11 votes

This is a legitimate question from me about Mitt Romney...

I just had an argument with my father about who I should vote for.

Here is some background to put this question into context.

I collect an income tax return when tax day comes around. I only pay into social security and medicare in Texas based on my taxes.

My father states that because he pays tens of thousands in taxes due to his tax bracket, he is going to vote for Romney.

My father says that every presidential election comes down to those that pay into the system through taxes and those that take out through taxes; the Democrats being the latter and the Republicans in the former in his scenario.

He says that since I don't pay into the tax system as he does(which is tens of thousands of dollars), he lives in the real world and I do not. Him being in his stated "real world", he knows the only choice for him and for others living in the "real world" is to vote for Romney, the lesser of two evils. He is aware of the lesser of two evils bit.

He even goes as far as saying that voting for Romney is voting for positive change because he will at the very least be able to save some money in taxes.

I brought up how Bush's term raised the national debt by $5 trillion. He responds by saying that Obama is raising it by $1 trillion per year.

His main sticking point is that during his years of running a business, he has had to pay less taxes under Republican presidents than democratic presidents.

If there is an argument I can convincingly counter this argument with, I would love to hear it.

Thanks for any responses.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Ask him why?

Does he expect anything to change and is he happy with the way things are now? Because a vote for Romney will result in exactly the same way things are now. Liberals have been angry with Obama because he has not been liberal enough to them, Romney has always been classified as a moderate which means he will be almost identical to Obama.

Either way...

it's still a vote for evil!

When Fascism goes to sleep, it checks under the bed for Ron Paul!

I Won't Vote For A Cheater

Romney, his supporters, and his campaign have cheated every step of the way from disenfranchising average voters by rigging the straw votes in each state to disenfranchising delegates at every level in many of the states where selection of delegates are tied too tightly to the rigged straw votes.

If Romney was winning "fair n' square" I would have considered voting for him. I wasn't at first bothered that much by seeing how the straw votes were being rigged because we knew we had more grassroots supporters that were planning on turning out in the conventions. But unfortunately he lost my vote completely once I started seeing how his campaign and supporters were cheating and disenfranchising delegates at the conventions happening across the country.

I have realized, if Romney is allowed to wrongfully win the nomination, I will be convinced that the people don't have voting rights any longer and we can expect our country to slip into civil war in many forms against this "NWO Bankster Fascist" Regime that refuses to back down against the people. Romney is NWO all the way as that became evident from his Bankster Goldman Sachs donors. Also the fact that he now says he will repeal and replace? Obamacare, with what? Obamneycare? Romneycare? He's on the same team with Obama, they are both just trying to make it seem like they are different.

The fact that witnesses say Romney was seen at the latest Bilderberg meeting along with Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels tells me thats quite possibly the "NWO ticket"... Wondering also if Romney will be running around naked at Bohemian Grove as well? Anyone seen him make a public appearance lately with clothes on?

I am convinced the situation may become very ugly and very disgusting, very fast. It's "Fast and Furious" in more ways than one, as the people continue to realize just how much control these Bankster criminals seem to be forcing down people's throats while continuing to further stripping people's human and civil rights around the world.

It hasn't and continues to not be easy for these criminal "fascists" to drag down the Americans. They were actually doing ok when they were seeming to keep their dirty deeds off of Americans front door steps. I'm not sure why they started to screw with the American people by escalating their ridiculous "NWO tactics" in the U.S. Each regime must pay a price to stay in power. I believe their price was to keep the American economy comfortable for everyone. Once they started to let that go to crap, their whole deck of cards pretty much has been getting turned over since and everyone around the world sees their hand. In the process, they reveal themselves and then they end up becoming targets eventually as their days I believe are becoming numbered.

These "fascists" screwed America big time starting with the Patriot Act and it's been downhill from there. They know they can't treat Americans as they do people in other countries. They know that to be successful, they MUST figure a way to fool the Americans into giving up firearms (latest attempts I believe are the LOST and Small Arms Treaties(Obama scheduled to sign on July27th)), as they have been able to accomplish similarly around the world. They MUST fool Americans with censored media(legislation currently being introduced to prosecute journalists for leaking what the government considers sensitive to national security http://www.dailypaul.com/244587/congress-now-trying-to-outla...). They MUST keep drugging and sterilizing Americans with their pharmaceuticals and poison in the food and water to keep Americans from thinking rationally. They MUST keep Americans from learning about their controlled terrorism by continuing to backhand their way into censoring he internet and continuing to pursue propaganda in their controlled MSM (latest I believe is ACTA being introduced by our favorite Texas Senator Lamar Smith, TX Congressman who introduced SOPA strikes again). Unless they accomplish these tasks completely, they won't win and they won't have the time to shut America down before possible fighting patriots may decide to hunt these criminals down individually, and then what?

As they continue to steal from America, they may eventually attempt to steal from the wrong people and could possibly find themselves hanging from a tree of liberty as Thomas Jefferson described (1743–1826) QUOTATION: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure." Many are perplexed at how they think that they can somehow pull this "New World Order" type "One World Gov't" thing off, especially in America, although they've been able to bully their way around the world so far.

-LibertyG ... 2 Corinthians 2:16-17 "To some we are a scent of death leading to death, but to others, a scent of life leading to life. And who is competent for this? For we are not like the many who make a trade(for profit) but as those with sincerity...

"Read My Lips: No New Taxes"

George H.W. Bush - Republican Presidential Nominee August 1988

Yet he did raise taxes.



Because he didn't want to cut spending. It's best to have low spending, low taxes, and no debt. BUT, if politicians won't cut spending, I'd rather have higher taxes to pay for that spending than have a higher debt. Borrowing money is an "easy out" that hides the problem. It's unethical. Pay for what you want. If you don't have the money, you shouldn't get it.

Lower taxes = Higher debt

Thanks for sharing the conversation. I like the fact that it's grounded in the real world.

I agree with an earlier response: Obviously there's more to life than taxes. That's a pretty narrow criteria on which to judge. I don't mean to criticize your dad, but I think it's both reductionistic and irresponsible. Not only does it ignore other important issues--life and liberty, for example--but it ignores the national debt, which isn't just going to be a problem for some abstract "future generation." It's linked to devaluation of the dollar. If we do have a sovereign debt crisis, it could bring the whole house of cards down for the present generations.

For what it's worth, here's a bit from a book manuscript I'm finishing up that may be relevant. It deals with the Reagan administration and its betrayal of its conservative promise:

Governor Reagan spent the 1970s criticizing the fiscal irresponsibility of big government. In the 1980s, President Reagan never submitted a balanced budget to Congress and racked up record deficits. The phrase record deficits does not do justice to the history. Under Reagan, the national debt tripled in size. Far more deficit spending occurred under Reagan than under all of his predecessors combined. As a percentage of GDP, the national debt of the Reagan years exceeded that of the New Deal and the Great Society. He continued and greatly accelerated the spendthrift trend of Nixon-Ford-Carter. Although taxes were openly raised under Reagan, the “no tax” dogma that became popular among Republicans in the 1990s—without accompanying cuts in spending (including military appropriations and foreign aid)—ensured that the budget problem got even worse under subsequent presidents. “No new taxes” replaced “Pay as you go” as a foundational conservative principle. In practice, “No new taxes” has meant “Higher national debt.” It has allowed big government pseudo-conservatives to break the bank in spending without incurring the short-term wrath of those who resent higher taxes. It is fiscally irresponsible and morally dubious but it has been good politics for most Republicans. Only a minority within the party—libertarians and deficit hawks—have seemed genuinely concerned.

This is a great answer. Mucho aprecio!

Perhaps he will understand under your historical circumstances.

Love thy enemy.

welfare is not just for the poor

You might also point out that "those that take out through taxes" are not just poor people. The welfare state is an equal-opportunity project and Republicans support it just as much as Democrats. I'm guessing that federal tax dollars to the overprivileged dwarf aid to the underprivileged.

What's the Commerce Department all about if not one gigantic exercise in corporate welfare? It was Bush who began the bailouts. He laid the groundwork for the entire Obama administration, including many of the same personnel. Then there's the State Department and foreign aid. The Defense Department and the military-industrial complex. The middle class are part of the system, as well. Establishment Republicans tinker with details but they're not going to dismantle Leviathan.

I assume your dad resents poor people sponging off the federal government, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. It's one thing I like about Ron Paul. He doesn't rhetorically beat up on the little people because he understands that while they're getting the crumbs, it's the big guys at the table who are really dining fine on our dime.

Thank you for this argument.

This might be the main point to which I expose my father to the truth that, how you say, the little people are the ones paying exorbitant amounts to the powers that be. The little people are getting....what? How can you measure it but...what?? They are getting....haha..what?

Love thy enemy.

The voting will be...

...fixed no matter what anyway. =/

I need proof.

Again, I need proof.

Love thy enemy.

If you truly want proof...

...you have to research it yourself because nothing anyone says to you will be believable if you don't really want to see it. I have my own PROOF...it happened to me in 2008 primaries and general. I saw it with my own eyes, but once again...you wouldn't believe it because you don't want to. I didn't either until I witnessed it. Oh well, if it makes you happy to believe it's real, then continue to do so. I'm not happy that it isn't, but I cannot erase reality from my mind. However, I still vote because it gives me a voice when speaking to others and I never give up promoting liberty(I also have a Romney uncle I'm working on too). Regardless though, I don't want to argue about it and am thankful for your being on the side of liberty...in love! =)

Ask him how he'd like to survive a full blown dollar collapse

or if he thinks he can because that IS what is coming with Mitt or Obama at the helm.
With Ron Paul it wont.

Independent mathematical proof that all candidates except Ron Paul collapse the dollar.

Primary Numbers: The GOP Candidates and the National Debt
February 23, 2012

The Committee For A Responsible Federal Budget


November 6th 2012 I voted for Dr.Ron Paul
"We must remember, elections are short-term efforts. Revolutions are long-term projects." ~ Ron Paul

He's preparing for it.

He thinks it's coming with both, and with Ron Paul there is no chance to be President.

He just wants lower taxes than what he's getting today under Obama.

Love thy enemy.

There is a damn site more to life than tax!

Personal liberty, and freedom from never ending war are 2 real reasons not to vote for either of these men. No matter what tax he pays, why should it go to bailing out the huge banks, and other countries who have been forced into bankruptcy because the "system" has been designed that way? If his taxes were for the benefit of the American people, that is one thing, but since they are being used to bring tyranny on the world and prop up corrupt regimes (both local and abroad), he should vote for the man who will abolish the wholesale theft of his hard earned money.

I believe he agrees to some point..

His point to me is that he's going to suffer the same fate under a D or an R except to the point that he's being taxed. So why not be taxed less under an R.

My argument with that is eventually the debt is going to be so high and the deficit will rise under every presidency who follows the same course that it won't matter how much you pay. Eventually, the taxes will catch up to the extremely high deficit that makes up the debt.

Love thy enemy.

Thought of analogy...

So, I can pick between 3 options:

1. My arms get cut off
2. My legs get cut off
3. Small chance that I get to keep all my limbs

Sure, one might argue that you can be more functional with legs but no arms (or vice versa), but is that really a way to live? Especially if you have another choice (albeit it is not a guarantee)?

I would rally the troops and try to make sure we all vote for (3) so that we can keep our limbs! I certainly wouldn't vote to have any of them cut off, even the "better" of the two, which might be arms to some people and legs to other.

Yeah I know, pretty obscure analogy, but I felt like sharing haha.

Thanks for Posting This..

It brings back many memories....
My Dad subscribed to the "lesser of two evils theory", and explained it as a compromise that also allowed him to "vote his wallet", his financial agenda. And he stressed that the USA still had the best system of Government in the world.
I guess that voting his wallet was as free as he expected, and it was systemic of his generation of WW2 Vets.
He also felt the freedom to compromise was a way to "cut your losses".
I had trouble accepting this "stubborn" viewpoint and probably would still today....if not for this story, and here it is....
..............FATHERS and SONS....................................

If two men are lawyers and they disagree on a point of law?
Well, they'll just agree to disagree, on that point of law, as gentlemen.
But if a Father and son are lawyers, partners in a business,etc, and there's a disagreement?.........
Well, the son is an ungrateful SOB who doesn't know his ass from his elbow and needs to "listen" to his Father.

POINT BEING: Don't "try" too hard to "change" him...you can't.
....but if you act as a power of example?
He might get curious enough to just "come around" to your viewpoint.
Best Wishes, and Thanks Again for that story...I can relate to it!

"Beyond the blackened skyline, beyond the smoky rain, dreams never turned to ashes up until.........
...Everything CHANGED !!


Well, I appreciate the parable. It does resonate with me.

I don't try to change him. My father and I just get into these arguments every once in awhile. It's fun for both of us because we don't have the opportunity, usually, to talk politics.

An argument is considered fun in my family. haha

Love thy enemy.

I Hear Ya!

And I'm glad you enjoyed the "parable".
My Dad and I had our "rough spots" over the years, but what impressed me the most finally was this...his ability to extend an 'olive branch" as a way to "keep peace in the house" even though he was a strict parent, to all us kids...there were five children being raised in a three bedroom home, one TV and one bathroom...can't believe we actually survived that! LOL!

I miss him, having lost him to "the Big C" in 2005.
Here's a heartfelt, relevant link, ala Fathers & Sons:


Tom Rush "Child's Song", Live.

"Beyond the blackened skyline, beyond the smoky rain, dreams never turned to ashes up until.........
...Everything CHANGED !!

There is NO guarantee

There is no guarantee Romney will lower taxes, he has never been a consistent man, and if we keep piling on the debt, you never know - he may add some kind of emergency tax or something. Romney is not someone you can trust to stick to his word. Read my lips "no new taxes".

The ONLY safe thing to do is vote for Paul (or maybe Johnson). Each vote for them, gets them one vote closer to winning.

I agree

that voting contributes to winning. I, also, agree that Romney is an inconsistent man. However, my father sees a business man that has received a less than fair shake in the media.

I watched the CNN broadcast of their interview with Romney last night. They asked all of the questions in the most biased way. I think that contributes to the loyalty to Romney, because Democrats will want to punish him and Republicans, who want to rid us of Obama, will back him up if a stupidly asked question is put forward.

Questions regarding his withholding of taxes generally conjures loyalty with Republicans.

Questions about his top pick for VP, Condoleezza Rice, being too associated with the Bush administration brings loyalty to Romney.

Love thy enemy.

if romney gets the nomination

and if you ignore he possibility of a Johnson win, then it comes down to 4 more years of obama, followed by a very good chance of repub being elected, or 4 years of obama-light (romney) followed by either 4 more years of obama-light or a democrat (another obama-light) winning. Regardless, if romneys becomes president, it will be at least 8 yrs before we get a chance at a real repub. president. If obama wins it'll be 4 yrs.

This is one reason I say it's critical that Dr. Paul wins. This country cannot afford 8 yrs of obama-light, just as it can't afford 4 more of obama.

I brought that up, too.

If Romney is elected, potentially it will be eight more years of a government not focused on liberty. Whereas with an Obama presidency, we will have four more years to build up our forces, as we have done in the previous four years, and run a vetted and superb candidate for the U.S.

However, we do need to be hoping for a win in Tampa. As much of a long shot as it is, we do have the resources now to pull off a win just as we have had in our state conventions. We only need the motivation to do so.

Love thy enemy.

Even if somehow Romney As POTUS

results in a slightly less onerous tax burden, he is more likely, IMHO, to start WWIII than Obama. But who knows. IMO, it would be foolish to vote for either of them.


I brought that up, too. That Romney, through the debates, has shown himself to be oblivious to the resource wars occurring in the Middle East, he is more likely, because he is a Republican and the neocons have an itchy trigger finger, to start a war with Syria and more so with Iran.

Love thy enemy.

I'm with your Dad

Allot of people think like your Dad, who put it to you in simple terms.

If you polled my area, plenty of people will tell you, "Republicans are rich, but I'm poor, so I vote Democratic". IOWs I need or want the government handouts so I vote for them. Your Dad is thinking, "I'm tired of being robbed by the government and I don't want to hand anything more out." To him, and me there is a difference (the Ron Paul Republicans on the inside, like what the Rachel Maddow YouTube showed).

If Ron Paul won the nomination, your Dad would vote for him. Your Dad probably knows people who are connected to the central committees, and he going to vote for Romney over Obama.

Me too.

Obama needs to get OUT.

Well you give me a plus one

for voting for Romney.

This is why I'm asking this question and I'm sure many others are too.

Thanks for your input.

Edit: I don't mean to vote for Romney. I am weighing my options, and in the process, doing so by asking my fellow RP supporters what they think.

Love thy enemy.

Show him this

"As President, Ron Paul will support a Liberty Amendment to the Constitution to abolish the income and death taxes. And he will be proud to be the one who finally turns off the lights at the IRS for good."


I think Ron Paul would result in the least amount of taxes for your father.

Also, Ron Paul wants to cut $1 trillion from the deficit in the first year.


The problem is that he supports Paul

I forgot to mention that....He just thinks that since he believes Paul has no chance, he should vote for Romney.

Love thy enemy.