Most pathetic exit polling result

[CAA Flagship]

If you're on unemployment, you've payed taxes.

That is a large assumption.

Meh. I look at unemployment as insurance. The payment you get is taxed though, which seems odd.

[DSUrocks07]

That is a large assumption.

Sales tax don't count?

Is there a federal sales tax?

[AZGrizFan]

That is a large assumption.

Meh. I look at unemployment as insurance. The payment you get is taxed though, which seems odd.

And if you STAY on unemployment, you get all that $$ back when you file your taxes. So you're effectively NOT taxed.

[kalm]

If you're on unemployment, you've payed taxes.

That is a large assumption.

You've had a job so you've at least paid payroll taxes. Your employer has more than likely paid income tax so even if you haven't, your wages are still affected.

[AZGrizFan]

Sales tax don't count?

Is there a federal sales tax?

Only in North Carolina, apparently.

[UNI88]

Meh. I look at unemployment as insurance. The payment you get is taxed though, which seems odd.

And if you STAY on unemployment, you get all that $$ back when you file your taxes. So you're effectively NOT taxed.

If you're a single-earner yes but if your spouse works and makes enough money, you're not getting those $$ back.

[CAA Flagship]

I think what we get for our taxes is under-appreciated. It's pretty tough to quantify national security, infrastructure, safe food and drugs, clean water, etc, etc, etc but they all have a value to each and every single one of us. Perhaps even more than what we put into the system.

I agree that this is difficult to quantify. But ultimately, you can put a value on it, and it amounts to the percentage of your taxes that go towards it. So you could say that we get equal value on all of those things. Where a taxpayer gets no definitive return would be programs like welfare, including the cost for those who administer the program (and don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of a welfare program.......that is run efficiently and for those that truly need it). Foreign aid is another. There are many programs that fit this category which bring the overall average down to a level below the amount paid.

[Ibanez]

Sales tax don't count?

Is there a federal sales tax?

Some states have sales tax.

[Chizzang]

I think what we get for our taxes is under-appreciated. It's pretty tough to quantify national security, infrastructure, safe food and drugs, clean water, etc, etc, etc but they all have a value to each and every single one of us. Perhaps even more than what we put into the system.

I agree that this is difficult to quantify. But ultimately, you can put a value on it, and it amounts to the percentage of your taxes that go towards it. So you could say that we get equal value on all of those things. Where a taxpayer gets no definitive return would be programs like welfare, including the cost for those who administer the program (and don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of a welfare program.......that is run efficiently and for those that truly need it). Foreign aid is another. There are many programs that fit this category which bring the overall average down to a level below the amount paid.

Look Social programs have successfully dulled the senses of those that would burn this society to the ground
The ivory tower shouldn't be so thick headed as not to see this
What we pay to keep the unwashed masses quiet and docile is a pittance

The same can be said of the social programs for our petroleum mega colossus over lords
The 47 billion we gift to them in the form of subsidies is so they'll play nice and provide low cost heating programs for the same reasons above...

Keeping the lowest portion sated is a price we all pay

[Grizalltheway]

I agree that this is difficult to quantify. But ultimately, you can put a value on it, and it amounts to the percentage of your taxes that go towards it. So you could say that we get equal value on all of those things. Where a taxpayer gets no definitive return would be programs like welfare, including the cost for those who administer the program (and don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of a welfare program.......that is run efficiently and for those that truly need it). Foreign aid is another. There are many programs that fit this category which bring the overall average down to a level below the amount paid.

Look Social programs have successfully dulled the senses of those that would burn this society to the ground
The ivory tower shouldn't be so thick headed as not to see this
What we pay to keep the unwashed masses quiet and docile is a pittance

The same can be said of the social programs for our petroleum mega colossus over lords
The 47 billion we gift to them in the form of subsidies is so they'll play nice and provide low cost heating programs for the same reasons above...

Keeping the lowest portion sated is a price we all pay

Go ahead and take away their crumbs (read: food stamps) and just watch how fast AZ and T-man's castles get stormed.

[houndawg]

I think what we get for our taxes is under-appreciated. It's pretty tough to quantify national security, infrastructure, safe food and drugs, clean water, etc, etc, etc but they all have a value to each and every single one of us. Perhaps even more than what we put into the system.

I agree that this is difficult to quantify. But ultimately, you can put a value on it, and it amounts to the percentage of your taxes that go towards it. So you could say that we get equal value on all of those things. Where a taxpayer gets no definitive return would be programs like welfare, including the cost for those who administer the program (and don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of a welfare program.......that is run efficiently and for those that truly need it). Foreign aid is another. There are many programs that fit this category which bring the overall average down to a level below the amount paid.

Lots of welfare comes through the defense budget too, in the form of stuff that we make for the Pentagon that they don't want.

[Chizzang]

I agree that this is difficult to quantify. But ultimately, you can put a value on it, and it amounts to the percentage of your taxes that go towards it. So you could say that we get equal value on all of those things. Where a taxpayer gets no definitive return would be programs like welfare, including the cost for those who administer the program (and don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of a welfare program.......that is run efficiently and for those that truly need it). Foreign aid is another. There are many programs that fit this category which bring the overall average down to a level below the amount paid.

Lots of welfare comes through the defense budget too, in the form of stuff that we make for the Pentagon that they don't want.

This is the one of the largest republican disconnects...
The Pentagon IS a welfare program - besides being completely BLOATED
it's got more waste and side deals and back pocket scams than welfare could dream up

[BlueHen86]

I agree that this is difficult to quantify. But ultimately, you can put a value on it, and it amounts to the percentage of your taxes that go towards it. So you could say that we get equal value on all of those things. Where a taxpayer gets no definitive return would be programs like welfare, including the cost for those who administer the program (and don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of a welfare program.......that is run efficiently and for those that truly need it). Foreign aid is another. There are many programs that fit this category which bring the overall average down to a level below the amount paid.

Look Social programs have successfully dulled the senses of those that would burn this society to the ground
The ivory tower shouldn't be so thick headed as not to see this
What we pay to keep the unwashed masses quiet and docile is a pittance

The same can be said of the social programs for our petroleum mega colossus over lords
The 47 billion we gift to them in the form of subsidies is so they'll play nice and provide low cost heating programs for the same reasons above...

Keeping the lowest portion sated is a price we all pay

Not only that, but the money we give to welfare recipients in put back into circulation. They can't afford to save it. Welfare recipients create a needed demand. I'd rather that they earn their money, but they aren't the dead weight that many people seem to think they are.

Cut off their funding, not only will they storm the castle, but the local businesses that deal with them will go under.

[JohnStOnge]

So...you guys...if you're given a choice of what you consider most important characteristic in the leader of the country and you're given choices like "leadership" and "vision for the future" and you're going to pick "cares about people?"

Really?

Seriously now.

[BlueHen86]

So...you guys...if you're given a choice of what you consider most important characteristic in the leader of the country and you're given choices like "leadership" and "vision for the future" and you're going to pick "cares about people?"

Really?

Seriously now.

Hitler had leadership skills, and a vision for the future. I guess he would have your vote.

[JohnStOnge]

They don't like a black man running the country. Plain and simple.

I would be fine with Allen West running the country. In fact if I had my choice I'd take Allen West over Mitt Romney. That's because I largely agree with his world view and resulting set of positions (see http://www.ontheissues.org/fl/allen_west.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). Not completely, but largely.

I do not like having Barac Obama running the country because I completely disagree with his world view as reflected in this relatively well known statement of his:

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf,

That is a horrifying world view. And he knows it isn't "at least as it's been interpreted." He knows the Founding Fathers intended to establish those constraints. I sure as heck don't like the idea of a guy with that mentality nominating Supreme Court Justices.

[JohnStOnge]

Hitler had leadership skills, and a vision for the future. I guess he would have your vote.

No, because I would disagree with his world view...at least if I was in position to understand what it was at the time. He obviously believed in totalitarian government and I don't believe in that. That might fall within the realm of "shares my values" or not.

To say that "caring about people" is the most important characteristic for a position like that is really bad. It really is. I can understand that it's good to care about people. But not to say that's the most important thing.

And this is one time where I can't believe you guys even disagree with me. You've got to know better.

[JohnStOnge]

Not only that, but the money we give to welfare recipients in put back into circulation. They can't afford to save it. Welfare recipients create a needed demand. I'd rather that they earn their money, but they aren't the dead weight that many people seem to think they are.

I've heard variations of that argument before and you've reminded me to look further into it. I'm inclined to think there's no way the society comes out ahead financially by virtue of welfare programs circulating money into the economy. For one thing no money just sits. Or it's very rare. If the rich stock it away they are investing it in some way so that it provides capital for other things. It's not like it was just stuck under a mattress.

[BlueHen86]

Hitler had leadership skills, and a vision for the future. I guess he would have your vote.

No, because I would disagree with his world view...at least if I was in position to understand what it was at the time. He obviously believed in totalitarian government and I don't believe in that. That might fall within the realm of "shares my values" or not.

To say that "caring about people" is the most important characteristic for a position like that is really bad. It really is. I can understand that it's good to care about people. But not to say that's the most important thing.

And this is one time where I can't believe you guys even disagree with me. You've got to know better.

No you can't, and that is your problem. You see things a certain way and can't understand why everyone doesn't see things the same way.

[DSUrocks07]

Come on guys, the President is a really nice guy. Why shouldn't that be the most important thing. I mean he may be running this nation into the ground by continuing the same policies as his predecessor but dammit how could you not like him?

The most startling thing to me is that although Romney soundly torched Obama in three out of those four categories, it was Obama's "careness doctrine" that put him over the top.

America sure has its priorities straight.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

[AZGrizFan]

Look Social programs have successfully dulled the senses of those that would burn this society to the ground
The ivory tower shouldn't be so thick headed as not to see this
What we pay to keep the unwashed masses quiet and docile is a pittance

The same can be said of the social programs for our petroleum mega colossus over lords
The 47 billion we gift to them in the form of subsidies is so they'll play nice and provide low cost heating programs for the same reasons above...

Keeping the lowest portion sated is a price we all pay

Go ahead and take away their crumbs (read: food stamps) and just watch how fast AZ and T-man's castles get stormed.

Personally, I would LOVE that. Time to thin the herd.

[BlueHen86]

Come on guys, the President is a really nice guy. Why shouldn't that be the most important thing. I mean he may be running this nation into the ground by continuing the same policies as his predecessor but dammit how could you not like him?

The most startling thing to me is that although Romney soundly torched Obama in three out of those four categories, it was Obama's "careness doctrine" that put him over the top.

America sure has its priorities straight.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

Romneys problem was that he didn't convince enough people that he could do any better than Obama. It's easy to look at Obama's record and criticize it, but if you want his job you have to show that you can do better.

I will say it again: this was 2004 all over again, only with parties reversed.

[AZGrizFan]

Come on guys, the President is a really nice guy. Why shouldn't that be the most important thing. I mean he may be running this nation into the ground by continuing the same policies as his predecessor but dammit how could you not like him?

The most startling thing to me is that although Romney soundly torched Obama in three out of those four categories, it was Obama's "careness doctrine" that put him over the top.

America sure has its priorities straight.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

Romneys problem was that he didn't convince enough people that he could do any better than Obama. It's easy to look at Obama's record and criticize it, but if you want his job you have to show that you can do better.

I will say it again: this was 2004 all over again, only with parties reversed.

Well, he could have promised the moon and he wasn't getting any of the black vote, the latino vote or the women vote. And THAT'S what put Obama over the top.

[BlueHen86]

Romneys problem was that he didn't convince enough people that he could do any better than Obama. It's easy to look at Obama's record and criticize it, but if you want his job you have to show that you can do better.

I will say it again: this was 2004 all over again, only with parties reversed.

Well, he could have promised the moon and he wasn't getting any of the black vote, the latino vote or the women vote. And THAT'S what put Obama over the top.

That's a huge part of it, but there enough votes out there to be had. Maybe it was the storm, but Romney didn't get enough of those votes.

[Chizzang]

What actually makes me giggle to myself a little bit is that if John disagrees with something - he's so sure he's got it all figured out - that by default everybody who does not see it his way is obviously an idiot...

It's pretty entertaining actually

Yet he's married to a fundamentalist who knows virtually nothing about the history of the Christian Religion or the associated ancient texts - and he defends her absolute blind ignorance - that he finds so intolerable in others

It's profound to observe - right here - 24/365