saying (and the state dept saying much earlier) that this was a terrorist attack and had nothing to do with a spontaneous demonstration over a video

"The State Department said Tuesday it never concluded that the consulate attack in Libya stemmed from protests over an American-made video..." huff post

Clinton says “what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack,” the hill

we both can find quotes that suit our purposes

this youtube video is gonna really piss you off

[lalldonn]

luke warm, on 2012-October-18, 06:24, said:

i watched the debate twice, just to see if crowley's actions were as bad as i first thought... outside of (for the 3rd debate) giving the dem candidate much more time, she interrupted romney far more often than obama, she allowed obama to finish more frequently, and that libya sequence was entirely unprofessional... then there were the questions themselves... "how would you compare yourself to george bush?" huh? how would obama, given the fact that the questions were supposed to be for both candidates, or even should he, answer that? to be fair, he should have been asked to compare himself to jimmy carter (or, if one were really partisan, to hugo chavez )

now there's a report of a leaked cnn email from the managing editor, asking everyone to pull together in defense of her "performance"... he states how brilliant she was and that the reviews are "overwhelmingly positive"... maybe, from chris matthews and sullivan, and cnn itself, but even politico and the wapo (decent read here) were critical of her handling of the libya question... hell, she even seemed to walk that back herself

i know these things can and will be viewed thru whatever glasses one is wearing, but you seem to be an objective, not-yet-convinced voter (maybe the only one in america - for sure the only one on this forum), so if you're so inclined you can take another look for yourself

meaning "I know most of us are biased but you haven't made up your mind yet, so please re-watch the debate with an eye out for the lukewarm biases."

Here are some thoughts. Obama got more time since Romney asked him questions during his own time, ie gave some of his own time to Obama! Romney got interrupted more often because he interrupted her more often (mostly with his misconception that one person going first means the other goes last) and she interrupted him back. And it's not particularly shocking that CNN wants its employees to stand up for each other.

You were making excuses that the moderator would be biased and unfair before it even happened. How could you have ever interpreted it in any other way?

[hrothgar]

lalldonn, on 2012-October-18, 10:45, said:

You were making excuses that the moderator would be biased and unfair before it even happened. How could you have ever interpreted it in any other way?

What I found most amusing about this whole process is the different reactions that Democrats and Republican's had to the first debate.

After the first debate, most of my friends said:

"Wow, Obama really didn't bring his A game tonight (or for that matter, his B game"
After this debate, the Republican establishment is attacking the moderator for bias.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2012-October-18, 09:36, said:

i'll go with a little of C and a little of A (depending on whose post it is)...

So sad when folks are so far into the bubble that they are unwilling to accept the national newspaper of record as a credible source.

Quote

as for the nyt quote, it's hard to reconcile that with the administration now saying (and the state dept saying much earlier) that this was a terrorist attack and had nothing to do with a spontaneous demonstration over a video

Many of us don't live in a black and white world. I, for one, don't find it difficult to accept that a terrorist attack can be triggered by a specific event.

http://www.nbc.com/s...oor-wax/1056743

[luke warm]

lalldonn, on 2012-October-18, 10:45, said:

meaning "I know most of us are biased but you haven't made up your mind yet, so please re-watch the debate with an eye out for the lukewarm biases."

no, meaning "rewatch to see if you notice the things i did since you seem to be more objective than the rest of us"

hrothgar, on 2012-October-18, 11:24, said:

Many of us don't live in a black and white world. I, for one, don't find it difficult to accept that a terrorist attack can be triggered by a specific event.

i don't find it difficutl to accept that the "trigger" can be a hatred of america and all it stands for

anyway, let's stop this bickering and pull for a unified america under mitt romney, whatcha say?

this should help... on twitter, go to #obama2012slogans

[lalldonn]

lalldonn, on 2012-October-18, 10:45, said:

"please re-watch the debate with an eye out for the lukewarm biases"

luke warm, on 2012-October-18, 12:15, said:

"rewatch to see if you notice the things i did"

So which is it. Are you so closed minded that you think you are being misinterpreted even though your very next statement shows you were interpreted completely correctly? Or did you simply type "no" when you meant to type "yes"?

[PassedOut]

Amazon Binder reviews

Quote

One Missing Bit of Information You Might Want To Know

For any of you who might be considering, like me, purchasing this binder based on the reviews, let me just point out one glaring omission: While this is a lovely, multi-purpose binder, IT DOES NOT COME WITH WOMEN. Presumably one is expected to find women on one's own, or contact women's groups who are supposedly eager to help stock your empty binder with women.

For a first time buyer like myself, I have to say I would rather have waited until I had accumulated a few women before investing in a binder. Just a little warning for prospective buyers.

Quote

A presidential candidate's choice is the choice for me

As a woman, I'm not adept at making decisions that concern me. So when I need the right choice, I turn to the presidential candidate that KNOWS. One with prideful experience in this department. I don't want to be filed away in an inferior & confusing electronic doohickey that I couldn't possibly understand. Or heaven forbid, have a man ask for & listen to my ideas! I'd much rather rely on this top of the line, 1980s style, Avery Durable binder. It's the choice America can trust. My education, my ideas, my opinions, my choices, please PLEASE keep them safely stored away here and far away from the men that might fear them (I mean, want to use them to hire me somedaynever). I'd write more about this most useful product, but it's time I hurry home to make dinner.

Quote

Not as useful as the Trap Her, Keep Her

Maybe it's just my women, but they don't seem to want to fit into the space I've designated for them in this binder. They keep sticking out over the edges, even getting away in some cases. I thought using clear, glass-ceiling page protectors would help, but it doesn't seem to slow them down anymore.

I'm going to have to resort to more severe three-hole punching, to keep my women in line. And maybe switch to the Trap Her, Keep Her.

Sales are through the roof.

[luke warm]

is @hardball_chris really this stupid?

“I don’t think [Romney] understands the Constitution of the United States,” Matthews said. “He’s the president of the United States. You don’t say, ‘You’ll get your chance.’”

the more people who actually watch msdnc (and there aren't many), the better for romney

Quote

Are you so closed minded that you think you are being misinterpreted even though your very next statement shows you were interpreted completely correctly?

it simply means that i don't accept your characterization of my views as biased... yours are, of course, but mine aren't

[cherdano]

I think Republicans should keep whining about the moderator inappropriately injecting herself to fact-check Romney during the debate. They should keep reminding all voters that Obama called it an "act of terror", and not a "terrorist attack", that this is a very important distinction, and that it's a great showcase for the superiority of Republican foreign policy ideas.
I am sure that will convince all undecided voters, and they can start working on their transition team.

[dwar0123]

cherdano, on 2012-October-18, 13:28, said:

I think Republicans should keep whining about the moderator inappropriately injecting herself to fact-check Romney during the debate. They should keep reminding all voters that Obama called it an "act of terror", and not a "terrorist attack", that this is a very important distinction, and that it's a great showcase for the superiority of Republican foreign policy ideas.
I am sure that will convince all undecided voters, and they can start working on their transition team.

I bet lukewarm thinks you're his friend now

[Thiros]

PassedOut, on 2012-October-18, 12:46, said:

Amazon Binder reviews






Sales are through the roof.

Trap Her, Keep Her? I hardly know her!

[luke warm]

dwar0123, on 2012-October-18, 13:36, said:

I bet lukewarm thinks you're his friend now

no, but i do sorta like that transition team thing

[mike777]

The election may come down to how threaten women, gays and minorities and the 47% feel if Republicans take over.

If people feel their rights will be trampled on, Romney does not have a chance.

Again wierd that Republicans used to stand for freedom, not stopping freedom.

Now as I read they want to wage war on women and put women in binders,

take away womens rights and stop them from equal pay.

It seems wierd the Republicans basically target the top 1% or so of the population
--


Republican Party should be showing how under their government, women, hispanics, blacks and gays will have more freedom and what that greater freedom will mean.

Not how they will be richer or have more stuff.....just more freedom and more opportunity...

Let the Democrats offer more stuff and say the other party wants to leave people dying in the streets without food, shelter or healthcare....Not that Republicans want to take away your freedom.

Of course there are real world tradeoffs between freedom and security, trade offs between competing rights and that is ok....

[Zelandakh]

mike777, on 2012-October-18, 20:36, said:

Republican Party should be showing how under their government, women, <snip> will have more freedom and what that greater freedom will mean.

I look forward to hearing Republicans stand up and say how they will increase the freedom of choice for women in deciding if they want to terminate a pregnancy or not. No doubt there are millions of quotes to be had from the period where they were claiming to be the party of choice and freedom. One should point out that governments in countries such as China, The Congo, Tibet, The Ukraine and Russia also all claim to be parties of freedom. So by this measure the Republican claim cannot be said to be false in any way...

[phil_20686]

Zelandakh, on 2012-October-19, 02:02, said:

I look forward to hearing Republicans stand up and say how they will increase the freedom of choice for women in deciding if they want to terminate a pregnancy or not.

So this is a little ironic, as the recent (2011) Gallup Poll found that americans are finally united in wanting to make abortion illegal in the second trimester except for the usual exceptions. This is supported by 90% of self labelled pro-lifers and 52% of self labelled pro-choicers for a strong overall majority.

[y66]

I wish the smart, intellectually honest people who post here would use better judgment before reflexively replying to people who have no interest in understanding other points of view. This is such a waste of time and energy. Please stop doing this ... for the good of the water cooler.

[luke warm]

y66, on 2012-October-19, 07:17, said:

I wish the smart, intellectually honest people who post here would use better judgment before reflexively replying to people who have no interest in understanding other points of view. This is such a waste of time and energy. Please stop doing this ... for the good of the water cooler.

when you combine "smart, intellectually honest people" with people who want to understand other points of view, you make a compelling case... thread may as well be closed if those are the only two criteria used

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2012-October-19, 09:13, said:

when you combine "smart, intellectually honest people" with people who want to understand other points of view, you make a compelling case... thread may as well be closed if those are the only two criteria used

I feel obliged to point out that "other points of view" is not synonymous with "Luke Warm's point of view"....

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on 2012-October-19, 10:15, said:

I feel obliged to point out that "other points of view" is not synonymous with "Luke Warm's point of view"....

i feel obligated to point out, right back atcha