Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
VIC 07
EV LA1 08
Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
Columbus 10
EV LA 11
Vancouver 11
Missoula 12
Portland 13, Spokane 13
St. Paul 14, Denver 14
I can't get over it. Wont be able to until his contract expires. I have issues coming to grips with such a ridiculously dumb move by my favorite team. Fact of the matter is that Howard's contract relative to his performance is going to prevent them from competing for a title
I will do my best to focus on ripping something else going forward. like amaro's inevitable terrible offseason moves
just a complete utterly false premise. Even subtracting $25 million for the Ryan's contract the Phils openeing day payroll was still 32 MILLION HIGHER than any other National League team. so this non-payroll flexibility because of ryan howard's contract is just not based on facts :nono:
2012 Team Payrolls
No. Team Payroll Average
1 New York Yankees $197,962,289 $6,186,321
2 Philadelphia Phillies $174,538,938 $5,817,964
3 Boston Red Sox $173,186,617 $5,093,724
4 Los Angeles Angels $154,485,166 $5,327,074
5 Detroit Tigers $132,300,000 $4,562,068
6 Texas Rangers $120,510,974 $4,635,037
7 Miami Marlins $118,078,000 $4,373,259
8 San Francisco Giants $117,620,683 $3,920,689
9 St. Louis Cardinals $110,300,862 $3,939,316
10 Milwaukee Brewers $97,653,944 $3,755,920
11 Chicago White Sox $96,919,500 $3,876,780
12 Los Angeles Dodgers $95,143,575 $3,171,452
13 Minnesota Twins $94,085,000 $3,484,629
14 New York Mets $93,353,983 $3,457,554
15 Chicago Cubs $88,197,033 $3,392,193
16 Atlanta Braves $83,309,942 $2,776,998
17 Cincinnati Reds $83,309,942 $2,776,998
18 Seattle Mariners $81,978,100 $2,927,789
19 Baltimore Orioles $81,428,999 $2,807,896
20 Washington Nationals $81,336,143 $2,623,746
21 Cleveland Indians $78,430,300 $2,704,493
22 Colorado Rockies $78,069,571 $2,692,054
23 Toronto Blue Jays $75,489,200 $2,696,042
24 Arizona Diamondbacks $74,284,833 $2,653,029
25 Tampa Bay Rays $64,173,500 $2,291,910
26 Pittsburgh Pirates $63,431,999 $2,187,310
27 Kansas City Royals $60,916,225 $2,030,540
28 Houston Astros $60,651,000 $2,332,730
29 Oakland Athletics $55,372,500 $1,845,750
30 San Diego Padres $55,244,700 $1,973,025
he's not the only reason they will have trouble competing (papelbon contract is also ridiculously dumb), but he is the main reason. you have to look further than just his annual salary. it's the ROI you get on that money. like the article said, if you put him on the open market today, he would be lucky to get half of what his annual salary is. so amaro is most likely paying him more than double what he's worth annually. this is of course compounded by the length of the albatross of a deal.
I don't know how you fail to see this. just look at their flexibility during this year's trade deadline. howards' contract absolutley prohibited them from acquiring help. like the guy or not, he is a detriment to future success because he is an average player who's paid like a superstar
On another note, I'm casting my vote for October as best month of the year.
-Best sports month of the year (NHL, MLB, NCAA FB all in season)
-Best weather of the year
-No holidays (means no forced family get-togethers or getting dragged to dumb parties I don't want to attend)
-Best time of year for seasonal beers
-Pumpkin pie and apple cider, which are both awesome
well, if the phils cant win...at least the GOP did well tonight
'change'...
:thumbup:
How so? Sure, he won the "debate" but he didn't argue the policies he has been talking about for 18 months. If it's just sports and you want your guy to win, so be it, but the guy you saw on stage argued NONE of the GOP policies. So sure, on the surface he won, but I have even less of a clue as to what he would do if elected than I did before. At least before I knew he would be giving a massive tax break to the wealthy, now he claims to not even ben doing that. Who are you supporting?
Dude could have won the gold medal in London with how fast he moved to the center on Wednesday and I'd say, what seems to be your personal two biggest sticking points, taxes and welfare programs, he was almost as far to the left as Obama.
I will say, if what the guy was talking about on Wednesday is his position, then I am a lot more comfortable with a President Romney than I was a week or so ago. That said, I highly doubt he was being sincere.
the way I look at it in an NFL-type context is that romney was 0-4 going into the debate. I believe most, including myself, expected him to get his ass handed to him. He had a good showing and brought his record up to 1-4. He's still a long shot to win the Super Bowl, but he's not eliminated yet (which is what would have happened if he would have lost the debate).
Small victory in the grand scheme of things, but there's still hope...which is the best outcome any Romney supporter could have hoped for IMO.
are you clint eastwood? :?
i guess unemployment below 8% for the first time in 4 years, makes him 1-5 now?
How so? Sure, he won the "debate" but he didn't argue the policies he has been talking about for 18 months. If it's just sports and you want your guy to win, so be it, but the guy you saw on stage argued NONE of the GOP policies. So sure, on the surface he won, but I have even less of a clue as to what he would do if elected than I did before. At least before I knew he would be giving a massive tax break to the wealthy, now he claims to not even ben doing that. Who are you supporting?
Dude could have won the gold medal in London with how fast he moved to the center on Wednesday and I'd say, what seems to be your personal two biggest sticking points, taxes and welfare programs, he was almost as far to the left as Obama.
I will say, if what the guy was talking about on Wednesday is his position, then I am a lot more comfortable with a President Romney than I was a week or so ago. That said, I highly doubt he was being sincere.
the way I look at it in an NFL-type context is that romney was 0-4 going into the debate. I believe most, including myself, expected him to get his ass handed to him. He had a good showing and brought his record up to 1-4. He's still a long shot to win the Super Bowl, but he's not eliminated yet (which is what would have happened if he would have lost the debate).
Small victory in the grand scheme of things, but there's still hope...which is the best outcome any Romney supporter could have hoped for IMO.
are you clint eastwood? :?
i guess unemployment below 8% for the first time in 4 years, makes him 1-5 now?
I don't get your first point.
marginal improvements to unemployment rate fail to tell the entire story. I don't think the guy in charge has done enough to warrant another term. Too many failed promises and irrational use of taxpayers money
I just wish the GOP came with a more legit candidate. Christie '16
well, if the phils cant win...at least the GOP did well tonight
'change'...
:thumbup:
How so? Sure, he won the "debate" but he didn't argue the policies he has been talking about for 18 months. If it's just sports and you want your guy to win, so be it, but the guy you saw on stage argued NONE of the GOP policies. So sure, on the surface he won, but I have even less of a clue as to what he would do if elected than I did before. At least before I knew he would be giving a massive tax break to the wealthy, now he claims to not even ben doing that. Who are you supporting?
Dude could have won the gold medal in London with how fast he moved to the center on Wednesday and I'd say, what seems to be your personal two biggest sticking points, taxes and welfare programs, he was almost as far to the left as Obama.
I will say, if what the guy was talking about on Wednesday is his position, then I am a lot more comfortable with a President Romney than I was a week or so ago. That said, I highly doubt he was being sincere.
the way I look at it in an NFL-type context is that romney was 0-4 going into the debate. I believe most, including myself, expected him to get his ass handed to him. He had a good showing and brought his record up to 1-4. He's still a long shot to win the Super Bowl, but he's not eliminated yet (which is what would have happened if he would have lost the debate).
Small victory in the grand scheme of things, but there's still hope...which is the best outcome any Romney supporter could have hoped for IMO.
I don't want to drag this on too much, I have a playoff game to watch soon but I think you missed my point. My point was that if this is just like a sport and the substance doesn't matter then sure, he won, but I can't really see how the GOP as a whole can look at it as a victory. Sure Mitt Romney won an argument, but the argument he was making was not the GOP platform and not the platform he has been talking about for 18 months. And especially so on the issues that seem important to you. So sure, it was a victory in one aspect of an election, but he argued a very centrist approach to government, which is not at all what he was nominated to do. An approach to government that I am not completely opposed to. There was very little talk of social issues, which I differ a lot more with him on, but from an overall standpoint, I would say that he was closer to democratic talking points than GOP, outside of healthcare. How can that be seen as a victory? Especially since this is how he is going to claim to govern
i guess unemployment below 8% for the first time in 4 years, makes him 1-5 now?
I don't get your first point.
marginal improvements to unemployment rate fail to tell the entire story. I don't think the guy in charge has done enough to warrant another term. Too many failed promises and irrational use of taxpayers money
I just wish the GOP came with a more legit candidate. Christie '16[/quote]
Considering the country was bleeding 800,000 jobs a month when he came into office and there is now a net gain in jobs, I would say that is not unsuccessful. Not fast enough, but not too bad. In what ways has he used taxpayer money that you don't agree with? This just seems like a massive talking point to me. I also find it pretty amusing that the democrats are seen as the welfare party when spending on "handout" programs over the last 20 something years has increased a lot more under GOP presidents than democrat presidents according to AEI.
I'd also love to hear how the tax cuts which Romney is now claiming he is not going to implement would be paid for? There is no answer to that question and since there is no answer to that question our deficit would clearly be a lot worse than it is now.
the way I look at it in an NFL-type context is that romney was 0-4 going into the debate. I believe most, including myself, expected him to get his ass handed to him. He had a good showing and brought his record up to 1-4. He's still a long shot to win the Super Bowl, but he's not eliminated yet (which is what would have happened if he would have lost the debate).
Small victory in the grand scheme of things, but there's still hope...which is the best outcome any Romney supporter could have hoped for IMO.
are you clint eastwood? :?
i guess unemployment below 8% for the first time in 4 years, makes him 1-5 now?
I don't get your first point.
marginal improvements to unemployment rate fail to tell the entire story. I don't think the guy in charge has done enough to warrant another term. Too many failed promises and irrational use of taxpayers money
I just wish the GOP came with a more legit candidate. Christie '16
your reply to cliff's post didn't make much sense to me...clint eastwood's rnc speech didn't make sense to me either. never mind.
i am not an obama fan either. but there's nothing about romney that is appealing to me.
and chris christie? really? you don't think obama deserves another term, but you want chris christie in 4 years? are you aware of his record? unemployment over there is 9.8%...higher than when he took over. he's lost his luster man... :?
and chris christie? really? you don't think obama deserves another term, but you want chris christie in 4 years? are you aware of his record? unemployment over there is 9.8%...higher than when he took over. he's lost his luster man... :?
Chris Christie, to me, seems like one of those politicians that if you say something enough and as loud as you possibly can, then it must be true. The only thing I agree with him on is that the vast majority of the GOP's approach to Islam is based completely on bigotry.
Look no further than the failed tunnel project, which it only took him 6 months to agree to pay back the federal government for a project he received funding for that never happened. Small government, my ass.
Honestly, most of the 'substance' in these debates and the respective presidential candidates platforms don't matter to me. I will be voting for the guy who will put me and my family in the best monetarily position. Since obama considers my household income near 'rich or upper-class' (which is a friggin joke), I will not be voting for him. I don't believe in taxing people at a higher rate because they are successful.
Then on the periphery you have things I disagree with like obamacare (and almost all democratic monetary policy). The business cycle is generally self correcting...the less govt intervention the better.
I'm far from a political expert. I just don't like my tax dollars going to places I vehemently disagree with like welfare, extended unemployment benefits, bigger govt, unions, etc. I certainly don't agree with all GOP platforms, but I consider them to be the lesser of the two evils...especially after the last 4 years.
I know politics is a slippery slope. I was drunk when I posted about the debate. That's my bad. Everyone has a different motive for their vote. There's no right or wrong answer here.
Honestly, most of the 'substance' in these debates and the respective presidential candidates platforms don't matter to me. I will be voting for the guy who will put me and my family in the best monetarily position. Since obama considers my household income near 'rich or upper-class' (which is a friggin joke), I will not be voting for him. I don't believe in taxing people at a higher rate because they are successful.
Then on the periphery you have things I disagree with like obamacare (and almost all democratic monetary policy). The business cycle is generally self correcting...the less govt intervention the better.
I'm far from a political expert. I just don't like my tax dollars going to places I vehemently disagree with like welfare, extended unemployment benefits, bigger govt, unions, etc. I certainly don't agree with all GOP platforms, but I consider them to be the lesser of the two evils...especially after the last 4 years.
I know politics is a slippery slope. I was drunk when I posted about the debate. That's my bad. Everyone has a different motive for their vote. There's no right or wrong answer here.
But now, according to Romney you will not be in a better position financially. And as I mentioned, spending on welfare programs is higher under the GOP than under democrats, so......
and chris christie? really? you don't think obama deserves another term, but you want chris christie in 4 years? are you aware of his record? unemployment over there is 9.8%...higher than when he took over. he's lost his luster man... :?
that state is a debacle. I like his hard line monetary stances...anyone who is that anti-union is ok in my book. I kinda remember reading that he has done a solid job managing the state budget. when he took office I believe the overall economic picture was more bleak than it currently is. If he can improve things on a state level I feel like that's a nice conduit to making positive gains on a national stage.
Honestly, most of the 'substance' in these debates and the respective presidential candidates platforms don't matter to me. I will be voting for the guy who will put me and my family in the best monetarily position. Since obama considers my household income near 'rich or upper-class' (which is a friggin joke), I will not be voting for him. I don't believe in taxing people at a higher rate because they are successful.
Then on the periphery you have things I disagree with like obamacare (and almost all democratic monetary policy). The business cycle is generally self correcting...the less govt intervention the better.
I'm far from a political expert. I just don't like my tax dollars going to places I vehemently disagree with like welfare, extended unemployment benefits, bigger govt, unions, etc. I certainly don't agree with all GOP platforms, but I consider them to be the lesser of the two evils...especially after the last 4 years.
I know politics is a slippery slope. I was drunk when I posted about the debate. That's my bad. Everyone has a different motive for their vote. There's no right or wrong answer here.
But now, according to Romney you will not be in a better position financially. And as I mentioned, spending on welfare programs is higher under the GOP than under democrats, so......
Honestly, most of the 'substance' in these debates and the respective presidential candidates platforms don't matter to me. I will be voting for the guy who will put me and my family in the best monetarily position. Since obama considers my household income near 'rich or upper-class' (which is a friggin joke), I will not be voting for him. I don't believe in taxing people at a higher rate because they are successful.
Then on the periphery you have things I disagree with like obamacare (and almost all democratic monetary policy). The business cycle is generally self correcting...the less govt intervention the better.
I'm far from a political expert. I just don't like my tax dollars going to places I vehemently disagree with like welfare, extended unemployment benefits, bigger govt, unions, etc. I certainly don't agree with all GOP platforms, but I consider them to be the lesser of the two evils...especially after the last 4 years.
I know politics is a slippery slope. I was drunk when I posted about the debate. That's my bad. Everyone has a different motive for their vote. There's no right or wrong answer here.
But now, according to Romney you will not be in a better position financially. And as I mentioned, spending on welfare programs is higher under the GOP than under democrats, so......
RE: according to romney...how so?
The first thing he said in the debate. He does not support the $5 trillion tax cut he has claimed to until last Wednesday.
On another note, I'm casting my vote for October as best month of the year.
-Best sports month of the year (NHL, MLB, NCAA FB all in season)
-Best weather of the year
-No holidays (means no forced family get-togethers or getting dragged to dumb parties I don't want to attend)
-Best time of year for seasonal beers
-Pumpkin pie and apple cider, which are both awesome
Love it. I wish this month was 90 days long
You don't count Halloween as a holiday? :(
8/28/98- Camden, NJ
10/31/09- Philly
5/21/10- NYC
9/2/12- Philly, PA
7/19/13- Wrigley
10/19/13- Brooklyn, NY
10/21/13- Philly, PA
10/22/13- Philly, PA
10/27/13- Baltimore, MD
4/28/16- Philly, PA
4/29/16- Philly, PA
5/1/16- NYC
5/2/16- NYC
9/2/18- Boston, MA
9/4/18- Boston, MA
9/14/22- Camden, NJ
9/7/24- Philly, PA
9/9/24- Philly, PA
Tres Mts.- 3/23/11- Philly. PA
Eddie Vedder- 6/25/11- Philly, PA
RNDM- 3/9/16- Philly, PA
But now, according to Romney you will not be in a better position financially. And as I mentioned, spending on welfare programs is higher under the GOP than under democrats, so......
RE: according to romney...how so?
The first thing he said in the debate. He does not support the $5 trillion tax cut he has claimed to until last Wednesday.
I don't understand. His tax cut is $4.8 trillion as we have seen Andrea Mitchell tell us many times with the Obama ads during baseball. If he decreases taxes on the rich, the is no way around the fact that the middle class will be forced to pay for it. Loop holes will not pay for it, especially with an increase in military spending. There is just no way to make that math work. But now I guess he as backed off that so who knows what he plans on now. Like I said, I have less of an idea of what he would do than I did before the debate.
I don't understand. His tax cut is $4.8 trillion as we have seen Andrea Mitchell tell us many times with the Obama ads during baseball. If he decreases taxes on the rich, the is no way around the fact that the middle class will be forced to pay for it. Loop holes will not pay for it, especially with an increase in military spending. There is just no way to make that math work. But now I guess he as backed off that so who knows what he plans on now. Like I said, I have less of an idea of what he would do than I did before the debate.
why can't there just be a flat income tax rate for all? the upper class still technically pays more and doesn't get penalized for their success. I'm not talking about capital gains or any of that shit.
and I don't see why the people making more money shoudl have to support everyone. the sense of entitlement in this country is a major issue. I want to take care of myself, not the 18 year old chick with 3 kids who's on food stamps.
also, I bet on baltimore tonight. think pettitte gets hit around. hopefully he didn't juice during his latest rehab
I don't understand. His tax cut is $4.8 trillion as we have seen Andrea Mitchell tell us many times with the Obama ads during baseball. If he decreases taxes on the rich, the is no way around the fact that the middle class will be forced to pay for it. Loop holes will not pay for it, especially with an increase in military spending. There is just no way to make that math work. But now I guess he as backed off that so who knows what he plans on now. Like I said, I have less of an idea of what he would do than I did before the debate.
why can't there just be a flat income tax rate for all? the upper class still technically pays more and doesn't get penalized for their success. I'm not talking about capital gains or any of that shit.
and I don't see why the people making more money shoudl have to support everyone. the sense of entitlement in this country is a major issue. I want to take care of myself, not the 18 year old chick with 3 kids who's on food stamps.
also, I bet on baltimore tonight. think pettitte gets hit around. hopefully he didn't juice during his latest rehab
I would not be opposed to that but it makes no sense that I pay a higher percentage of my income than people like Mitt Romney and Lloyd Blankfein. How is that justifiable? Why am I punished for not being as successful as them to ask a very similar question to yours? Under the proposals he has argued for the past 18 months, that gap and that burden would only get worse, which makes absolutely no sense. Why is the tax burden on the middle class rather that people who can afford it? But again, who knows what he would do now.
And I do want to point out again, that those programs you are referencing have increased the most under the GOP. Mitt Romney also pointed out last week that there will be a safety net if he were elected.
Don't worry, the Yanks will try to get Raul his ring.
seriously. sad state of affairs when we have to resort to politics to get this thread active
thanks amaro
Mitt Romney will give Ryan Howard a tax break. that's gotta hurt your support for Mitt. :P
and it's 50/50 Chris Christie lives 4 years, let alone 8 or 12. a guy that fat is not going to see old age. one thing i like about chris christie is at least he has the balls to take a tough stand. 99% of politicians are pretty gutless.
october weather sucks. too many changes and half the time cold wet and dreary. not surprising that such a sunny personality as yourself would be into dreary weather
i hate the american league game. i think it's physically impossible for the yanks to play a game in less than 3.5 hours.
I saw this thread on page 1 and figured there was talk of beer & fried chicken (wait, that sounds like the 2011 Red Sox...). At least I got a "Ryan Howard Sucks" rant.
Romney's "balanced budget" shit is a joke. We can never balance the budget when we have 5% of the world's population and over 50% of the world's military spending, and he wants to INCREASE it. He also is a complete buffoon on foreign policy. His "steps to stop Iran" are all shit Obama is already doing. Get a clue ass hole.
Spectrum 10/27/09; New Orleans JazzFest 5/1/10; Made in America 9/2/12; Phila, PA 10/21/13; Phila, PA 10/22/13; Baltimore Arena 10/27/13; Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22; Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
why can't there just be a flat income tax rate for all? the upper class still technically pays more and doesn't get penalized for their success. I'm not talking about capital gains or any of that shit.
and I don't see why the people making more money shoudl have to support everyone. the sense of entitlement in this country is a major issue. I want to take care of myself, not the 18 year old chick with 3 kids who's on food stamps.
also, I bet on baltimore tonight. think pettitte gets hit around. hopefully he didn't juice during his latest rehab
I would not be opposed to that but it makes no sense that I pay a higher percentage of my income than people like Mitt Romney and Lloyd Blankfein. How is that justifiable? Why am I punished for not being as successful as them to ask a very similar question to yours? Under the proposals he has argued for the past 18 months, that gap and that burden would only get worse, which makes absolutely no sense. Why is the tax burden on the middle class rather that people who can afford it? But again, who knows what he would do now.
And I do want to point out again, that those programs you are referencing have increased the most under the GOP. Mitt Romney also pointed out last week that there will be a safety net if he were elected.
you're not being penalized for making less. a flat tax rate would be an even playing field for all, which is how it should be. it's the most fair way for everyone
it shouldn't be the responsibility of the 'rich' to fix everyone's problems.
october weather sucks. too many changes and half the time cold wet and dreary. not surprising that such a sunny personality as yourself would be into dreary weather
.
yeah, you're such a ray of sunshine
as usual, you completely miss the point. what do you do for a living? you'd be a great meteorologist or politician...any type of job where you never have to make accurate statements or ever be correct
and chris christie? really? you don't think obama deserves another term, but you want chris christie in 4 years? are you aware of his record? unemployment over there is 9.8%...higher than when he took over. he's lost his luster man... :?
that state is a debacle. I like his hard line monetary stances...anyone who is that anti-union is ok in my book. I kinda remember reading that he has done a solid job managing the state budget. when he took office I believe the overall economic picture was more bleak than it currently is. If he can improve things on a state level I feel like that's a nice conduit to making positive gains on a national stage.
but again, I'm far from an expert on this stuff
yeah, i'd recommend reading more about him before advocating him for president in '16 if i were you.
Comments
in the background...."he struck him out!"
thanks.
Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
VIC 07
EV LA1 08
Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
Columbus 10
EV LA 11
Vancouver 11
Missoula 12
Portland 13, Spokane 13
St. Paul 14, Denver 14
he's not the only reason they will have trouble competing (papelbon contract is also ridiculously dumb), but he is the main reason. you have to look further than just his annual salary. it's the ROI you get on that money. like the article said, if you put him on the open market today, he would be lucky to get half of what his annual salary is. so amaro is most likely paying him more than double what he's worth annually. this is of course compounded by the length of the albatross of a deal.
I don't know how you fail to see this. just look at their flexibility during this year's trade deadline. howards' contract absolutley prohibited them from acquiring help. like the guy or not, he is a detriment to future success because he is an average player who's paid like a superstar
-Best sports month of the year (NHL, MLB, NCAA FB all in season)
-Best weather of the year
-No holidays (means no forced family get-togethers or getting dragged to dumb parties I don't want to attend)
-Best time of year for seasonal beers
-Pumpkin pie and apple cider, which are both awesome
Love it. I wish this month was 90 days long
are you clint eastwood? :?
i guess unemployment below 8% for the first time in 4 years, makes him 1-5 now?
I don't get your first point.
marginal improvements to unemployment rate fail to tell the entire story. I don't think the guy in charge has done enough to warrant another term. Too many failed promises and irrational use of taxpayers money
I just wish the GOP came with a more legit candidate. Christie '16
I don't want to drag this on too much, I have a playoff game to watch soon
I don't get your first point.
marginal improvements to unemployment rate fail to tell the entire story. I don't think the guy in charge has done enough to warrant another term. Too many failed promises and irrational use of taxpayers money
I just wish the GOP came with a more legit candidate. Christie '16[/quote]
Considering the country was bleeding 800,000 jobs a month when he came into office and there is now a net gain in jobs, I would say that is not unsuccessful. Not fast enough, but not too bad. In what ways has he used taxpayer money that you don't agree with? This just seems like a massive talking point to me. I also find it pretty amusing that the democrats are seen as the welfare party when spending on "handout" programs over the last 20 something years has increased a lot more under GOP presidents than democrat presidents according to AEI.
I'd also love to hear how the tax cuts which Romney is now claiming he is not going to implement would be paid for? There is no answer to that question and since there is no answer to that question our deficit would clearly be a lot worse than it is now.
So many questions and no answers.
your reply to cliff's post didn't make much sense to me...clint eastwood's rnc speech didn't make sense to me either. never mind.
i am not an obama fan either. but there's nothing about romney that is appealing to me.
and chris christie? really? you don't think obama deserves another term, but you want chris christie in 4 years? are you aware of his record? unemployment over there is 9.8%...higher than when he took over. he's lost his luster man... :?
Chris Christie, to me, seems like one of those politicians that if you say something enough and as loud as you possibly can, then it must be true. The only thing I agree with him on is that the vast majority of the GOP's approach to Islam is based completely on bigotry.
Look no further than the failed tunnel project, which it only took him 6 months to agree to pay back the federal government for a project he received funding for that never happened. Small government, my ass.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/13/opini ... oject.html
Then on the periphery you have things I disagree with like obamacare (and almost all democratic monetary policy). The business cycle is generally self correcting...the less govt intervention the better.
I'm far from a political expert. I just don't like my tax dollars going to places I vehemently disagree with like welfare, extended unemployment benefits, bigger govt, unions, etc. I certainly don't agree with all GOP platforms, but I consider them to be the lesser of the two evils...especially after the last 4 years.
I know politics is a slippery slope. I was drunk when I posted about the debate. That's my bad. Everyone has a different motive for their vote. There's no right or wrong answer here.
But now, according to Romney you will not be in a better position financially. And as I mentioned, spending on welfare programs is higher under the GOP than under democrats, so......
that state is a debacle. I like his hard line monetary stances...anyone who is that anti-union is ok in my book. I kinda remember reading that he has done a solid job managing the state budget. when he took office I believe the overall economic picture was more bleak than it currently is. If he can improve things on a state level I feel like that's a nice conduit to making positive gains on a national stage.
but again, I'm far from an expert on this stuff
RE: according to romney...how so?
LETS GO YANKS!
Don't worry, the Yanks will try to get Raul his ring.
The first thing he said in the debate. He does not support the $5 trillion tax cut he has claimed to until last Wednesday.
seriously. sad state of affairs when we have to resort to politics to get this thread active
thanks amaro
You don't count Halloween as a holiday? :(
10/31/09- Philly
5/21/10- NYC
9/2/12- Philly, PA
7/19/13- Wrigley
10/19/13- Brooklyn, NY
10/21/13- Philly, PA
10/22/13- Philly, PA
10/27/13- Baltimore, MD
4/28/16- Philly, PA
4/29/16- Philly, PA
5/1/16- NYC
5/2/16- NYC
9/2/18- Boston, MA
9/4/18- Boston, MA
9/14/22- Camden, NJ
9/7/24- Philly, PA
9/9/24- Philly, PA
Eddie Vedder- 6/25/11- Philly, PA
RNDM- 3/9/16- Philly, PA
I'm sure $4 trillon will do
I don't understand. His tax cut is $4.8 trillion as we have seen Andrea Mitchell tell us many times with the Obama ads during baseball. If he decreases taxes on the rich, the is no way around the fact that the middle class will be forced to pay for it. Loop holes will not pay for it, especially with an increase in military spending. There is just no way to make that math work. But now I guess he as backed off that so who knows what he plans on now. Like I said, I have less of an idea of what he would do than I did before the debate.
why can't there just be a flat income tax rate for all? the upper class still technically pays more and doesn't get penalized for their success. I'm not talking about capital gains or any of that shit.
and I don't see why the people making more money shoudl have to support everyone. the sense of entitlement in this country is a major issue. I want to take care of myself, not the 18 year old chick with 3 kids who's on food stamps.
also, I bet on baltimore tonight. think pettitte gets hit around. hopefully he didn't juice during his latest rehab
I would not be opposed to that but it makes no sense that I pay a higher percentage of my income than people like Mitt Romney and Lloyd Blankfein. How is that justifiable? Why am I punished for not being as successful as them to ask a very similar question to yours? Under the proposals he has argued for the past 18 months, that gap and that burden would only get worse, which makes absolutely no sense. Why is the tax burden on the middle class rather that people who can afford it? But again, who knows what he would do now.
And I do want to point out again, that those programs you are referencing have increased the most under the GOP. Mitt Romney also pointed out last week that there will be a safety net if he were elected.
Mitt Romney will give Ryan Howard a tax break. that's gotta hurt your support for Mitt. :P
and it's 50/50 Chris Christie lives 4 years, let alone 8 or 12. a guy that fat is not going to see old age. one thing i like about chris christie is at least he has the balls to take a tough stand. 99% of politicians are pretty gutless.
october weather sucks. too many changes and half the time cold wet and dreary. not surprising that such a sunny personality as yourself would be into dreary weather
i hate the american league game. i think it's physically impossible for the yanks to play a game in less than 3.5 hours.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/video/wedding- ... 33929.html
Romney's "balanced budget" shit is a joke. We can never balance the budget when we have 5% of the world's population and over 50% of the world's military spending, and he wants to INCREASE it. He also is a complete buffoon on foreign policy. His "steps to stop Iran" are all shit Obama is already doing. Get a clue ass hole.
Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22;
Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
you're not being penalized for making less. a flat tax rate would be an even playing field for all, which is how it should be. it's the most fair way for everyone
it shouldn't be the responsibility of the 'rich' to fix everyone's problems.
yeah, you're such a ray of sunshine
as usual, you completely miss the point. what do you do for a living? you'd be a great meteorologist or politician...any type of job where you never have to make accurate statements or ever be correct
yeah, i'd recommend reading more about him before advocating him for president in '16 if i were you.