Romney Parks Millions in Cayman Islands

ZappedBrain said:
Seriously?

You REALLY believe that we've "whittled down the amount of money candidates can receive in contributions"?

How much money did the Citizen's United ruling "whittle down"?
Click to expand...

Well the Citizens United ruling didn't have anything to do with what individuals contribute to political campaigns. Are you trying to say that McCain-Feingold DIDN'T limit the amount of individual contributions? Because, I think most of us assumed that was the reform made. Citizens Untied was about the ability of a corporation to exercise free speech.
 
And while we're on this WEALTHY POLITICIAN rant, let's take a time out from bashing Romney and ask a simple question... When did the media and left-wing propaganda machine focus on the wealth and investments of the Kennedy family, when Teddy, Robert, and John were running? Why didn't we see the CBS documentaries on Joe Kennedy, and how he cheated the markets and finagled his fortune?
 
Dungheap said:
Well, I guess you need to tell me specifically what you think a right-wing spending policy looks like.
Click to expand...

To me it includes lowering/reducing the tax burden, reducing government spending (ideally I'd love to see a balance budget but if not as close as possible) and reducing burdensome regulations that hinder businesses. The idea of keeping a strong military, which requires large amounts of government spending, can be debated as to whether that is considered right-wing or not. On a top level that's how I view it.
 
cawacko said:
We are talking about the campaign trail. You are saying Romney is the most conservative since Goldwater based on what he's saying on the campaign trail not what he's actually done in office. So the only way to compare apples to apples is to look at what the others proposed while a candidate.
Click to expand...

Romney cut the rabies bait program at the Cape Cod Canal to save the state $30 thousand.
Cape Cod, which had been free of rabies for one hundred years has been infested with rabid wildlife since Romney was Governor.
A man was bitten by a rabid bat last week, a sitiuaton which results in death 3 times out of four.
Just his life alone is worth more than the 30k Romney saved, never mind my dog, which was killed by a rabid coon and who knows how many other animals and people, since and in the future.
 
Shitheap said:
If you look at Reagan's first budget proposal, he proposed spending $721 billion in 1982, an increase of $60 billion over 1981 and a projected deficit of $67 billion. In his next budget, he proposed spending $799 billion, an increase of $55 billion over 1982's actual spending and a projected deficit of $146 billion. In his next budget, Reagan proposed spending $840 billion, an increase of about $40 billion over 1983's actual spending, with a deficit of $189 billion.
Click to expand...

The problem is (and always has been) your definition of "spending." To a Democrat, it is considered "spending" money when a tax cut is given. It's really interesting how they come to this... Taxes are raised to show a particular projected revenue in future years, so in those future years, if the tax rate is cut, this has to be "paid for" so it becomes an "expense" and is counted as "spending" when it's really not. It is taxes that haven't been, and won't be realized, at best. In most recent cases, whenever we have reduced the top marginal tax rates, the actual revenues increased, so the idea that lowering tax rates automatically costs us money, is incorrect to begin with.

Now... If we look at Reagan's discretionary spending, and look at his budgets without regard for the tax cuts, he decreased spending as a percentage of GDP, and increased efficiency of government in his 8 year run.... I have no idea how the figures work out on a year-to-year basis, it doesn't matter. If Reagan had gotten the legislation he wanted, namely a balanced budget amendment and line item veto, he would have significantly reduced government spending, but DEMOCRATS controlled Congress at the time, so we got what we got. It's ignorant of the facts to now try and blame THAT on Ronald Reagan!
 
Superfreak said:
You stated:



Both of those are 100% false.



Clinton didn't 'have to pay down' anything. Spending increased every year and he never paid down any of that 12 years of 'GOP' Spending. It is quite funny you stated it was GOP spending. During that 12 years (and the first two of Clintons) the House was controlled by the Democrats. Give us one example of a time when the budget didn't have to pass in the House to be approved?

So Obama is 'constrained' to the point that he has outspent revenue by over $4 Trillion? How is that 'constrained'? Especially given that the DEM led Senate hasn't passed a budget since Obama has been in office.
Click to expand...

Both would have spent way more money on liberal interests if the GOP hadn't emptied the treasury. Plain fact, nothing that you have said proves otherwise. Your comments are distractions.
 
Darla said:
LIHEAP was just slashed by 25% for one example.

You can call it fiscally irresponsible, but what you cannot call it is liberal.
Click to expand...

since we didn't have a budget in 2010 or 2011 and we don't yet have one for 2012, how can you say anything as been "slashed"........
 
Dixie said:
The problem is (and always has been) your definition of "spending." To a Democrat, it is considered "spending" money when a tax cut is given. It's really interesting how they come to this... Taxes are raised to show a particular projected revenue in future years, so in those future years, if the tax rate is cut, this has to be "paid for" so it becomes an "expense" and is counted as "spending" when it's really not. It is taxes that haven't been, and won't be realized, at best. In most recent cases, whenever we have reduced the top marginal tax rates, the actual revenues increased, so the idea that lowering tax rates automatically costs us money, is incorrect to begin with.
Click to expand...

Nope. I was talking about outlays only, not debt financed tax cuts.


Dixie said:
Now... If we look at Reagan's discretionary spending, and look at his budgets without regard for the tax cuts, he decreased spending as a percentage of GDP, and increased efficiency of government in his 8 year run.... I have no idea how the figures work out on a year-to-year basis, it doesn't matter. If Reagan had gotten the legislation he wanted, namely a balanced budget amendment and line item veto, he would have significantly reduced government spending, but DEMOCRATS controlled Congress at the time, so we got what we got. It's ignorant of the facts to now try and blame THAT on Ronald Reagan!
Click to expand...


Reagan increased spending as a percentage of GDP to the highest levels since WW2. Pretending that he really wanted a balanced budget amendment while he was blowing up the budget is laughable. And if you look at his proposed budgets, it's clear that the deficits weren't all the fault of the Democrats.
 
TE=Return of Dune;939468]Is this too complicated for you to understand yurt? While that is an idea that you have, there is no one thing that could undue untold generation of conservative efforts to CONSERVE the staus quo; princes and paupers, Lords and peasents, CEOs and wage slaves. Not going to happen.
Click to expand...

how is it you think this is complicated for me when i'm the one actually giving ideas. are you saying my idea is bad? did i say there is only one thing?

do try and read what people say.

The best we can hope for is a more educated populace, less willing to consistantly vote against it's own best interests. The problem is; the one world government types, and the neo-cons and the facists are grabbing poer and erecting insurmountable roadblocks as fast as they possibly can, with support not only of scared sheep like Alias and Disillusioned, but alos with the willing consent of blind morons like Apple. The few that do see what is really happening such as STY, Capt. Billy and Damocles are so stuck in their "conservative" mind set that they can't see the forest for the trees
Click to expand...

funny how you left out liberals....:rolleyes:

and stuck? have you ever altered your opinion on this site? i've seen your opinions shut down and you still persist. take genocide for example. you're the one that is stuck.
 
Onceler said:
The content is consistent w/ the title. He links the article; Thurston Howell is on an island (did you miss that connection?) The other images have to do just w/ money, but given the context, the only logical reference is the fact they he has that money in the Cayman's.

It's ridiculous to say that it all shows he's arguing that Mitt having money is "bad."
Click to expand...

so moneybags is a term of endearment for rich people....LOL

his OP does nothing but bash those with money. nice try, but you cornered yourself bad here.
 
Yurt said:
so moneybags is a term of endearment for rich people....LOL

his OP does nothing but bash those with money. nice try, but you cornered yourself bad here.
Click to expand...

That's silly. The images are in context w/ the title & article posted.

You're just desperate, and pretty dumb.
 
Onceler said:
That's silly. The images are in context w/ the title & article posted.

You're just desperate, and pretty dumb.
Click to expand...

how so? the first picture is of a rich old white guy, the video is about the love of money and the third is a picture synonymous with moneybags.

what does any of that have to do with parking millions in the caymen islands? you claimed it wasn't about money, you claimed it was about simply parking money offshore. yet, all his OP is about, is money.

care to try again?
 
Yurt said:
how so? the first picture is of a rich old white guy, the video is about the love of money and the third is a picture synonymous with moneybags.

what does any of that have to do with parking millions in the caymen islands? you claimed it wasn't about money, you claimed it was about simply parking money offshore. yet, all his OP is about, is money.

care to try again?
Click to expand...

You know that Thurston Howell's fictional tale is associated w/ an island, right? The other images are mainly money, but it's ridiculous to ignore the context of not just the thread title, but the main article posted in the OP.

It's typical Yurtsie, just wanting to believe something that isn't there. Sorry, but it ain't.
 
Onceler said:
You know that Thurston Howell's fictional tale is associated w/ an island, right? The other images are mainly money, but it's ridiculous to ignore the context of not just the thread title, but the main article posted in the OP.

It's typical Yurtsie, just wanting to believe something that isn't there. Sorry, but it ain't.
Click to expand...

lol...the other images are "mainly" money...they are ONLY about money.

to claim the thurston howell picture is about islands is beyond stupid. in fact, it is downright dishonest. tell me...why not post gilligan? the skipper? ginger?
 
Yurt said:
lol...the other images are "mainly" money...they are ONLY about money.

to claim the thurston howell picture is about islands is beyond stupid. in fact, it is downright dishonest. tell me...why not post gilligan? the skipper? ginger?
Click to expand...

Rich guy/island. Mitt Romney/Cayman's.

It's depressing how stupid you are sometimes....
 
Onceler said:
The OP isn't about him having his money; it's about where he parks his money, which is in a place that doesn't add to the American economy.

Personally, this does not bother me - it's symbolic sort of BS. However, it's not bashing him just for being rich, which is something almost everyone in politics at that level is.

STY is the only one I see who laments that we are always electing rich people, because they tend to look out for rich interests. There is probably some truth to that, but that's a pretty non-partisan critique. It has nothing to do w/ saying it's "bad" that Mitt is wealthy.
Click to expand...

we have onceler admitting that two of 'toons' (one video) are about money and finally that the first one is also about money....but...the OP is NOT about him having money.

:lol:

moneybags is a term of endearment kenneth has for rich for people.

how onceler believes what he says is beyond me.
 
what does howell represent...even wiki gets it....

Howell, portrayed by veteran character actor Jim Backus, is so wealthy that he took tens of thousands of dollars in cash and several changes of clothing with him for what was intended to be only a three-hour boat tour in Hawaii, one of the sillier premises of the show.
 
It's wonderful how frantic you are about this. 3 posts in a row - and a wiki search to boot.

I said it's not about him having money - it's about where he parks his money. And it is.

Ooooops.
 
Onceler said:
It's wonderful how frantic you are about this. 3 posts in a row - and a wiki search to boot.

I said it's not about him having money - it's about where he parks his money. And it is.

Ooooops.
Click to expand...

Why? He pays taxes on its earnings. What does it matter that the money is "parked" there?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top