***The Official Philadelphia Phillies 2012 Thread***

Cliffy6745

The Fixer wrote:

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......

The Fixer

The Juggler wrote:

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

The Fixer

Cliffy6745 wrote:

The Fixer wrote:

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?

Cliffy6745

Good times....I have baseball to watch

LETS GO YANKS!

Don't worry, the Yanks will try to get Raul his ring.

Cliffy6745

The Fixer wrote:

Cliffy6745 wrote:

The Fixer wrote:

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.

The Fixer

Cliffy6745 wrote:

Good times....I have baseball to watch

LETS GO YANKS!

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

eeriepadave

The Fixer wrote:

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? :(

The Fixer

Cliffy6745 wrote:

The Fixer wrote:

Cliffy6745 wrote:

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'm sure $4 trillon will do

Cliffy6745

The Fixer wrote:

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.

The Fixer

Cliffy6745 wrote:

The Fixer wrote:

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

Cliffy6745

The Fixer wrote:

Cliffy6745 wrote:

The Fixer wrote:

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.

cutz

Phillies thread???

pjhawks

The Fixer wrote:

Cliffy6745 wrote:

Good times....I have baseball to watch

LETS GO YANKS!

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.

polaris_x

uhhh ... any of you guys go to a wedding over the weekend!?

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/video/wedding- ... 33929.html

Johnny Abruzzo

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.

The Fixer

Cliffy6745 wrote:

The Fixer wrote:

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.

The Fixer

pjhawks wrote:

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

The Juggler

The Fixer wrote:

The Juggler wrote:

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.

Cliffy6745

:thumbup:

neilybabes86

NY THANKS RAAA YOUUUU LLLL