It's that he will be elected and drop dead. We'd have that carnival barker Ryan for President!
Or he'll have a mental breakdown. As Ann said she worries about his mental state. I do too when I see how how hyper he is all the time.
I can't think of any scenario that would be good if the Republicans win the White House. Every place where they have gained power in the last year or two, they are creating chaos and anger. How they will damage the Constitution (if they get their way) is downright mindboggling!
What a vision--the Republican Taliban taking over and destroying women's rights, but protected by the 2nd Amendment supporters playing bodyguard and SS troups, while the neo-cons start wars all over the globe and Romney and rich buddies get richer and richer and richer. Hurrah for the American Dream -- NOT!
The thought that something might happen to Obama and we'd have "Foot In Mouth" Biden in the Oval Office sends shivers up my spine.
I don't think we have to worry about Romney's mental state; the job automatically comes with stress and he's perfectly capable of staying calm under pressure.
I think his wife expressed the concerns any loving wife would have if her husband had the most important job in the world. He has a stable family life and his Faith. Don't worry about him or his ability to govern. He'll do just fine and so will our country.
Well, they say that Romney's "business experience" is what our nation needs to pull itself out of the ditch faster. I see his business experience resulting in - selling off 30 states, loading the remaining 20 up with more debt, then harvesting them once they go belly up. Then he moves to the Caymens.....or maybe Switzerland since that's much farther away.
Mitt Romney / Paul Ryan 2012
Yes, They Will Give You the Business
(just like the last businessman in the WH)
Our country will go straight to hell in a hand-basket if R&R get in. Biden = 40 years as a Senator vs little punk Lyin Ryan with his extreme radical right wing views. Biden and Obama are respected the world over, while Romney and team are not. Count on the neo cons starting more multiple wars in the mid east as their predecessor...what's his name, did. I almost forget Bush's name. God knows the GOP NEVER mentions it, and YET their mastermind Rove is STILL running the show and the same people are running Romney. .
I'm glad that Karl Rove is still in the candidate selling business, makes it easy to know who not to vote for.
My biggest Romney fear is the Supreme Court appointments that will almost certainly happen in the near future. That, more than anything else IMO, has the potential to do enormous harm to this country. Harm that will be impossible to undo for generations.
My second biggest fear (and it's a very close second) is the very real potential for more unnecessary wars under Romney. I do not believe for a second he cares about anyone but himself and would get us into more unneeded wars to appease his supporters (neo-cons).
I'd like some of what Mona's smoking, please.
I have to concur with Kate... there is no scenario that would be good should today's brand of Republican take power. World war is only one of the fears any normal, rational thinker would have. Others include, but are not limited to, the breakdown of our Constitution resulting in loss of basic Constitutional rights for women and minorities, loss of all environmental protections, growth in poverty, waning of current education standards, higher taxes for the middle class, theocratic legislation of morals, a steep rise in teen pregnancy, a rise in unemployment, a rise in banking fraud, and many other situations too horrid to think about.
Once more, just in case someone is reading, a country is not a business and cannot be run like one. Just because Romney has vulture capitalism all sewn up doesn't mean he is qualified, or would make a great leader. As I recall, his constituents were not all happy with his prior Governorship.
He'll do just fine
That may be your opinion but so far he has shown otherwise.
He has already demonstrated he is lacking many qualifications to make a good POTUS.
He has proven that he has no skills when dealing with the international community when he screwed up his trips overseas; he continues to lie; his lack of clarity on how he is going to accomplish what he claims he can do; his lack of caring for half the country;... all combine to show that he is not qualified to be President.
My biggest fear about Romney is that he might lose this election and we will have four more years of Obama.
Ny biggest fear is his dismantling the EPA and paying no attention to global warming (no money to be made from that, after all). When the environment is destroyed we won't have to worry about any other disaster he will visit upon us; it will no longer matter.
ahh that's right ingrid, but first he has to starve all the children and toss all the elderly over the cliff.
That loss of constitutional rights for women and minorities is so silly and would be funny if it wasn't so sad that someone would even say that.
From what I'm hearing most people don't know Romney and don't want to know him. Because he's a Republican he has been painted a mean, hateful, dirty grimmy rich white man. People have not gone back to see where he came from and what he's done all his life. All they know is he's rich and white and according to Obama that's reason enough to hate him. So much for tolerance, except for the rich white man.
That won't really be necessary; he won't have to lift a finger.
but first he has to starve all the children and toss all the elderly over the cliff.
Why? You don't think he has the capablity of multi-tasking? I would hope if he becomes President he would be able to. Nethanyahu will take care of (starting premature) war(s) so I am sure he can find some others to help him with his other plans too.
My biggest worry would be that any of you would get near enough to him that you could act on all those paranoid fears you have.
I don't know where the idea comes from that Biden is anything more than a loud mouthed Union shill and bully or that he has the slightest ability to govern anything. After hearing him mangle the language and foul the air with lies and character assassination, and just plain hatred, I have often fervently prayed for the continued good health of Obama. Would any of you actually encourage your children to emulate him?
You True Believers fail to understand that you are falling for the worst forms of propaganda and hate speech. The fact that some of you even seem to be intelligent makes it even more disgusting that you keep such propaganda going. Over the past four years the ugliness has grown. Some of you who I enjoyed reading have become almost irrational as you copy the words and speech patterns of some of the worst offenders and as you do they become even more rabid and irrational since you are encouraging them to ever more extreme invective.
You no longer discuss opposing views or seek to convince others to your views. Now you make vile and untruthful accusations and use inflamitory words to try to silence anyone who might disagree with you. You have become bullies. Does that make you feel good about yourself? How does it make you feel when you hear your children use the same language? Would you speak the same way with the same words to or about your friends, parents, spouse or children? What reaction would you expect if you did? How would you feel if they were used against you?
When I see the same words used repeatedly in discussions elsewhere it is fairly simple to understand they come from a common source. I do not respect or trust those who use those words as argument or discussion and most certainly not the source of them. It reveals a mob mentality and a loss of the ability to think. The question is, why do you?
GMG, we've gone all the way back to his youth when he forcibly cut another boy's hair, dodged the draft by moving to France, began Bain with investments from a drug cartel, allowed his dog to ride on top of his car for 12 hours, and have watched him lie over and over in full view - actually, I think you're right; we don't want to know him.
That's so spurious it's funny, GGM!
first he has to starve all the children and toss all the elderly over the cliff.
But will that be before or after he sells another few hundred thousand American jobs to China, India and Mexico, Mrskjun?
My fear is that, like many a politician before him, Romney presents as a person with limited personal integrity who will easily be dictated to by others whom we, his constituency, can't see. He's already proven he is willing to sacrifice his own election team members and change his campaign promises on the whim of far-right-wing contributors; this bodes very ill for his ability to stand up to the entrenched power elite of Washington. I fear he will be an even handier tool of the corporate interests than Obama has been.
From where I'm standing, the growing discrepancy between rich and poor in this country is the sole biggest thing to fear in our future. Romney will hasten that process much faster and more enthusiastically than Obama, which is why I'm not voting for Romney. We may be inevitably headed toward becoming a larger version of Brazil, but I'd like to see us go there kicking and screaming. Obama's small whimpers are far from gratifying, but at least he makes a few noises.
"You TRUE BELIEVERS fail to understand that you are falling for the worst forms of propaganda and hate speech. The fact that some of you even seem to be intelligent makes it even more disgusting that you keep such propaganda going. Over the past four years the ugliness has grown. Some of you who I enjoyed reading have become almost irrational as you copy the words and speech patterns of some of the worst offenders and as you do they become even more rabid and irrational since you are encouraging them to ever more extreme invective."
The irony of that statement is amusing. Don't you believe that liberal people could just as easily replace "true believers" with Republican, conservative, or tea party members.
The biggest fear I have is that Homo sapiens will continue to relentlessly exploit the Earth's natural resources with little restraint, and destroy the Planet's health and ecological balance with catastrophic consequences, for the purposes of making a profit and meeting the escalating human appetite for those resources.
Unfortunately, I think the we are going to do that anyway, regardless of who is the US president, albeit perhaps at a little faster pace under the current Republicans.
Ryan is the the real bogeyman. A true disciple of Ayn Rand holding any kind of power is a scary thing...
True Believers unfortunately come in all flavors from one extreme to the other. It is sad to see the phenomenon take hold. Example: Huffington Post. After checking it this morning I have decided I won't bother again. It has been totally taken over by the asylum inmates. In seven years it has gone from a site that could inform to a site that is pure tabloid modeled on hate. The so called discussions this morning were oozing with so much venom I stopped reading. I have never done that before. There used to be something to learn that had value even if you didn't agree.
I wish this forum was not showing the same symptoms.
Huffington Post, really? I look at it now and here are the stories posted down the middle:
Top - Hugo Chavez wins election
Chuck Todd identifies enthusiasm gap for Democrats
Former Maldives President Arrested
Pair share Nobel Prize in Medicine
SpaceX Dragon capsule launches to Int'l Space Station
House Committee says China poses national security threat to US
Why Obama needs Biden
Romney to soften stance on Mideast Peace Process
Obama pokes fun at own debate performance
Will Gas Prices just keep getting higher?
Those articles show the inmates have taken over? Really?
The funny thing is that this "true believer" concept can be applied to either group. Anti-Obama folks are "true believers" that he is out to ruin the country. A few of the nuttier ones believe that he is full of hate and revenge. Others just believe he is out to get 47% of the people on welfare and get the 1% to pay for it all. In 2012, there are very, very few people that believe Obama is the knight in shining armor. At this point most of us just see him as the lesser of two evils. Honestly.
I don't know what my biggest Romney fear is - going backwards for the middle class, going backward for the environment, going backward for women's rights, going backwards in the Supreme Court ... but the basic fear is just GOING BACKWARDS, I guess.
And btw, Hugo Chavez has heartily endorsed Obama. Now that should send you to the polls.
esh, going backward for the middle class? That was no gaffe by Joe Biden. The middle class has surely been buried the last four years under Obama. 11 million added to the food stamp rolls, household income is down 8.2%, almost 7 million more families have fallen into poverty. Calling Romney a liar, a flip flopper, a douche bag, or any of the other nasty insulting names he has been called on this forum is not going to make Obama's record look any less abysmal.
My biggest fear that if Romney is elected, it will be too late to undo any of the damage that has been done to our country from prior "leadership."
Yes, mrskjun, I think it is possible that the middle class can go EVEN FURTHER backward if Romney and the Republicans gain the White House.
Hard to believe, I know.
Romney is a liar and a flip flopper but I have never called him a douche bag.
That brought back memories of how I felt in 2008, just drop Romney and insert Obama.
"he's rich and white and according to Obama that's reason enough to hate him."
Hi Monablair, can you explain to me when Obama gave this rationale for his intense hatred of white people? Please keep posting.
And explain why white people would have an intense hatred of white people, please.
Or are you assuming that Obama-voters are non-white and Republicans, the white people's party?
I've heard quite a few remarks about Obama also pandering to big business, having sold out, etc. What has to be considered is the immense hold that big business has on politics. Obama is a realist and knows that in order to get anything done at all he has to accede to at least some of their demands. He does not have the powers of a dictator and has to play with the big boys. The wonder to me is that he's managed to achieve what he has under the immense constraints he's under. The Republicans who have thwarted him at every step are all about big business, and it would be naive to assume that this hasn't had a huge impact on what he's managed to push through. It's easy to criticize when you have no idea what he's faced with on a daily basis. Appeasing the sharks while trying to swim upstream is a huge and endless challenge.
Yes that was strange Kate. How is it if white people do not like Romney we hate white people. White people only like black people? I am confused.
kwoods, I didn't say..."he's rich and white and according to Obama that's reason enough to hate him."
Someone else must have said this and you're crediting me.
And I'm not assuming that pro-Obama voters are non-white; on the contrary I know many of them are white. And as far as the Republican party...I don't believe it is a white people's party. There are many non-whites and Latinos in our circle of friends who are either registered Republicans or intend to vote for Romney this December.
Maybe heatred of white people is too strong a phrase...let's say intense dislike and mistrust is better.
Why do I feel this way? For starters, I think he plays the race card whenever he can in order to creat a black/white divide. The video where he is speaking to a group of black ministers and he claims that the people of New Orleans were treated with indifference and that money & help were slow in coming because of the color of their skins is a perfect example of this. And he didn't mention that he voted against a quick release of the very monies he complained didn't come fast enough.
I get a tone of bitterness towards whites as though he's blaming us who are here now, for the past injustice of slavery. We didn't do it; our forefathers did it.
I'm not sure about how he really feels about his mother and Italian grandparents. His white mother basically left him in the care of his white grandparents and we don't know if they were thrilled about having to raise a grandchild and one that had a Kenyan father, at that. Let me tell you I know about Italians and Spaniards in those years and how they would have reacted to a mixed race relationship and the child it produced. I'm just surmising, but I don't doubt that it wasn't a warm and loving household as he was growing up.
I just think the white people in his life treated him badly and he's bitter.
Now, I know there are those out there who will say I'm jumping to conclusions, and I very well may be. But that's how I see it.
My biggest fear that if Romney is elected...
is that the neoconservative will again be in charge of foreign policy. War on Iran, continued occupation in Afghanistan, agressive antagonism towards Russia and China and Pakistan.
I don't believe the economy or the middle class and the poor can survive a war with Iran.
My apologies Monablair, you are absolutely correct. I attributed words to you that you did not post and I should have taken greater care before doing so.
I do appreciate your response in spite of my mistake.
The quote was from a post by greatgollymolly.
I hope that both you, Monablair and GGM continue to post.
I fear my American flag will have to go back to the closet where I kept it during the Bush puppetry, er, presidency. His neocon 'patriots' terrifed me and made me ashamed of my fear. For the first time I began to understand what the average German must have felt watching a preverted nationalism sweep the country.
(Perhaps I should be more cautious in these posts. You never know who is 'listening' -- and needs to keep justifying his job.)
Monablair said: I just think the white people in his [Obama's] life treated him badly and he's bitter.
I'm one of those who is saying you are jumping to conclusions.
Obama was not treated badly by the white people in his life, so there was nothing to be bitter about there. He was treated badly by his black father who basically deserted his son at a very young age. So if there is any bitterness about poor treatment, it would make more sense to attribute it to his black father than to his white mother and grandmother. Obama has repeatedly expressed his love, respect, and admiration for his white mom and grandmother. There is no reason to think he was lying about those feelings.
One thing that has always impressed me about Obama is that he usually goes out of his way to NOT blame whites for the problems blacks face and to avoid turning issues into a black-white opposition. I think your sense of white guilt, monablair, is making you project a number of racially-divided attitudes onto Obama when, in fact, he has repeatedly shown almost too nice an attitude toward white Republicans when they have come up with some questionable (racially-speaking) phrasings or comments. If anything, Obama forgives and forgets too quickly, too easily.
I think you are seeing what you want to see--not what really is there. "Bitter" is about the last word I would think of applying to Obama. He is very much into looking forward, not backwards--that is the attitude of an optimist who sees the good potential of life, not a bitter disilusioned man living in the disappointments and degradations of the past. A big difference, I'd say.
kate, trust me when I say I have no sense of white guilt. Our family is a melting pot of ethnic backgrounds and we all speak our minds and try to see the others' points of view based on the way and where we were raised.
I still stand by my opinion. And I don't think I'm alone in feeling this way.
Demi..prior leadership I'm assuming would be your guy Bush? ..Mona, I'm assuming you've read Obama's books. If you did you would see what a loving relationship he had with his mother and grandparents. His mother may have made dubious choices in men, but she loved her kids and raised them to be all that they can be. Her son AND daughter were highly educated and are successful.
BTW, I have no black friends and never really did. My HS and college were 98% white, and I live in very Caucasian section of the state, except in the cities where I don't live. So I'm wondering why I was impressed with a young black man's speech at the 2004 Democratic convention, and supported him from the beginning when he announced his candidacy that snowy January morning. I should "identify" with the white pious guy, but I don't.
Romney scares me as much as Bush. He is a war monger , wants to increase military spending when they aren't even asking for that money in their budget. I am desperately scared for the change in the Supreme Court make up, and the total disregard for the environment. Capitalist make terrible conservationists. It's all about the bottom line, screw regulations, . . They are always screaming about the debt for our kids/grandkids but our descendents won't have a decent planet to live on.
Lily, I, too, was impressed with Obama's speech at the convention in 2004. I knew then that I had just heard a future POTUS speak and I was determined I would support this man who showed poise,charisma, intelligence and leadership ability if and when he ran for the office.
I voted for him in 2008 and shortly after his election, I started to have doubts. I can't recall exactly what caused me to feel this way, but I did and I cannot support him this time.
I am a registered Republican but I voted for Kennedy, Clinton and Obama....so it's not a party thing with me.
Mona -- My doubts surfaced when Obama was unable to get the Congress to ACT, even with a Democratic majority. Once we had the Party of No in place, it was amazing anything crept through. I don't think one man is responsible for that. Even wily LBJ had his work cut out for him.
We're talking about the Presidency, but this is supposed to be a three-legged stool. One 'leg' is close to being completely worm-holed. Today's Congress is only interested in getting elected and staying elected. They do it by serving the interests of their biggest campaign donors.
A much needed reform would limit campaigns to a few months, and limit PAC's.
I can basically agree with that--except I would want the campaigns to be more than a few months. I would not have taken that campaign time away from Hilary (whom I supported), and sometimes it takes more time for all the pertinent info. to surface. Too short a campaign season and we might not find out some things we need to know--though that still happens even with our unlimited seasons, doesn't it. However, some limit on campaign times would certainly be desirable.
I'm not sure presidents have ever had the capacity to make Congress act unless other circumstances assisted --like a 9/11 disaster, for instance. I might also point out that Congress --both Houses-- never had a democratic majority at the beginning of Obama's presidencey. The House had a strong Republican majority and the Senate barely squeaked through with a Democratic majority. All the Republicans in the Senate had to do to clog up the works was to declare a filibuster on anything Obama and the Dems wanted to pass. Supermajorities (60% vote) to overcome a filibuster have always been very hard to attain.
I don't see how President Obama was responsible for any of that. The only time Congress was Democratic was in the couple months between the election (Nov. 6) and the inauguration (Jan. 20, I think was the date)--during the time when Obama was NOT president yet. So how could he influence anything since he wasn't in office yet, and when he was, the Party of NO took over, as you noted.
I hold the Republicans responsible for that problem, not the president.
Bush and the repubs had total control of WH & congress for the first half of last decade, a lot of good came from that didn't it. Who in their right mind would want these guys back in charge?
Posted by lily316 z5PA (My Page) on Sun, Oct 7, 12 at 16:08
Our country will go straight to hell in a hand-basket if R&R get in.
lily...that is what has happened to our country under
Obama. It couldn't possibly do anything but get better
under Romney who at least knows alot about leading
and getting things done.
When he was in France he had to take over the Mission
after the Mission President left France.
Mitt Romney was just 19 years old and was put into a leadership position.
With that courage came leadership skills that would later propel Romney to success in business and politics. When the mission president left France following his wifeÃ¯Â¿Â½s death in a car accident Ã¯Â¿Â½ a crash that nearly killed Romney as well Ã¯Â¿Â½ the mission was left leaderless. Romney responded by embracing an expanded role, helping the mission to reach a goal of 200 new recruits.
The experience "allowed that which was naturally in him to then come to the fore," Dane McBride, who served alongside Romney in France, told FRONTLINE. "He went from being an exuberant young man to being a seasoned leader who had been through a world of experiences, and had accomplished some great things, not by himself, but by his leadership," said McBride
Some of you need to read about Romney instead of talking about things you know nothing about regarding his skills
and his ability to lead as our President.
His whole life has been about leading and getting things done.
If he does become our next President it might benefit
some to know Mitt Romney's real life history instead
of the made-up story you have been fed.
Obama supporters and Romney supporters will never agree on these two statements:
Obama supporter: Our country will go straight to hell in a hand-basket if R&R get in.
Romney supporter: that is what has happened to our country under Obama.
They will not convince each other. And they really won't convince the "undecideds" because if the undecideds could see the two in such B&W terms then they would not be undecided.
We know he is good at leading and getting things done. He's particularly good at leading big business into destroying companies, firing the workers, and exporting the businesses to China or wherever. Good at making money for himself and his rich buddies out of the lives of the workers he has broken.
But as for the leadership skills of a 19 year old. Get serious. Leading his religious group on their "mission" was no big deal. And they probably asked him to take over because of his family money. Some of these religious groups are very good at sucking up to any parishioner who has BIG MONEY. That doesn't mean that kid actually possessed sophisticated leadership skills that prepared him to effectively take on the global problems of our time. Even Romney doesn't overstate his own "skills" learned as a kid. I guess he leaves that for his anyone-but-Obama-followers to do.
esh, it doesn't stop there
Part 3 :
Obama was handed the original "hell in a hand basket"
I never thought amnesia was a serious problem, but it will be a fatal one unless people wake up.
Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan 2012
New Kids, Same Repub Results
Mitt's missionary work was to get him out of going to Vietnam . He actually protested in FAVOR of the war unlike the rest of his peers who were in anti war marches. HE just didn't want it to be HIM who was shot. Let some other poor sucker take his place.
When he'd be President, you can bet his FIVE sons would not be fighting in any of the wars he will start in the mid east.
When the Constitution was written it could take a year for information to be spread across the land, discussed, rebutted, whatever. I think we could do it in a few months. Haven't other First World nations mandated short campaign seasons?
There would still be behind-the-scenes jockeying for power, and the Lie Factories would still run full-tilt between elections. The advertising and PR firms might lose business. Doesn't it just sound much better? The Great Undecideds tend to pay no attention until right before Election Day anyway!
The Great Undecideds tend to pay no attention until right before Election Day anyway!
Now there you have a good point.
If there were some way to mandate a break (of several months at least) between the primary and the general election, I'd like that. Like they can't begin advertising and campaigning until the general election begins--let's say Sept. 1.
I'm still thinking a longer primary season is needed, but a total moratorium on campaigning/advertising inbetween the two would be great.
My biggest fear is that he will take your country to war and along with you all of us.
I cannot tell you how much that worries me, more than the economy, more than the social issues, more than anything else.
A war in the middle east has the potential to destroy us on so many fronts but honestly, it seems to me, like a huge number of Americans don't get that... it's like another war is no big deal! Just like the last two wars were no big deal.....
That is my biggest fear and I believe that is what he will do.
It's not really a fear as much as a resignation that he can say or do anything and most of the so called faux indies & Reeps could give a good crap!
Mitt Romney doesn't want us to go to war.
He just wants us to be military strong so if or when
we are attacked, we won't be caught playing the fiddle.
I agree with Romney 100% with the strong military and
how you must show you aren't a country to be pushed
around to maintain respect from around the world.
From some countries I would rather have their
fear than their respect.
It is our President's job to make sure we are PREPARED
and military strong at all times.
Obama's wants to hold hands and have a group hug as
he sings, "I Want To Teach The World To Sing In Perfect
Ahmadinejad. Obama under-estimates this psycho.
Obama's naivety could get us all killed just like his
naivety got our Ambassador and the three other Americans
We don't want to go to war. We just want to stay ready.
Ahmadinejad. Obama under-estimates this psycho.
Citywoman, are you aware of who really wields power in theocratic Iran?
Hint -- it's not the president.
I'm with Chase on this one.
My biggest fear would be another war if Mitt Romney is elected, most likely against Iran. And that is whether our moron Prime Minister decides to join in or not.
But honestly, I believe that fear exists even if Obama wins the election. I have watched as both Israel and the USA have been provoking Iran in recent months... moving military vessels and equipment into place, flying drones over Iran... and Mitt Romney is not the one calling the shots here.
I worry that something will happen with Iran, Obama or Romney (whoever is in power) makes the case that it is necessary to take action against Iran, and their respective followers will rally their blind support to the cause. The political fighting that follows is inconsequential...left and right will argue regardless... it's the toll in blood and infrastructure and lives and security of the Iranian people I worry about.
And yes, I can surely see Harper holding up the torch, sending OUR bombs and planes over there to wreak death and destruction on the people there just because he wants to put on a show.
That and John Baird's smug little freak face getting all excited that he gets to announce our contribution to another mess (BAIRD SMASH!)
The international community IS doing something. It's called sanctions. And they appear to be working.
Try BostonGlobe.com today and get two weeks FREE (already subscribe? log in).
As IranÃ¯Â¿Â½s economy crashes, sanctions could yet bear fruit
EDITORIAL : EDITORIAL
THIS STORY APPEARED INOctober 06, 2012
It has taken more than six years, but the day that State Department officials have been waiting for has finally come. The Iranian economy appears to be teetering on the brink of collapse, thanks to a chokehold of unprecedented international sanctions. On Monday and Tuesday, IranÃ¯Â¿Â½s currency lost 40 percent of its value. Protests have erupted in Tehran over the skyrocketing price of food. On Thursday, the regime arrested more than a dozen people on charges of manipulating the rial, IranÃ¯Â¿Â½s currency. The countryÃ¯Â¿Â½s central bank canÃ¯Â¿Â½t shore up the rial with foreign reserves because much of those reserves Ã¯Â¿Â½ stored in banks overseas Ã¯Â¿Â½ have been frozen by the
Is that what we call "working"?
Their economy collapsing, the price of food skyrocketing, their currency plummeting, protests everywhere and their government can't even help because we have stolen all of their reserve currencies. Well, at least until a friendly government that works for US instead of the IRANIANS is put in place.
Lets hope they have more mercy on us than we do on them.
that's exactly what sanctions are intended to do. And the international community has coordinated efforts.
To me sanctions have always meant the population suffers more and more. Six years of that to bring the government there to its knees, assuming that even works. What about the quality of life of the people there? How would we feel if all the joy has gone out of lives because we can barely survive and have no money left for the little things that make life worth living for us and our children, or even the big things like education and jobs? I definitely think it's very wrong to freeze funds that belong to Iran; I wasn't aware of this before and am unhappy about it.
citywoman, who is it you think is going to attack us? Iran? That would be pretty laughable. Who else has an interest in attacking us? Do you really think our military is not strong enough now under this president to fend off attacks from anyone? You need to inform yourself a little more before you make such an unrealistic assumption.
Ingrid writes: "How would we feel if all the joy has gone out of lives because we can barely survive and have no money left for the little things that make life worth living for us and our children, or even the big things like education and jobs?"
Hmmm, sounds like our country is almost at this point after 3 1/2 years under this administration.
I was thinking along the same lines, Mona. As far as "who is it you think is going to attack us?" goes, it's already started. We are attacking each other. That should make us easier pickings.
I too believe in a strong US military.
"The best defense is a good offense."
We already have the strongest military on the planet. If we don't, that means that billions have been thrown down a rat hole.
From the Economist:
Yes we do. Today.
citywoman, who is it you think is going to attack us? Iran? That would be pretty laughable. Who else has an interest in attacking us? Do you really think our military is not strong enough now under this president to fend off attacks from anyone? You need to inform yourself a little more before you make such an unrealistic assumption.
I think Israel can handle Iran but I'm not sure
Obama will "handle" the real threat we have .....which is
That hate the USA. Their hate reached 3000 of our people
on American soil.
That was on our soil. You do remember that right?
I am not naive enough that I think Obama has everything under control.
They aren't through by a long shot.
I am fully informed of threats and possible threats
I don't live in an Obama Bubble and I still have a nephew
in the war.
I will repeat I want a strong military.
If Obama is re-elected, he will dismantle the largest
part of our military.
He thinks he can woo our enemies with a smile and BS
because that how he got elected and he thinks it works on everyone now.
Obama is into sweet-talking not showing any strength.
The "War on Terror" should really be called the "War on Militant Islam." The terrorists of September 11, al-Qaeda, and the Taliban all adhere to an ideology we have come to know as militant Islam, a minority outgrowth of the faith that exudes a bitter hatred for Western ideas, including capitalism, individualism, and consumerism. It rejects the West and much that it has to offer (with the exception of weapons, medicines, and other useful technologies) seeking instead to implement a strict interpretation of the Koran (Islam's holy book) and shari'a (Islamic law). America, as radical Muslims see it, is the primary impediment to building an Islamic world order.
Militant Islam has strongholds in Algeria, Egypt, Somalia, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, the Palestinian territories, Lebanon, Jordan, Yemen, Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Pakistan, to name just a few countries. The challenge now will be finding ways to destroy the radical infrastructure and arrest or kill militants while simultaneously bolstering the influence of moderate Muslims. How to accomplish this task is unclear.
So ingrid...do you think these people will play
patty cake with Obama?
And exactly who was President when we were attacked, CW? Your weak minded Bush who spent the summer chopping wood in Texas. Obama killed bin Laden and many high ranking Al Qaeda leaders.
Bush may be long gone but his neo con buddies linger on like John Bolton. Raving lunatics, all.
Meanwhile, the polls are now showing the race a dead heat...
I find the comparison between the living conditions of people in the USA during a downturn-- with a fully functioning infrastructure, abundant and relatively cheap food supply, unemployments rates between 8-10%, and trillions of dollars in government spending-- and that of a middle eastern country like Iran or Iraq living under sanctions -- with fractured infrastructure, food costs spiralling out of control, unemployment rates of 15-20% and government reserves all frozen-- to be a spurious comparison.
Do we really want to add "Bombs dropping out of the sky" to that list of things to contrast?
HG, thanks, saved me the typing....though it is futile at times. Apparently the GOP has convinced (polite for saying fooling the hell out of) their followers that things here couldn't get any worse...or couldn't get any worse under a prez Romney. Having an etch-a-sketch prez full of unpredictable quirks will really insure stability and confidence for Americans.
I am much better off today than I was 4 years ago and getting better by the day. Some here have a mental block between 1988-2008, their last Prez was Reagan.
Posted by kwoods Cold z7 Long Is (My Page) on Mon, Oct 8, 12 at 10:25
Class warfare: Always good for a vote or two.
You can see why someone might think that Obama doesn't take kindly to rich white folks.
My biggest fears are that Romney will lead us into a major war in the Middle-East, and the demise of the Middle Class in America. He has made it clear that he will support Israel no matter what, and that he will surround himself with Hawks. He has also made it clear that he will not restrain Wall Street. The clincher for me was the "47 % " speech. That's how the man truly thinks. Born with a silver spoon in his mouth, of a privileged family, he in no way could be in touch with the common man.
Some of the egregious commentary on this thread I am not going to dignify with a response....
Hay, I never said that. I corrected the poster who credited me with that statement and he realized he'd made a mistake.
Being rich and white isn't a crime (yet) in this country; neither is being rich and black ( Oprah, Cosby, Beyonce,and others too numerous to mention)
I don't resent anyone for his/her success. I just want the freedom to try to get where they're at without having to share (give away) what I've worked hard for. I don't mind helping others less fortunate to help themselves; I don't want to support them full time, that's all.
And I don't resent anyone for his/her success either. I don't mind helping others less fortunate, but I don't want to help the rich lower their tax burden by assuming a larger (middleclass) tax burden to pay for it so that they can get richer and richer while I get poorer and poorer for their sakes.
Citywoman -- And do you remember what caused 9/11? How would you react if a superpower's neocon 'nation builders' bombed your nation back to the stone age? How many *Iraqi civilians* are dead or in exile thanks to the master puppeteer Cheney and the Pentagon?
We have more 'defense' than we could ever use. If you want wars, just keep feeding the Pentagon; they will find you a war...somewhere. However (gasp) what would happen to our economy if we stopped building arms (and buying million dollar toilet seats)? Who would employ our mercenary army -- many of whom enlisted because *they couldn't find jobs*? How would the Cheney's of the world make more billions?
Do we need to bring back the draft to get Americans truly *engaged* in foreign policy and military spending?
momablair, if you've ever spent time in a third-world country (I have) you would bite your tongue off rather than make it in any way comparable to the US. You just don't have the slightest idea of how privileged we are.
Ryan is going to disavow his Ayn Rand statements (lie about them), repeat the "we can't afford this outrageous spending" mantra, and then blame that on Obama, as though he chose to stimulate the economy for ideological reasons rather than as a reasoned economic approach to deal with the Bush Crash.
I am not sure how Biden can respond to that in a short debate where details are seldom discussed.
Find a war? They'll CREATE a war if they have to! Such entities have 'been there - done that', already! Let's not forget how profitable war is, never mind all the common folk considered collateral damage... it's to be expected, ya know, and why you have to consider some lives as expendable, I say sarcastically.
We have way more defense than we'll ever need! And that's not even considering the fact that we do not have any god-given right to impress our way of life upon any other peoples or nations! The slice of the pie chart given over to defense spending is positively ridiculous in its size and waste!
As a nation, we ARE incredibly privileged! Ingrid is right! Too many people take it all for granted!
As privileged as we are, though, it would still be nice if the playing field were level and just... and not skewed in favor of those with most of the privilege, already.
Biden needs to be aggressive...no mister nice guy. He needs to quote Ayn Rand and pound Ryan on it. If Ryan denies, don't let it roll. Counter with quotes from him. Do not let up. Don't get cutesy and folksy. Make everyone see Ryan has no foreign policy experience and is just a spewing wonk. He's as dangerous as Cheney.
I suspect that after the first debate in which the president failed to call out Mr. Romney on his lies and half-truths, the strategy will be for Joe Biden to take a no-holds-barred approach with Ryan. With Sarah Palin he had to take care to not come across as too aggressive toward a woman, but now there is no reason for him to hold back, and I suspect that he won't. I really don't think they'll make the same mistake twice.
Having said that, now that the dust has settled after the first debate and serious analysis has taken place, Mr. Romney's unexpectedly vigorous delivery has been offset by the flawed contents, and his upsurge in the polls has apparently declined.
Ingrid, stop scolding me, please. It's not your place to do so.
My comments were directed at how our standard of living has gone down in the past years and things we used to be able to afford are not within our reach anymore. Fewer people are contributing to the economy and more people are reaching out to benefit from the active workers' contributions.
And if we continue going in the path BO is taking us down, we're going to end up like the European countries..... with a collapsed economy.
Yes, which we might if Romney is elected, but I think we have a much better chance of avoiding that collapse if he is.
If Obama is reelected, I see no way to avoid that collapse.
Obama's promised too much of other people's money and what he does not realize is he can't depend on it.
I totally disagree with Demi and monablair.
Regardless of who is elected the economy will turn around. All the signs of a slow but steady economic recovery are there, unemployment, housing starts, housing prices, stock market etc. As much as we like to project it on them Presidents have very little to do with the actual economy. The primary responsibility for fiscal responsibility lies with Congress.
I believe that Congress will pull, yet again another, 11th hour drama and come to grips with the deficit so that sequestration does not occur. Regardless of who is elected Congress has no choice but to deal with the "fiscal cliff" .
Taxes will go up for some, loop holes will be closed, programmes will be cut and life will go on.
The how may be different depending on the configuration of CONGRESS but it will happen.
I am against war, and want a protected environment, so these two things right there keep me from voting Republican. Add in that I don't believe that corporations will regulate themselves, and I don't want Jesus in our laws, and there two more reasons for me to not to vote them in. I think that women should have the right to choose to get/be pregnant or not, so another reason I won't vote Republican. I want equal rights for all, and it doesn't seem to me that Republicans consider everyone equal. And I believe that we are all in this together, and not the individual attitude of I got mine, too bad for you, so again, no Republicans for me.
Mitt Romney isn't running for president to serve his country - he's in it for his own ambition. He wants his presidential portrait on the wall with all the others and he's proven many times that he will lie and do anything to get elected. He has no idea how most people here live, and I don't think he wants to learn either, we are dismissed by him. I have no doubt that he is a great businessman, but our country is not a corporation. He stashes his money overseas to avoid US taxes, a real American patriot. He has no integrity or ethics, but really none of them do and honestly, I'm not sure that he could ruin this country any worse than any other Republican president would. They all think the same way: slash taxes, increase the military, trash the environment and who cares about education, infrastructure and the needy.
I want 4 more years of President Obama for continued respect in the world (and I do think he has built that for us), and I do not want a Republican appointing judges on the SC. The economy has been steadily improving and I think that President Obama has the best interests of our country in his mind and I would like him to finish the job he started.
Ingrid is not scolding, she is pointing out a fact (re: the third world country she has seen and experienced with her own eyes) the actual and real circumstances you have disregarded in your analysis of of your statement about the President and what he has done, what you have decided and declared in this forum about what you think he will do in the future, if re-elected.
I'm still reeling over his 47% remarks.
Brava, Kitchenwitch! I agree with your points.
Did you know that Obama has disappointed some of the rest of the world by being *too right wing*?
DH attended a lecture at his alma mater today to hear a visiting professor of political science from Germany. He said that polls indicate that Europeans are disappointed about Obama's failure to close Guantanamo, the use of drones in Pakistan, and a weak stance on the environment -- among other things.
Only one in twenty would endorse Romney. Most fear a return to Bush era policies. (Romney's 30-member advisory team includes a large number or neocons from the Bush government including former UN ambassador John Bolton, who favors bombing Iran.)
The professor cited polls of 12,000 people across Europe, the Middle East, North Africa, Pakistan and China that were conducted for a YouGov-Cambridge forum held in conjunction with sponsor ship by The Guardian newspaper.
Kitchenwitch. Are we twins separated at birth?
I have a unique idea on how to level the playing field. Why don't the people at the bottom get off their butts, go to work and try to achieve what the upper crust have instead of sitting on their butts waiting for someone to come take care of them!!!
If we have too much military now why didn't Hillary honor the request for additional security for those men who were killed 3 weeks ago? I have an idea, you people who think we spend too much on military to protect your butt need to go live in a Muslim country since you feel you need no protection from those who hate us.
"We're going to end up like the European countries - with a collapsed economy".
Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Belgium, Norway, Austria, Hungary - I gather they don't constitute a part of Europe
mona, having spent four months in India, and not as a tourist, I am not "scolding you", I am simply saying you must not have an idea of what awful places some countries are. I think it IS my place to point that out to you. This is a public forum, is it not? I really haven't noticed anyone else holding back, and that does include you.
First of all, I agree with the Europeans about Obama's disappointments.
I also don't see how it is possible for all poor people to just get off their butts and get to work and achieve what the upper crust has. Most poor people do have jobs, maybe more than one. They make small incomes for all their hours and probably need help with basic necessities. It's not even practical to think that everyone should be doing the same. Who will flip your burgers or clean the restrooms? Perhaps these are the people you distain so much. They actually make your life better so why not help them?
Ingrid, I do have an idea of what it's like in those poverty stricken countries. I know we're not at that level and I hope to God that as a country we never get that low.
Without comparing our lives to those of the people in India and other countries....there are people in this country who feel exactly what your words said. We are very priviledged to have so much here, but this isn't the same country of opportunity that it was for my grandparents and parents.
They came over from countries where they had nothing. They came with the knowledge that if they worked hard, saved their money they could succeed in giving their children a better life than they had.
We can't say this today. I don't believe the next generation will ever be able to enjoy the fruits of its labors. As soon as they make a little money, the government steps in and takes it. There is no real incentive to work and many people don't realize that the money used to provide the sevices is actually money earned by the people. The monies used to fund entitlement services is money paid into the system by the people who are actually working. Each year more and more people are dipping into the pot and fewer and fewer are paying into it.
Where will it end? Somebody has to say, "Whoa, we have to slow down and re-evaluate what we're doing."
I think the time has come to get another opinion and to try something new. What we've been doing isn't working and it's time for a change.
mona, the downward trend you mention began long before President Obama took office. Surely you understand the horrible legacy that the Bush administration left behind, and the president had no help from Congress in trying to turn the situation around. The situation was so dire at that time that the estimate was that it would take five to ten years to turn it around. We're not even at the four-year mark yet. Even under the best circumstances there hasn't been enough time and the circumstances have been far from ideal.
There is no real incentive to work
You don't feel any real incentive to work? Could you explain how Obama somehow made you feel this way? Or are you just referring to your children?
I don't believe the next generation will ever be able to enjoy the fruits of its labors. As soon as they make a little money, the government steps in and takes it.
And why is it that people make just a little money? Is it because businesses aren't incentivized to give them a living wage?
And if they make just "a little money", chances are they aren't paying federal taxes either ... so was it about the government taking it away?
I don't know the citation for these quotes about the role of government. The first sounds like Reagan. I agree with the second.
"The government should take care of the rich, and the rich will take care of the poor."
Or: "The government should take care of the poor. The rich will take care of themselves."
Posted by chisue (My Page) on
Wed, Oct 10, 12 at 10:48
Uh, just WHERE do you think "the government" gets money?
The rich pay the lion's share of the taxes that GO to "the poor."
The RICH, mostly, and to an extent the middle class take care of the poor.
"""""""""""""""My biggest fear that if Romney is elected, it will be too late to undo any of the damage that has been done to our country from prior "leadership."
That's my biggest fear also demi. I hope and pray that our country can still be saved but if obama is elected again I feel we can kiss the country we have known and loved goodbye.
"""""""""""""""paying no attention to global warming (no money to be made from that, after all)."
No money to be made??????????Maybe you should check with Al Gore on that. The man has made millions on "Global Warming". Then we have the "Green Energy" companies to which obama gave approximately $90 million bucks. Many of those companies ere contributors to obama and many of those companies have now gone bankrupt.........$90 million dollars............where did it go.
"""""""""""""""we've gone all the way back to his youth when he forcibly cut another boy's hair, dodged the draft by moving to France, began Bain with investments from a drug cartel, allowed his dog to ride on top of his car for 12 hours, and have watched him lie over and over in full view "
Well maybe you should go all the way back to obama's youth when he, instead of allowing his dog to ride on top of his car, ate dog, bullied a girl who liked him, was into heavy drinking, marijuana use and coke when he could afford it (his words from his book, not mine and no not an "exact quote"), was good friends in his youth and later life with Bill Ayers, in fact Ayers threw a party to announce obama's decision to run yet obama said they only knew each other due to their kids attending the same school???. check out Ayers kids ages and obama;s kids ages. Nor was obama raised in a poor home enablling him to emphathize with the poor or even middle class as has been insinuated by many but was raised in a "VERY UPPER" middle class family and attended a prestigious private college preparatory Punahou Academy, still considered the finest school in Hawaii. As for lies, how about obama's statment that his uncle helped liberat Auschwitz or that his father served in WWII or maybe you should consider one of obama's most recent when he stated that the killing of Chris Stevens and 3 others was caused by a movie!!!!
""""""""""""""""Obama is a realist and knows that in order to get anything done at all he has to accede to at least some of their demands"
In other words it's OK for obama to "flip- flop" on his stated beliefs, especially since reelection draweth nigh but God forbid that anyone else should even sound like they "might" change their minds on a subject.
"""""""""""""""""Surely you understand the horrible legacy that the Bush administration left behind,"
If obama is elected I just wonder who he is going to blame for the mess he will be walking into this time .
Ladybrat, excellent post.
Oh, I see... we should rattle the cages of the disabled, pull the students out of colleges, shake up the under aged, and make them all go to work! Such lazy slackers, those paraplegics and children... always expecting a free ride... I say with large loads of sarcasm, because such stereotypes that portray anyone in need of help as lazy ARE large loads! Good grief!
The level of justifying greed in this world is simply beyond grasping. Unbelievable.
Demi -- Many of 'The rich' have inherited wealth and investment income. They (we) pay a smaller percentage in taxes than the middle class or working poor -- except when running amok at Tiffany's!
Is this a democracy or not? A thriving, educated, *hopeful* middle class has been the strength of this nation. The current disparity in wealth *and taxation* is killing our 'noble experiment'. Ungoverned capitalism is bankrupting our democracy. We fought back from monopolistic wealth in the past. Can we do it again?
omg...jodik has it...right after we starve the children and throw the elderly off the cliff, we'll go after the disabled and bring back child labor. We've been found out...gasp!!!
No one I know of that has participating or is participating on this forum has ever "portrayed anyone in need of help as lazy."
To charge so is disingenuous when in fact, I, and others, have posted scores and scores of times that paraplegics, children, the disabled, physically and mentally, those temporarily down on their luck, those unemployed through no fault of their own, etc. deserve and should receive taxpayer assistance.
Any of you are free to get off the computer, get a job, and give extra money personally, and send in extra money with your tax return--oops, for those of you that actually pay federal income taxes--to help people.
In the meantime, those of us who DO contribute to the federal coffers will keep on paying our taxes and giving to those in need, and continue to take coals heaped on on heads by those that sit back and squawk that we are "justifying greed."
Demi -- I don't know who you are addressing. I'm so rich that I have plenty of time to be online, and I want a government that is fair -- not 'charity' as determined by you or any individual.
(That reminds me, didn't Romney claim the four million dollars he gave to the Mormon conglomerate as charity?)
Who are you talking to ???
Most of us sitting on this computer don't need to feel "free to get off the computer, get a job, and give extra money personally, and send in extra money with your tax return--oops, for those of you that actually pay federal income taxes--to help people."
We already do all of that or have managed to plan for and enjoy a nice retirement as well as pay lots and lots in taxes.
You see how one feels about social issues and a social safety net is not tied to whether one pays taxes or not. It's tied to your values.
Don't lecture me, Chase.
I just said how I feel about social issues and a social safety net--read the above post and the myriad of posts over the years I've made on that subject.
The fact that some of us feel that we should not pay more in taxes unless the waste and fraud is cleaned up has nothing to do with having "values."
Conservatives have values just like liberals and everyone inbetween and outside.
Thank you Chisue, well put.
Having ample finances and spending time on an online discussion forum hardly precludes the desire to live in a just society, Demi. The brush you use for your social stereotyping is so broad it's laughable.
Demi said, "The fact that some of us feel that we should not pay more in taxes unless the waste and fraud is cleaned up has nothing to do with having "values."
I, and countless others like us, feel the same way.
There are some people who do need help but there sure are lots of others who are milking the system... and our government seems to be looking the other way while they do it.
There are some people who do need help but there sure are lots of others who are milking the system
Just out of curiosity - what would you say the percentage is?
How many people that use the welfare system need it and what percent is milking it?
Get off you high horse!! I was not lecturing you not even close!!! You on the other hand did exactly that with this comment.....
"Any of you are free to get off the computer, get a job, and give extra money personally, and send in extra money with your tax return--oops, for those of you that actually pay federal income taxes--to help people.
I asked you who you were talking too and stated my view just as you did. I didn't even comment on your opinion, simply stated mine.
So who were you talking too?
I'm curious too - how many people do you think are milking the welfare system who don't need it, and to what total cost, compared to the billions that are being milked from the tax loophole system by corporations who don't need it?
I was talking to no one poster in particular, but specifically any poster that castigates those who in fact do contribute to this country by paying federal income taxes and DO help the downtrodden by accusing them of being selfish, greedy, and uncaring.
That covers a lot of people, at different times.
I could add as well, any poster that castigates those who in fact do contribute to this country by paying federal income taxes and DO help the downtrodden, by accusing them of being hypocritical, enabling irresponsible behaviours, and wanting to spend others money.
There no we have everyone on the forum!
Monablair -- The 'system' doesn't exist that can't be milked or bilked. The wealthy will never pay their fair share if we forego the good, waiting for the perfect.
You make some peculiar assumptions. I may not be in the one percent, but my DH and I have accumulated wealth. We have paid federal, state and local government taxes for many, many years and continue to do so. Yet, we do NOT pay a fair percentage as compared with a middle class wage earner.
I don't want to live in an oligarchy. My patriot ancestors fought hard for this democracy, and I want it to be strengthened, not descend into total crass commercialism.
chisue, what would you consider your fair percentage? And please tell me what the wealthy's fair would be, in your opinion?
Canada has a federal income tax system that charges income tax as a percent to income on a progressive scale. I believe these percentages to be fair as it applies to your level of income. Do I wish it was lower for all...sure! But the range is fair.
15% on the first $42,707 of taxable income, +
22% on the next $42,707 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $42,707 up to $85,414), +
26% on the next $46,992 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $85,414 up to $132,406), +
29% of taxable income over $132,406 (just on the amount over 132,406 so if you earn 150K you pay 29% on 18K)
We have very few personal deductions compared to the States.
My husband and I are fortunate enough to pay a considerable amount of our income taxes at the higher rates. Yes I said fortunate enough and I mean that.
Do I wish our taxes were lower, you bet. Am I OK with paying what I do so that we can provides all Canadians with universal healthcare, reasonably priced post secondary education and a decent infrastructure......ABSOLUTLEY!
Chase's schedule sounds reasonable to me, including the fewer loophole deductions. I would lower the tax on the first tier and raise it on the upper tiers.
The idea that tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations is key to job creation has certainly been debunked over last two administrations. What they do is destabilize our democracy.
chase, at what income level do the taxes begin? Someone earning $10,000 would still pay 15% ?
yes......but the basic personal deduction for everyone is just over 10K and then there may be dependent child deductions etc....but if your taxable income after your personal deduction is 5K then you pay 15 % on that.
We do have deductions just not as many as you folk seem to have so it is unlikely anyone earning 20K or less would actually pay taxes.
If I'm remembering correctly, Canadians each must file their own return. Married couples can't file a joint return.
Chase correct me if this is not the case.
That's correct we each file our own return although there are certain financial considerations that may be shared between couples such as income averaging on pensions.
If I could make a slight correction/clarification on the above.
No, someone earning 10,000 would not pay income taxes. The first 10K for everyone (because of the basic personal deduction mentioned by Chase) is not taxable.
Also, your taxes will depend on what province you live in. In Canada, you file ONE tax return and that pays both your federal and provincial taxes. The money is collected by the federal government who then transfers the provincial portion to your province.
Actually, I have a cute little site you guys can use to see what kind of taxes you would pay in Canada if you wanted to see for yourself. It's not exact and it doesn't have ALL deductions and credits, but it does have all the major ones and I have found the final numbers to work out quite close.
Couple tips for trying this... if you do not have a spouse, you can claim an "Equivalent to Spouse" amount. That is a dependant child or other dependant relative who lives with you. So, a single parent can claim a non-working or low income child the same as a non-working or low income spouse. If in doubt, leave the box as it's default or blank.
Give it a try, I'm actually curious to know how much more you would pay in tax if you lived in Canada. Try changing the province to see the difference in taxes depending on what province you live in.
Remember, this is both federal AND provincial tax, so compare it to your current federal AND state taxes.
Also, the amount you pay for your health premium should show... it will give you an amount to compare to what you currently pay for health insurance. If you choose Ontario as your province, you can see the amount in the provincial column on the "Ontario Health Premium" line. The health insurance premium is included in your total tax for the year.
Here is a link that might be useful: Tax Calculator
Thank you for your answers. Very interesting info.
The devil is in the deductions. I know that to be true in our personal filings. It's also what I see pointed out in articles about what 'The 1%" pay -- or don't pay.
On our personal federal filing our 'taxable income' is 67% of our actual income -- and, as investment advisors have pointed out over the years, we could lower that percentage considerably with some clever tax-dodging investments, trusts, etc.
A commentator expressed my feelings best.....
If he wins the Big Money supporters roll the money up and will beat him with the money they paid and walk him like a dog.
He has said kill regulations on the job creators.
A few more oil spills and when there is not a safe bit of seafood I suspect there will be a lot of fisherman wishing they had some government assistance. All they will need is another Katrina under that austerity budget to finish off Bobby Jindal and the State of Louisiana