Romney: Obama won with "gifts" to African Americans and Hispanics

[franklin]

That's as opposed to the gifts of the separate tax struture for capital gains taxes

The separate tax structure is a reflection on reality. The exact rate is where the gifting comes in.

You can earn a 4% nominal return saving for retirement, have a real return of $0, but still have to pay taxes under a system treating all forms of income identical to earned income. Hence the reason those who are least likely to earn a return in excess of the inflation hurdle rate currently pay 0% in taxes on capital gains and dividends held long term.

Higher income earners who earn double the rate of inflation are currently taxed at 30% in real terms. I'm guessing those who earn in excess of that are way more likely to pay an inheritance tax. The real gifts are in deduction loopholes. Mentioning charitable deductions and life insurance benefits is more on point IMO (Mitt Romney plan hint hint).

FWIW, raising taxes on dividends & capital gains would be the best way to raise my taxes without hurting the economy one bit. They should go up moderately.

 

[larryselbows]

If a baby is born in the US to illigal immagrants, the parents can still be deported. They will normally take the child with them. When the kid turns 18, the child can return to the US as a citizen, and then request the legal immigration of their parents, which is still not guaranteed. I just find it very difficult to believe that people have kids in order to legally immigrate to the US 19 years in the future.




According to the 14th Amendment, if illegals can be prosecuted for violations of drug laws and the like (and thus are subject to our laws), their kids born on US soil will be citizens. Do you really want ot repeal that? Alternatively, do you want to say those illegal immigrants aren't subject to our laws?

*illegal immigrants

 

[AtheistPreacher]

Why do you think what he's saying is so divisive? I don't have the transcripts but what I've seen isn't anything everyone else isn't already saying. In fact, he was very fair and matter-of-fact about it. The Mayor of San Antonio, a democrat and hispanic, was explaining the day after the election how much Obamacare and amnesty means to hispanic voters. Looks to me like Romney is regurgitating that and insinuating his party move toward the center.


I would expect some Washington Post columnist to spin that into some racist diatribe and that's exactly what they did.


As far as crying, getting over it, etc., Romney is giving a typical "we lost because" speech to his committee and big donors. The media and liberals are the ones who need to get over Romney and let him go.

I wouldn't say I'm a Democrat, I just see them as the lesser of two evils. But even with that said, this post is right on. The campaign is over. No need to keep painting the opposing candidate in the worst possible light.

 

[Nate505]

Serious question on immigration to all that are here.

Would you take a compromise on immigration that does the following:

- Truly secure border (fence, national guard...)
- No more anchor babies for babies born in the future
- Amnesty (6 month temp status to get the ball rolling) to everyone here right now that is not breaking additional laws such as robbery, rape, murder, drug dealing...
- Deportation of those here illegally that are breaking other laws
- Increased legal immigration flow. Streamline process and dramtically increase the flow. Particular emphasis on doctors, engineers, vets and other high skill sets.

1. Sure, why not, though IMO I don't think it is possible at all to have a secure border when the border is a thousand miles long across fairly rough and desolate terrain. But whatever, the anti-immigration can have that bone if they want it.
2. Nope. That is blatantly unconstitutional.
3. Sure.
4. Sure.
5. Great idea.

 

[Nate505]

And this is why I do not have a good feeling about where things are heading.

Has there ever been a period in history when the Presidential race wasn't a popularity contest? Other than the couple times the guy who won the popular vote lost the electoral college?

 

[Nate505]

I wouldn't say I'm a Democrat, I just see them as the lesser of two evils. But even with that said, this post is right on. The campaign is over. No need to keep painting the opposing candidate in the worst possible light.

But it's so much fun dancing on his proverbial political grave. Though I'm far happier than social conservatism took a huge hit this election, thank whatever deity you believe (or not) in.

 

[Stoked]

1. Sure, why not, though IMO I don't think it is possible at all to have a secure border when the border is a thousand miles long across fairly rough and desolate terrain. But whatever, the anti-immigration can have that bone if they want it.
2. Nope. That is blatantly unconstitutional.
3. Sure.
4. Sure.
5. Great idea.

OK, however you and One Brow still didn't answer the question. Would you take a deal that does all of the above?

Seeing as you both have a problem with anchor babies. Is that a deal breaker for you?

 

[One Brow]

Seeing as you both have a problem with anchor babies. Is that a deal breaker for you?

I don't have a problem with unicorns, leprechauns, or anchor babies. If what you really mean is anchor babies as I understand the term (babies being had so their parents can stay in the country), no problem for me. Current law makes this impossible anyhow.

On the other hand, if you mean changing the 14th Amendment (you have not confirmed this, so I'm not sure this is what you mean), I do have a problem. Again, look at the issues Germany had before moving from jus sanguinis (citizenship through parentage) to jus soli (citizenship through place of birth).

Either way, it would really help if you clarified when a baby is an "anchor baby", to you.

 

[Stoked]

I don't have a problem with unicorns, leprechauns, or anchor babies. If what you really mean is anchor babies as I understand the term (babies being had so their parents can stay in the country), no problem for me. Current law makes this impossible anyhow.

On the other hand, if you mean changing the 14th Amendment (you have not confirmed this, so I'm not sure this is what you mean), I do have a problem. Again, look at the issues Germany had before moving from jus sanguinis (citizenship through parentage) to jus soli (citizenship through place of birth).

Either way, it would really help if you clarified when a baby is an "anchor baby", to you.

In this case I was just using the term to describe babies born in the US to illegal immigrants.

 

[One Brow]

In this case I was just using the term to describe babies born in the US to illegal immigrants.

No more anchor babies for babies born in the future

I assume you don't mean it will be illegal for illegal immigrants to become pregnant. Can you be a little more precise? Do you mean these kids, born on American soil, won't be US citizens at all? Will they also be considered illegal immigrants? Would they have a path to citizenship?

 

[Scat]

1. Sure, why not, though IMO I don't think it is possible at all to have a secure border when the border is a thousand miles long across fairly rough and desolate terrain. But whatever, the anti-illegal immigration can have that bone if they want it.

Fixed.

 

[Stoked]

Fixed.

I let that slide as I didnt feel like arguing that point.

 

[Stoked]

No more anchor babies for babies born in the future

I assume you don't mean it will be illegal for illegal immigrants to become pregnant. Can you be a little more precise? Do you mean these kids, born on American soil, won't be US citizens at all? Will they also be considered illegal immigrants? Would they have a path to citizenship?

It is pretty clear already but I like you so one more time.

In my proposal after all the other changes take affect an illegal immigrant comes to the US. They get preggo and have a kid. That baby would not be an American citizen. This change would apply to illegal immigrants only.

If a person came to the US legally and had a baby here their baby would be a US citizen.

 

[Scat]

It is pretty clear already but I like you so one more time.

In my proposal after all the other changes take affect an illegal immigrant comes to the US. They get preggo and have a kid. That baby would not be an American citizen. This change would apply to illegal immigrants only.

If a person came to the US legally and had a baby here their baby would be a US citizen.

Wait, I still don't understand. Are you saying people that come here illegally and use the free birth control and still get pregnant, that their child will or won't be a US citizen?

 

[Stoked]

Wait, I still don't understand. Are you saying people that come here illegally and use the free birth control and still get pregnant, that their child will or won't be a US citizen?

That is because you are un mongolo. Cheers!

 

[Nate505]

OK, however you and One Brow still didn't answer the question. Would you take a deal that does all of the above?

Seeing as you both have a problem with anchor babies. Is that a deal breaker for you?

Yes. If Congress wants to go repeal the 14th Amendment then fine, but until then it's extremely unconstitutional.

 

[NAOS]

That's as opposed to the gifts of the separate tax struture for capital gains taxes, the lowering of the top marginal tax rate, etc., which doesn't cater to any segment of society? I may have misread your tone, but to me it reeked of "those people want goodies instead of a responsible, fair government". Do you have enough self-reflection to see that both sides see themselves as wanting a responsible, fiar government, and both sides can paint the others as the ones demanding the goodies?

Home***ingrun. Typical Scat horse***

 

[PearlWatson]

Not a fan of the amnesty bit but I would take the deal just to get **** done.

Oh, and I agree with the thought that we should be throwing green cards to any and every well educated person on the planet; doctors, engineers, nurses, etc. That said, we can deport the lawyers and politicians.

That's what Reagan did (compromised on amnesty) and the Democrat congress didn't keep up their end of the deal on securing the border.

Why do you want MORE competition for jobs on the low and high end of the spectrum?

 

[One Brow]

In my proposal after all the other changes take affect an illegal immigrant comes to the US. They get preggo and have a kid. That baby would not be an American citizen. This change would apply to illegal immigrants only.

What would the status of the baby be? Why does the citizenship of the baby matter to you?

 

[Stoked]

What would the status of the baby be? Why does the citizenship of the baby matter to you?

Illegal immigrant.

In alot of cases these children end up on programs such as Medicaid. This is because the parents do not have social security numbers and are working under the table or under false SSNs and won't report that for various reasons.

Stop the flow and reset so to speak. Then have harder enforcement for those that break the immigration laws afterwards(that includes businesses). Perhaps bill the nation they come from by means as deducting the airfare and cost of detention from foreign aid to whatever country they came from.