Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Not even close. Obama wiped the floor.

dbackjon wrote:Not even close. Obama wiped the floor.

He should wipe the floor. He shit himself about 5 times tonight, and I'm sure some of it leaked out.

dbackjon wrote:Not even close. Obama wiped the floor.

Surely you jest Jon. IF Obama won it was just barely, and I'd call it closer to a tie. I'm baffled that some of you guys will likely vote based on debate performance vs. looking at what actually happened over the last four years. Especially you Jon - you rail on gay rights, and Obama was against gay marriage when he took office and only "changed his mind" when senile uncle Joe stepped on his own sack and said the White House supported it....suddenly Obama changed his mind on it although he admits he struggles with it.

Gary Johnson 2012.

I'm sure you Dems are happy, but he didn't win the debate last night, he just beat his own performance from last debate.

If Jon says a clear win, it must have been close.

Jon started this thread to counter Baldy's. Nothing more. Move along.



PS Romney and Obama are both douchebags of the highest order.

ASUG8 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Not even close. Obama wiped the floor.

Surely you jest Jon. IF Obama won it was just barely, and I'd call it closer to a tie. I'm baffled that some of you guys will likely vote based on debate performance vs. looking at what actually happened over the last four years. Especially you Jon - you rail on gay rights, and Obama was against gay marriage when he took office and only "changed his mind" when senile uncle Joe stepped on his own sack and said the White House supported it....suddenly Obama changed his mind on it although he admits he struggles with it.

Gary Johnson 2012.

I'm baffled that you think there is anybody that hadn't already made up their mind before the campaign started. The country split down the middle a long time ago and debates change a vanishingly small number of opinions.

What do you think of this Obama statement?

I believe in self-reliance and individual initiative and risk takers being rewarded. But I also believe that everybody should have a fair shot and everybody should do their fair share and everybody should play by the same rules...

houndawg wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
Surely you jest Jon. IF Obama won it was just barely, and I'd call it closer to a tie. I'm baffled that some of you guys will likely vote based on debate performance vs. looking at what actually happened over the last four years. Especially you Jon - you rail on gay rights, and Obama was against gay marriage when he took office and only "changed his mind" when senile uncle Joe stepped on his own sack and said the White House supported it....suddenly Obama changed his mind on it although he admits he struggles with it.

Gary Johnson 2012.

I'm baffled that you think there is anybody that hadn't already made up their mind before the campaign started. The country split down the middle a long time ago and debates change a vanishingly small number of opinions.

I hadn't. Watching these two douchebags makes me desire a viable third party now more than ever. Clearly you drank the Kool-aid in 2008 and are going back for seconds in '12 which is your prerogative. I'm not better off than '08, and watching these two liars inflate their records makes me fear for the future of the country.

89Hen wrote:What do you think of this Obama statement?

I believe in self-reliance and individual initiative and risk takers being rewarded. But I also believe that everybody should have a fair shot and everybody should do their fair share and everybody should play by the same rules...

Sounds like Teddy Roosevelt, governs like Mitt Romney...

89Hen wrote:What do you think of this Obama statement?

I believe in self-reliance and individual initiative and risk takers being rewarded. But I also believe that everybody should have a fair shot and everybody should do their fair share and everybody should play by the same rules...

That's a heartbeat away from a socialist mantra. The US wasn't established so we could be some sort of collective. Obama has come up just short of accusing Romney of tax fraud when he's playing by the rules that are in place now. Is he paying as little as possible? Sure, just like the rest of us - but if he's doing something illegal then he'd have been investigated long ago.

ASUG8 wrote:

89Hen wrote:What do you think of this Obama statement?

That's a heartbeat away from a socialist mantra. The US wasn't established so we could be some sort of collective. Obama has come up just short of accusing Romney of tax fraud when he's playing by the rules that are in place now. Is he paying as little as possible? Sure, just like the rest of us - but if he's doing something illegal then he'd have been investigated long ago.

Nonsense.

It's a solid representation of what America is supposed to be. We are supposed to be fairly regulated and capitalistic. We are a mixed economy.

Is it playing by the rules if you get to bribe the officials?

kalm wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
That's a heartbeat away from a socialist mantra. The US wasn't established so we could be some sort of collective. Obama has come up just short of accusing Romney of tax fraud when he's playing by the rules that are in place now. Is he paying as little as possible? Sure, just like the rest of us - but if he's doing something illegal then he'd have been investigated long ago.

Nonsense.

It's a solid representation of what America is supposed to be. We are supposed to be fairly regulated and capitalistic. We are a mixed economy.

Is it playing by the rules if you get to bribe the officials?

No argument on the mixed economy - I read this quote as a push to reward entrepreneurs for taking risks, but smacking them down taxwise when they become successful. Government IMO should take a much more laissez-faire approach in most cases...the bureaucratic red tape to get a small business up and running is ridiculous.

Why not just institute a flat tax and be done with it? Of course, he'd have to fire a bunch of IRS employees which would run counter to his efforts to inflate the number of people employed.
As I recall in the first 100 days Obama had a hard time creating a cabinet of people who played by the rules.

ASUG8 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Nonsense.

It's a solid representation of what America is supposed to be. We are supposed to be fairly regulated and capitalistic. We are a mixed economy.

Is it playing by the rules if you get to bribe the officials?

No argument on the mixed economy - I read this quote as a push to reward entrepreneurs for taking risks, but smacking them down taxwise when they become successful. Government IMO should take a much more laissez-faire approach in most cases...the bureaucratic red tape to get a small business up and running is ridiculous.

Why not just institute a flat tax and be done with it? Of course, he'd have to fire a bunch of IRS employees which would run counter to his efforts to inflate the number of people employed.
As I recall in the first 100 days Obama had a hard time creating a cabinet of people who played by the rules.

That's because he hired crony capitalists.

kalm wrote:Nonsense.

It's a solid representation of what America is supposed to be.

Who is definining "fair shot" and "fair share"?

89Hen wrote:

kalm wrote:Nonsense.

It's a solid representation of what America is supposed to be.

Who is definining "fair shot" and "fair share"?

The 99%.

I also have a capital gains question for you guys. Do you think it would be possible/wise to tax capital gains differently if it is a certain percentage of your income? Basically, if capital gains is more than half your income, it could be taxed at regular income tax rates. This would allow for everyday people who have a nice profit on a one time sale or investment to not get killed, but people who actually make a living off of capital gains to be taxed as if it were their living. Thoughts?

AZGrizFan wrote:

89Hen wrote: Who is definining "fair shot" and "fair share"?

The 99%.

I'd put it in the hands of successful people with an appreciation for what their country has enabled them to do.

89Hen wrote:I also have a capital gains question for you guys. Do you think it would be possible/wise to tax capital gains differently if it is a certain percentage of your income? Basically, if capital gains is more than half your income, it could be taxed at regular income tax rates. This would allow for everyday people who have a nice profit on a one time sale or investment to not get killed, but people who actually make a living off of capital gains to be taxed as if it were their living. Thoughts?

That seems...fair?

89Hen wrote:I also have a capital gains question for you guys. Do you think it would be possible/wise to tax capital gains differently if it is a certain percentage of your income? Basically, if capital gains is more than half your income, it could be taxed at regular income tax rates. This would allow for everyday people who have a nice profit on a one time sale or investment to not get killed, but people who actually make a living off of capital gains to be taxed as if it were their living. Thoughts?

It would have to be fleshed out to define what "making a living" truly means. Seems like you could work part time somewhere, get a W-2, pay the requisite tax rate on that, and continue paying a lesser rate on your capital gains. Rules would have to be in place to determine if part time work qualifies you to continue at the lesser rate on capital gains.

Aside from that it's a pretty big disincentive to retire.

89Hen wrote:I also have a capital gains question for you guys. Do you think it would be possible/wise to tax capital gains differently if it is a certain percentage of your income? Basically, if capital gains is more than half your income, it could be taxed at regular income tax rates. This would allow for everyday people who have a nice profit on a one time sale or investment to not get killed, but people who actually make a living off of capital gains to be taxed as if it were their living. Thoughts?

Or maybe make the first $22K at a lower rate, rest as ordinary income.

ASUG8 wrote:

89Hen wrote:I also have a capital gains question for you guys. Do you think it would be possible/wise to tax capital gains differently if it is a certain percentage of your income? Basically, if capital gains is more than half your income, it could be taxed at regular income tax rates. This would allow for everyday people who have a nice profit on a one time sale or investment to not get killed, but people who actually make a living off of capital gains to be taxed as if it were their living. Thoughts?

It would have to be fleshed out to define what "making a living" truly means. Seems like you could work part time somewhere, get a W-2, pay the requisite tax rate on that, and continue paying a lesser rate on your capital gains. Rules would have to be in place to determine if part time work qualifies you to continue at the lesser rate on capital gains.

Aside from that it's a pretty big disincentive to retire.

"Making a living" to me means it's your major source of income. A part time job wouldn't work for somebody who is making a ton on capital gains. I had said that if your cap gains income exceeded your W-2, it would be taxed as regular income.

dbackjon wrote:

89Hen wrote:I also have a capital gains question for you guys. Do you think it would be possible/wise to tax capital gains differently if it is a certain percentage of your income? Basically, if capital gains is more than half your income, it could be taxed at regular income tax rates. This would allow for everyday people who have a nice profit on a one time sale or investment to not get killed, but people who actually make a living off of capital gains to be taxed as if it were their living. Thoughts?

Or maybe make the first $22K at a lower rate, rest as ordinary income.

Not sure a flat number is the answer. I prefer %.

kalm wrote:

89Hen wrote:I also have a capital gains question for you guys. Do you think it would be possible/wise to tax capital gains differently if it is a certain percentage of your income? Basically, if capital gains is more than half your income, it could be taxed at regular income tax rates. This would allow for everyday people who have a nice profit on a one time sale or investment to not get killed, but people who actually make a living off of capital gains to be taxed as if it were their living. Thoughts?

That seems...fair?

There has to be something inherently wrong with my thinking though. Can't be that simple.

89Hen wrote:

kalm wrote:
That seems...fair?

There has to be something inherently wrong with my thinking though. Can't be that simple.