Shared publicly  - 
Mitt Romney's awesome speech Tuesday. Mitt gives a clear concise message on his positions and where the country is now.
Erik Slavik's profile photoGreg B's profile photoNike N. Chillemi's profile photoWillie Wil's profile photo
Clear + concise =/= Mitt Romney
Mitt Romney is a fucking tool. He cannot beat Obama, he has no chance. He's a cheat, a coward, and a corrupt politician.

Why is his money banked in the Cayman Islands? He's a fucking scum bag, that's why.

You and all the other supports of this bigot tool clown should be ashamed of yourselves. You are not Americans, you are sheep, following the lies and supporting a dangerous agenda.

Ron Paul 2012. He's taking it at the convention!

Get the facts, not what the major media outlets blind you with!!!

Women are not objects like the mormons believe with multiple wives and all.
Not that I'm aware of Stephen, but he could as a mormon marry, marry, marry!
+david sawtelle , if Romney (or any other Mormon) tried to marry more than one person, he would immediately cease to be Mormon. In the Mormon church, polygamy == excommunication, as it has for the last ~130 years.
Greg B
Now our National Debt is growing at a faster rate than our GDP, or our ability to pay it off.
+Greg Blaire and Romney's track record shows that it will continue to do so if he is elected; at the expense of the lower and middle class. He's worried about himself, his party, and his elitist cohorts that support his campaign.
Did he also tell how he would solve the problem, I mean something else than lowering taxes and cutting help for the poor?
+Damian Mann The blame for the mess our nation is in belongs to all parties. Both republicans and democrats. I dislike Obama, but will admit, he had not too many options on how to handle the crisis. If politicians would put the people of America ahead of themselves, and the agendas of big business, I would have no problem with anyone. As of now, I hate majority of both democrats and republicans.

We the people are at the heart of this once great nation. Not Wall Street, not the DoD, and sure as hell not these assholes in Washington.
At Niki Chillemi...okay...this is weird. Obama did the same when running for President, and all he was credited for, was good "speaking abilities." Like Mr. Obama...Mr. Romney's speeches should be critiqued for it's value to REALISTICALLY advance policy...not because he uses the appropriate vernacular that connects with your psyche. I can do the same...I can stand at a podium and give a very concise depiction of the state of the union. I can hire a speech writer, hair stylist, fashion designer and vocalist to help me conjure the necessary images to ensure what I say blends in with receiving ears and minds. This does not mean that what I say is attainable...let alone realistically attainable. Mitt Romney is the worst kind of politician. He's the Mr. Potato Head of politicians...he's changeable to whatever you'd like for him to change to...and so your projections onto a politician is detrimental to our system of political freedom. You live vicariously through Mitt Romney...A most unfortunate position to be in as a voting citizen.
Greg B
+Damian Mann I don't know how arguing a negative, or the unprovable, bolsters an argument. I'm not faulting President Obama for the financial events that lead us here. IMHO, no President or policy maker would have seen foreseen the gloom that ensued. It's how one responds, how one adapts, overcomes, and leads a rally. I do take issue with where we are 'now' economically. There has been no effort on behalf of the President to rebuild the foundations of our fragile economy; i.e. a solid balance sheet.
Greg B
+Willie Wil you make some good points; but you're arguments, if you thought about it, could also be applied to President Obama. Although I'd agree Mitt isn't my first choice, the values he's demonstrated throughout his life (at least in business) are the values this nation needs; a proven turn-around track record.
@ Greg...I agree...all politicians benefit from blind adherence...BUT, the issue with Romney is much deeper. His business expertise doesn't really translate into much when advancing public policy that can benefit all. I worked in Wall Street and I've also worked in Government. I can tell you from experience that someone with a business mindset can help get a budget down to size, but it all comes back in the other direction down the road. So if Romney uses his business IQ to "turn the economy around..." something that's not really under a President's control...he'll recommend what he knows how to do best in order to reach the desired bottom line...cut, cut, and cut...that may seem like a nice catch phrase, but what happens when you cut, cut, cut, you develop an angry constituency that votes in folks that will add, add add...The middle ground is usually the best space to be in. I don't trust Romney due to his ever changing positions...and while Obama isn't perfect, I think he has at minimum tried...In fact, Obama has been MORE of a Republican then Romney has! Pretty incredible in my view...
+Erik Slavik What are you talking about? It's Obama who accumulated this debt. It's Obama who wants to create more debt. Mitt balanced the budget in Mass, he balanced the Olympic's budget
+Christophe Bobda Cutting taxes is what solves the problem. It gets an immediate influx of money into the private sector. It's the private sector that fuels the engine of the economy. Gov't jobs do not get the economy going. Gov't jobs and programs come from tax money. They don't generate new money.
+ Nike Chillemi...sorry...but cutting taxes is what solves problems? That's pure disrespect intended. Unfortunately, when people speak like this, I can only point out how parrot-like they sound. It's easy to listen to the news or read something somewhere and simply regurgitate it. You make an assertion about what fuels the economy and what doesn't and simply leave it at that with NO explanation as the logic behind your assertion. Last time I checked, the economy is heavily gauged by GDP. GDP includes, as one aspect of its equation, Government Spending. If you have no Government Spending (AKA policy directing market behavior to some extent...) you let market abuses set in which in part leads to misuse of resources through things like, oh say...monopolies...oligopolies...etc. It's easy to say, " taxes..." but it's an empty statement. It's impractical, in a modern economy to NOT tax. Cutting taxes ISN'T the solution. Cutting taxes on those that fuel the economy (which is predominantly driven by consumer spending) accelerates the market more than just "cutting taxes." Cutting taxes for Bill Gates will not translate in higher commercial sales then if you cut say Bill Smith's...assuming there's a Bill Smith on the lower spectrum of income. The less you are taxed at the lower brackets the more you spend up to a limit when it plateaus as your needs and to some extent, your wants are met. After your wants are met, there's very little incentive to cut taxes because the utility of money drops significantly. Did you miss Eco 101???
@ John Willis...Your statement is as confusing as it is appalling. The fact that he gets a credit only stresses the perceived notion that the less you have/make the less you should pay as MOST if not ALL of your income is reintroduced into the market via "ahem" consumer spending...But wait, it gets better...guess who benefits from consumer spending...businesses...and what businesses benefit the most...well it depends where they fall in the pyramid. Take the reverse...Bill Gates gets taxed at 15% (not unrealistic) and then his tax bill increases to 25%. Do you really think he will stop short of buying that soda that he would normally buy with his pizza? How about Bill Smith...what will he LIKELY do...well, in most cases, he will buy the pizza, soda, and will take a cab home as he has more money, but unlike Gates...he doesn't have a chauffeur. He can now drive more because he can spend more on gas...and guess what happens when one erode your car, leading to the purchase of maintenance services and other related goods...the cycle continues...You keep things at the top and guess what...that's where it'll stay. I'm not suggesting that low income people NOT be taxed, my statement is that if you propose CUTTING taxes, it should be done at the socioeconomic levels that create market impetus and momentum...If Bill Gate has one less million or hundred million tomorrow, that won't stop him from investing if he knows he can make money from that investment. The rich don't sit around and say, "I'm tax was to high so I'm going to stick it to everyone else!" They shop around...and tax rates is only one consideration out of many...So yes...the less you tax low income people the richer Bill Gates becomes...
But that's what's at least in part...the reason your statement is confusing is because whether or not the government spends too much, it has nothing to do with the justification to tax the rich at low or lower levels. Your point is that the private sector creates jobs...point taken...HOWEVER, it presupposes that most if not all of the tax break you extend to the wealthy will actually be reinvested. My argument is that absent a large reinvestment of a tax break, it doesn't make sense to offer it. Whereas if you give it to Bill Smith, he will spend the cash which lubricates the economy. You would be completely right if you could prove that 100% or even 50% of a tax break to the wealthy is reinvested into the economy.
Okay...I agree...but that's still not the can't really escape taxes...with that said...who do you tax and how?
Add a comment...