@minigunman123: That would be assuming that your family has the inclination or the money to help which is not always the case. My mother did not get help from family. It was never offered nor could any family members afford to help my mother raise seven kids. My mom had all seven kids with my father whom she was married to. We were fine when my dad was alive. He worked in the oil field and mad pretty good money. After my father died we lost our only form of support. My mom had been a housewife her whole life and little in marketable skills. She got a job but she could not keep up with the bills hence the programs. I don't think it is realistic to think people can rely on family members to help. You sound like you have a pretty awesome and close knit family but not everybody has that advantage.
That's a pretty huge margin. As much as I want him to win I think that's a bit overzealous of a number. It really depends on Ohio and Florida. If Romney doesn't get Florida he's done and if Obama loses Ohio then its going to be real close.
I get it that you like Obama, fine. But I'd prefer it if there's an economic conversation that happens without having to go back 4 years to George W. Bush. The tax cuts many like to blame for everything. But here's an interesting tidbit I learned from a conservative speaker at the last Tea Party I went to (you'll probably ignore everything else I write after the words Tea Party, but I don't give a damn.)
People hate the rich. They hate that there are others out there with more money than them. But the rich are the ones that help put money back into the economy. The money they spend on buying businesses, paying employees etc. This increases the amount of cash people working for them get. They are then given an incentive to spend that money, thus building up the economy.
Now if you tax and tax and tax the rich, sure they have a lot of cash, but after a while, the money will run out. The millionaires who helped boost the economy leave, leaving behind those who relied on their economic impact. The taxes increase even more. More businesses move out. Then people with less cash are targeted and end up losing revenue fast. They also leave the area.
Soon, all that's left are those who rely entirely on the state and government. The system collapses on itself with the lack of cash that they used to get when they bullied businesses.
The tax cuts weren't implanted to spoil the evil millionaires. They were implanted so as to give the millionaires more incentive in spending cash they saved up in order to benefit the economy. Spending all that cash only of taxes does nothing for the economy. It just gets put into the pockets of state workers and politicians.
Ever wonder why Los Angeles has roads like in the rural areas, despite being in the middle of millions of buildings and people? It's because all the cash that was said to be used on the economy via taxes gets filtered into pay-outs. Nothing is left to benefit the people.
I hear what you're saying. The rich do like to invest and give back. However, when they do this they only support things that have either impacted them in the past or impact them now. This can include charities that help the poor, cancer, or whatever. Those are great. Unfortunately though, a lot of their money can go it something they see on a daily basis: private schools, theater productions, and other things that benefit the rich and leave people who need help out in the cold (sometimes literally). I'm not trying to say they're malicious fat cats or anything. I'm just saying that they're world can sometimes forget what a lot of people really need and not what the privileged think they need. When a government is given the money though they are held responsible and the people can choose where the money goes. This way millions of people have a voice instead of 1%. Also don't let politicians scare you into thinking America will collapse because the wealthy have to pay slightly more and please don't take any of this as an insult or an invitation to a fight. This is a cool and friendly site so if I sound like a douche just know its because I want to have an intelligent debate not to be a troll!! :)
Not quite as many as people like to think. There are some, probably lots, but there are just as many people who mooch off the government. I've met dozens personally, but just think on the history of man. When has man ever really been trustworthy, when faced with the option of free living? Look at what happened to Rome for example.
I think if we try and get more jobs and try and help people learn to create their own jobs, and create more buildings for people to start businesses in, then maybe we'll see plenty of growth in jobs, and the people that really do just need help, can get jobs and start moving on, and the people that want to take advantage, will have to learn to function in the world without ObamaCare and maybe some other government programs that are around at the moment. That's what I think the best case scenario is. Probably won't happen so easily though.
So there are just as many people mooching off the government tit as there are the actual people that require these services / were created for them? Talking about dozens of people you've met or the history of man (more specifically Rome I guess) doesn't quite sound like hard facts / statistical information to support your claim here.
Not that I don't agree with the sentiment a lot of people take advantage of the government (especially the rich, but those aren't handouts apparently), but the idea that it is a situation where you've got just as many people taking advantage of these programs as the number of people that actually need them seems a bit off.
Learn to create their own jobs? Why would new buildings create new businesses to occupy them outside those building said buildings?
“The answer is yes. When I speak of free agency, I don’t just mean that each person can do what they want to do, I mean that our society should allow people to make their own choices and live by their own beliefs. People of integrity don’t force their beliefs on others, they make sure that others can live by different beliefs they may have. That’s the great thing about this country: it was founded to allow people to follow beliefs of their own conscience. I will work and have worked to fight discrimination and to assure each American equal opportunity. You’ll see that, for instance, in my relations in the workplace. …
“For a number of years, I was chief executive at Bain and Co. It’s an environment that fosters openness and fights discrimination. I believe it is a good place for gay and lesbian individuals to work. I know of nothing in our workplace that doesn’t encourage promotion and compensation based on performance, without regard to personal differences, such as sexual orientation. I believe that my record, my life, is a clear indication of my support and insistence on anti-discrimination and on efforts to assure equal rights for all.”
He's against discrimination - but for discrimination in regards to marriage. He claims to be a man of integrity that won't force his beliefs on anyone, but he is doing exactly that.
Romney is against most abortion, and against gay marriage. I am in line with these beliefs. Sorry if it angers anyone.
You're certainly free to your own beliefs, but they shouldn't be political policy.
Moving on to the economy, I seem to remember his plan being more specific during the debates, and I can't remember all of it, but he planned on increasing certain taxes on wealthier businesses/citizens while repealing obamacare and trying to decrease taxes on smaller businesses, to encourage growth in those areas; something to those lines.
One of the major criticisms of Governor Romney is the lack of specifics in-regards to how he 'fixes' the economy. It's more or less him saying how he is the right man for the job or attacking the President on how the economy is without much context.
He's repealing the parts of 'obamacare' (the parts no one likes), he's making sure all those entitlements we all enjoy stay, increasing military spending (Navy needs 50 more boats and three subs), that 20% tax cut across the board and extending most of those existing tax cuts. His plan is magic thus far, so is his first day pledge of things to do.
@Living_Monstrosity: Everything you say is pathetic. It's not your different opinions that are the problem. It's the way you voice them. I always try to remind myself that the right wing are people just like me who believe the validity of their side and aren't all hate mongering morons. You make it really hard to keep this frame of mind.
I always quote back to California, because that's where I'm more familiar with political parties.
So far my governor has passed laws despite being universally lauded by the masses. Ex. is the new railway system being built. It wouldn't be terrible if it was done in heavily congested areas, but the route goes straight through the heartland where almost nobody lives and ends up outside of a woman's correctional facility. (it starts at a Chinese cemetery, if I believe).
Plus its paid for by tax increases on citizens, with a budget more than triple the original price agreed and advertised upon.
So, yeah, there really isn't much of an "everybody" thing going on in some places. You can pass any law you want, as long as you're a liberal politician with ties to the not so savory union heads.
I think people are taking posts / users here too seriously (when they shouldn't be taken seriously at all).
People need to remember this is a public forum; political topics tend to draw both the political discussing enthusiasts and the people wishing to troll them.
@isaac_clarke: Yeah these things can be heated at times.
Well being the guy who is usually dead center of those heated debates; I'm certainly well aware of that. =)
Honestly some of these posts / posters people are getting riled up to argue with are on that more obvious spectrum of "You probably shouldn't be taking that person too seriously." But hey given my history of arguing with said individuals I know I shouldn't be taking seriously - I'm not one to preach.
@Necrotic_Lycanthrope: Lol thanks that's very kind of you. Its nice to have a talk about politics where both sides aren't obnoxious lunatics. I agree with what you said. I live in Florida and the only thing the government passes here are more bills to make the retirees pay less and leave everyone to scrounge for themselves. What I was mostly saying before is just theory mostly. Lol I guess what I'm trying to say is everyone who has money (government or private) can be an ass hole. Hopefully though we can find a compromise somewhere in the middle where the unfortunate can get help and those who earn money can enjoy it. I also understand what you're going through with your parent's business. My dad lost 2 businesses during the Bush administration and I know how shitty that is. I will keep you in my prayers. Good luck!!
Not quite as many as people like to think. There are some, probably lots, but there are just as many people who mooch off the government. I've met dozens personally, but just think on the history of man. When has man ever really been trustworthy, when faced with the option of free living? Look at what happened to Rome for example.
I think if we try and get more jobs and try and help people learn to create their own jobs, and create more buildings for people to start businesses in, then maybe we'll see plenty of growth in jobs, and the people that really do just need help, can get jobs and start moving on, and the people that want to take advantage, will have to learn to function in the world without ObamaCare and maybe some other government programs that are around at the moment. That's what I think the best case scenario is. Probably won't happen so easily though.
So there are just as many people mooching off the government tit as there are the actual people that require these services / were created for them? Talking about dozens of people you've met or the history of man (more specifically Rome I guess) doesn't quite sound like hard facts / statistical information to support your claim here.
Not that I don't agree with the sentiment a lot of people take advantage of the government (especially the rich, but those aren't handouts apparently), but the idea that it is a situation where you've got just as many people taking advantage of these programs as the number of people that actually need them seems a bit off.
Learn to create their own jobs? Why would new buildings create new businesses to occupy them outside those building said buildings?
“The answer is yes. When I speak of free agency, I don’t just mean that each person can do what they want to do, I mean that our society should allow people to make their own choices and live by their own beliefs. People of integrity don’t force their beliefs on others, they make sure that others can live by different beliefs they may have. That’s the great thing about this country: it was founded to allow people to follow beliefs of their own conscience. I will work and have worked to fight discrimination and to assure each American equal opportunity. You’ll see that, for instance, in my relations in the workplace. …
“For a number of years, I was chief executive at Bain and Co. It’s an environment that fosters openness and fights discrimination. I believe it is a good place for gay and lesbian individuals to work. I know of nothing in our workplace that doesn’t encourage promotion and compensation based on performance, without regard to personal differences, such as sexual orientation. I believe that my record, my life, is a clear indication of my support and insistence on anti-discrimination and on efforts to assure equal rights for all.”
He's against discrimination - but for discrimination in regards to marriage. He claims to be a man of integrity that won't force his beliefs on anyone, but he is doing exactly that.
Romney is against most abortion, and against gay marriage. I am in line with these beliefs. Sorry if it angers anyone.
You're certainly free to your own beliefs, but they shouldn't be political policy.
Moving on to the economy, I seem to remember his plan being more specific during the debates, and I can't remember all of it, but he planned on increasing certain taxes on wealthier businesses/citizens while repealing obamacare and trying to decrease taxes on smaller businesses, to encourage growth in those areas; something to those lines.
One of the major criticisms of Governor Romney is the lack of specifics in-regards to how he 'fixes' the economy. It's more or less him saying how he is the right man for the job or attacking the President on how the economy is without much context.
He's repealing the parts of 'obamacare' (the parts no one likes), he's making sure all those entitlements we all enjoy stay, increasing military spending (Navy needs 50 more boats and three subs), that 20% tax cut across the board and extending most of those existing tax cuts. His plan is magic thus far, so is his first day pledge of things to do.
Edited: To change a by to for.
Two things:
Statistics are nearly always fudged and untrustworthy in social sciences, with the exception of things like the election where the actual statistics come from what people actually voted for,
How would I get statistics for the amount of people mooching off the government to begin with? Knock on doors and say "Hello, have you taken advantage of America yet, ma'am"?
New buildings, to house new businesses, so people can create new work. When I talk of "learning to create their own jobs", I mean, trying to invent something and start a business, trying to start a restaurant or something, or a cafe, or invent a better mousetrap and market it to other businesses to fund your dreams or some crap; people can use their brains to do whole lots of things, how do you think we have all the crap we have today? People had to invent it. People can think of new stuff and try to market it and make their own jobs. Not everyone, but people are often capable of learning and then doing more than they think, if they push hard in their lives to do it.
Whoever's in political power gets to have their beliefs be political policy, so long as he gets support for it - if Romney's line up with mine, goody for him. If we're using the "your opinion shouldn't be policy" tactic, then your opinion that women should be allowed to abort babies shouldn't be policy because it's your opinion.
Yes, he used to be pro-choice, now he's pro-life, apparently claiming he was wrong before. So much the better.
He's against discrimination but doesn't think homosexual marriage is a good idea; sounds like what I think, in that marriage has been, largely, for a while, defined as a man and woman being joined to create a family and live our their lives together with certain legal benefits attached to the marriage status. He simply does not want to redefine it, and sees that as wrong; I am the same way. This could very well turn the entire thread into a gay rights debate thread, but basically, it's complicated, but I don't see it as entirely hypocritical.
Obama is walking context for not helping the economy, and Romney's plan is somewhat specific.
http://www.mittromney.com/jobsplan
Maybe it's not specific enough for some people, but it's not a shot in the dark.
I am tired and I took like a half hour off in the middle of writing this, I'm not sure if there's a hole in my post somewhere, but if there is, please let me know, I'm about to pass out.
Well I'm sorry if I'm not up to Ivy League material when it comes to economics. You could be talking to Reagan back in the '80s and still say the exact same things about not knowing jack about how the economy works.
And my reasoning for the numbers was that, as far as I know because I can and will be off by several thousand, that is the number of people who gained jobs in the US. The unemployment has kept at a steady 7-8 percent average, but per state can be lower or higher. For example, California has the highest, if not one of the highest of all debt and poverty per state, with South Dakota being one of the lower ones.
Now I'm only a Geology student, but that doesn't seem like a healthy economy now does it? Tell me more about how wonderful our country has turned out to be under the guiding light of Mr. Obama, or the Democratic house legislature as a whole (the Republicans in office do not include in this since they came in halfway during his term.)
Reagan actually didnt really now anything about economics, sorry. Supply-side economics (aka Reaganomics, Voodoo Economics, Trickle-Down Economics) has long since been completely discredited. Here's a nice graph showing what Reagan/Bush gave us as far as debt:
Yes, Reagan helped defeat the Soviets... by spending them into the ground. The Soviet Union spent so much trying to keep up with our military spending that their economy crumbled. Unfortunately it also had a negative impact on our debt.
The only people that keep pushing trickle-down economics are Republicans because they know it benefits the rich. I'm not saying this because I have anything against the rich, it's just a fact that the system we have today benefits them. Here's another graph of income inequality over time:
Notice how income inequality started skyrocketing when Reagan came into office? That also happens to be exactly when top marginal tax rates started dropping. In other words they kept lowing the taxes on the rich, telling us how it would trickle down to the rest, but all it did was increase the debt and increase inequality.
Now, you want to know how many jobs have been created under Obama? I have no idea where you got the 800,000 number, but here a little info:
The thing to note about job creation is that when Obama took office, we were losing around 800,000 jobs per month. That's the economy Obama inherited. So when you start saying that you dont want to hear about what happened before Obama came into office, you're intentionally ignoring the important context of what happened and why.
But notice when Obama took office the rate at which we were losing jobs started to slow down. That means we still kept losing jobs, but things were getting better pretty fast. This is why simply looking at total numbers of jobs from start to finish of his presidency is not fair, because even with the best efforts the economy was still going to lose a lot before it started gaining.
The main thing to look at when determining how Obama has done is to compare how things are now to how they were then. Then: losing 800,000 jobs per month. Now: gaining 170,000 jobs per month. That means the economy now is creating 970,000 more jobs per month than when Obama took office. That alone is one heck of an achievement..
Two things: Statistics are nearly always fudged and untrustworthy in social sciences, with the exception of things like the election where the actual statistics come from what people actually voted for,
So your personal experiences / visions of humanity / ancient Roman history are more valid than statistical data? Certainly this would make statisticians weep.
How would I get statistics for the amount of people mooching off the government to begin with? Knock on doors and say "Hello, have you taken advantage of America yet, ma'am"?
There are a plethora of methods to gather data and with the promise of anonymity it isn't at all implausible (a lot of these social studies tend to provide that at least, otherwise gathering data / devising social theory would be nigh impossible when it comes to such personal things). I'd suggest a stat course or reading Statistics For People Who (Think They) Hate Statistics (fun book).
New buildings, to house new businesses, so people can create new work. When I talk of "learning to create their own jobs", I mean, trying to invent something and start a business, trying to start a restaurant or something, or a cafe, or invent a better mousetrap and market it to other businesses to fund your dreams or some crap; people can use their brains to do whole lots of things, how do you think we have all the crap we have today? People had to invent it. People can think of new stuff and try to market it and make their own jobs. Not everyone, but people are often capable of learning and then doing more than they think, if they push hard in their lives to do it.
There are a lot of empty buildings out there; simply creating new offices or buildings doesn't spontaneously give birth to businesses to inhabit them. (That is assuming you aren't talking construction = more jobs). People invent lots of things without any real monetary success in terms of said inventions and there are a plethora of talented / educated people out of work. Not to mention there certainly no shortage of people making their own businesses or inventions that either succeed or fail. There's even a television series were we get to watch them fail or succeed.
People are capable of a lot of things, but even with the motivation, resources available and know-how - success isn't at all guaranteed. Hell for most of us our future success is defined at birth.
Whoever's in political power gets to have their beliefs be political policy, so long as he gets support for it - if Romney's line up with mine, goody for him. If we're using the "your opinion shouldn't be policy" tactic, then your opinion that women should be allowed to abort babies shouldn't be policy because it's your opinion.
Here's the thing - the entire political landscape shouldn't be defined by a single belief. That's why we elect so many different individuals into various offices in our constitutional republic. Presidents in particular should be willing to compromise on their own singular beliefs (and they certainly often do).
Tactic? I'm just of the opinion the decision on whether or not to abort a child is difficult enough without all male white panels make the choice for women / these adults.
Yes, he used to be pro-choice, now he's pro-life, apparently claiming he was wrong before. So much the better.
You don't see the political flip-flop inconsistency? How often do you think he's changed his "stances" this year alone? Let alone the last two decades.
His family was pro-choice for 30 years before he decided he wanted to be President.
He's against discrimination but doesn't think homosexual marriage is a good idea; sounds like what I think, in that marriage has been, largely, for a while, defined as a man and woman being joined to create a family and live our their lives together with certain legal benefits attached to the marriage status. He simply does not want to redefine it, and sees that as wrong; I am the same way. This could very well turn the entire thread into a gay rights debate thread, but basically, it's complicated, but I don't see it as entirely hypocritical.
So one can advocate against discrimination and at the same time discriminate and it isn't at all hypocritical? No matter how you look at it, his stance doesn't make sense in terms of what he has said and what he is saying.
Obama is walking context for not helping the economy, and Romney's plan is somewhat specific. http://www.mittromney.com/jobsplan Maybe it's not specific enough for some people, but it's not a shot in the dark.
I just read through the "full plan" that consisted mostly of talking points. Over half of it is saying the President is doing this and that bad. There is a brief bit about the Affordable Health Care Act and then again this nonsensical and contradicting plan that is extremely short on the details. Just throwing percents from two studies about how things are now or how they could be in 12 years if you can do you goals - isn't exactly details on any real plan. He's got those same points he's said on television and they don't make any more sense here.
I am tired and I took like a half hour off in the middle of writing this, I'm not sure if there's a hole in my post somewhere, but if there is, please let me know, I'm about to pass out.
I haven't a clue what a hole might be. But kudos for taking some time writing this.
We're already in a depression, people just don't want to call it that, IMO.
No, we're not. Please look at the chart I posted above showing job growth. If you're not sure what a depression or recession is, look up the definition. When Obama came into office the economy was in a recession and heading straight for a depression. For years now we've had pretty steady job growth. And, while we may want the growth to be better, there are very good reasons for why it's not. I could go further into this if you want.
@minigunman123 said:
ObamaCare is socialized medicine from what I've heard
You've heard wrong. Again, please do some research. "Obamacare" is actually very similar to what Romney had in his state. Also (fun fact) it's a plan that the Republicans came up with. Does that surprise you? The basics of Obamacare are based on a plan that the Heritage Foundation (a conservative think-tank) came up with. Obamacare is not socialized medicine at all, since it just says that everyone needs to have insurance. Again, this was a conservative idea. The Democrats actually wanted a single-payer system... that in fact I would like much better. But, they knew they wouldnt be able to get that passed, so they compromised and went with the basically Republican idea.
The funny thing about Republicans is that they oppose whatever Obama wants. It doesnt matter if it's originally their own idea, if Obama says he wants it, they hate it.
So please learn about these things before you start to criticize and oppose them. You may realize that you actually like the things you're criticizing if you know more about them.
If Obama is re-elected, the economy will be fixed by the next President. Not when Obama is in charge.
That is if the dollar doesn't crash before that happens.
I mean look at why the people voted for him.
@charlieboy said:
@WillPayton: He has done more for the gay community than any other president so he definitely has my vote. And Republicans have been trying to keep gays in the closet forever.
And
@WillPayton said:
@Necrotic_Lycanthrope said:
Honestly, I hope he doesn't. I really hope he doesn't. I don't want to last another 4 years of having to see my family's business sink more and more because of a never-ending Depression (screw Recessions, this is a Greater Depression).
You guys can have him. I just don't want me and my little sister stuck for the rest of our lives paying back someone else's spending spree. We're already at birth with 40,000 dollars labeled to our heads. Let's not make it another 40 grand.
The problem is that much of that spending you dislike was caused by the Bush Tax Cuts and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. So by "someone else's spending spree" whether you know it or not you're talking about spending that the Republicans created. Now if we consider the spending on TARP and the economic recovery was also a result of the economic meltdown that started under Bush... well, you get the idea.
And where did the extra 7 Trillion go to? It's not like the war has stopped. Obama still has them there. And don't omit that it took 2 terms (8 years) to have Bush raise up the debt with his spending in comparison to Obama's 7 trillion addition within just 4 years of his 1st term... Why is all that spending going to other countries rather than being spent here in these borders? Wait they are? Then why is it taking 7 years just to get the Freedom Tower above half way of it's completion? Why is it taking 10 years just to have partial of the Bay Bridge built?
Did you know that in 1933, it took just 3 years to built both of the two connecting bay bridges? Yet it takes more than 10 years just to finish one?
Did you know that in 1969, it took 2 years to build the old World Trade Center twin Towers? Yet it takes more that 7 years just to build Freedom Tower that is smaller than World Trade Center 1?
Why is that?
Now that Sandy ravaged a dozen states, 900 miles wide while 300 to 400 miles hugged the costs affecting states as far as Michigan. Who's going to fix that? Tax? Obama is already spending trillions over seas so does he have to ask the Federal Reserve to print more money to fix the destruction? Sure he could do that, but the aftermath would result in buying a bottle of Coke or a Snickers bar for $5.
The most important thing here is the economy, but we have people here that are so narrow to have what they want, they just don't see the big picture.@WillPayton said:
@Necrotic_Lycanthrope said:
Also, The Economist endorsed Obama. Not a ringing endorsement, but still an endorsement. I think they know something about economics and such.
You say your family has a business... they have something to say specifically for people like you then:
"As a result, this election offers American voters an unedifying choice. Many of The Economist’s readers, especially those who run businesses in America, may well conclude that nothing could be worse than another four years of Mr Obama. We beg to differ. For all his businesslike intentions, Mr Romney has an economic plan that works only if you don’t believe most of what he says. That is not a convincing pitch for a chief executive. And for all his shortcomings, Mr Obama has dragged America’s economy back from the brink of disaster, and has made a decent fist of foreign policy. So this newspaper would stick with the devil it knows, and re-elect him."
Not all economist agree with eachother.
@Living_Monstrosity said:
All I see from WillPayton is pseudo-intellectual partisan hackery.
@Living_Monstrositysaid:
Only people who vote for Obama are balding directors with lisps.
Lol, okay and out of curiosity, who did you vote for, or want to win the election?
Romney has no stances, so how one disagrees or agrees with them eludes me.
@minigunman123 said:
Short-term though, we need someone who can bring the economy back, and I think that's the most pressing issue for this election.
Romney's solution for bringing the economy back is magic. And I'm not exaggerating, it's magic. He's keeping everything we like, cutting taxes by 20%, increasing military spending and suddenly the deficit will disappear by signing an executive order to get rid of the healthcare legislation or get rid of that pesky wall street legislation created in the last four years in the wake of a global economic crisis caused primarily by greed.
Let's not get started on his un-realistic first day promises or self deportation fix.
Obama can't keep a promise and Romney can't even make up his mind so BOTH of these guys are bad from the get go and I don't understand why the media is brain washing the public that they are the ones most promising to the country when they are in fact not. The Two-Party System had it for long enough. 100 Years in fact.... Let another Party fix what those two parties screwed up with these passed few decades.
The US economy is doing fine. Obama pulled it out of a freefall that would have made the Great Depression seem like a bump in the road and got it growing again. It's not growing fast enough for it to be healthy again, but considering what it's been through that's perfectly understandable and, more importantly, it is picking up speed.
I like Obama more then Romney but I was not AT ALL impressed by Obama. I don't see that he accomplished anything that will leave a positive mark on society
Obama can't keep a promise and Romney can't even make up his mind so BOTH of these guys are bad from the get go and I don't understand why the media is brain washing the public that they are the ones most promising to the country when they are in fact not. The Two-Party System had it for long enough. 100 Years in fact.... Let another Party fix what those two parties screwed up with these passed few decades.
That isn't necessarily true to be honest; although the record breaking number of filibusters / in-general obstructionism does go a long way to make it look like the President hasn't accomplished much / done anything in the last four years in regards to what he's said he'd do (though he has broken his word). I don't think its so much that Gov. Romney can't make up his mind, he just doesn't want to; running for President requires him to have these constant self-remakes to even compete, so fluid changes in his stances are necessary.
The last last 50-60 years have certainly been on the "meh" side, but realistically we are not going to get "another party" in office to 'fix' anything. The big two are the kings of the hill, the process is geared to keep them in power and they are the only ones with the power to change that.
@Xcalibur said:
Simple question Liberals and Democrats can't answer.
Are you better off than you were four years ago?
If yes, please share it with your fellow Americans. Because 7.9 % Unemployment could really use some of your input.
Are you asking if I was better off before the global recession? Or are we playing that game where context doesn't matter?
Just a side note folks, posts like the one quoted here (Xcalibur's) are not supposed to be taken seriously. It is a silly talking point from a poster that very likely doesn't take seriously.
Obama can't keep a promise and Romney can't even make up his mind so BOTH of these guys are bad from the get go and I don't understand why the media is brain washing the public that they are the ones most promising to the country when they are in fact not. The Two-Party System had it for long enough. 100 Years in fact.... Let another Party fix what those two parties screwed up with these passed few decades.
That isn't necessarily true to be honest; although the record breaking number of filibusters / in-general obstructionism does go a long way to make it look like the President hasn't accomplished much / done anything in the last four years in regards to what he's said he'd do (though he has broken his word). I don't think its so much that Gov. Romney can't make up his mind, he just doesn't want to; running for President requires him to have these constant self-remakes to even compete, so fluid changes in his stances are necessary.
The last last 50-60 years have certainly been on the "meh" side, but realistically we are not going to get "another party" in office to 'fix' anything. The big two are the kings of the hill, the process is geared to keep them in power and they are the only ones with the power to change that.
@Xcalibur said:
Simple question Liberals and Democrats can't answer.
Are you better off than you were four years ago?
If yes, please share it with your fellow Americans. Because 7.9 % Unemployment could really use some of your input.
Are you asking if I was better off before the global recession? Or are we playing that game where context doesn't matter?
Just a side note folks, posts like the one quoted here (Xcalibur's) are not supposed to be taken seriously. It is a silly talking point from a poster that very likely doesn't take seriously.
No, the Two Party System is not for long unless the country wants to end up like Rome. And No, they don't have the power because they don't even have the power to forcibly audit the Federal Reserve. Obama hasn't kept much of his promises.
Remember, "I will take our troops out of Iraq and bring them home! You can take that to the bank!..."
He's spending more over seas than using the spending to fix the states.
He's allowing contradicting agencies to exist and give them money just to be contradicting hypocrites that have nothing to offer the economy but being money blood suckers like the ACLU.
He's sending billions of dollars to rich people of poor countries which do not go to the poor people, but to the military and infrastructures of bases for those poor countries.
If none of the above were true, and you people really believe that the economy is doing just fine, then why hasn't the Freedom Tower been completed yet? Why isn't the Bay Bridge up yet? Why are major stores at some malls going out of business?
It should of taken 2 years to complete the 1,770 foot Freedom Tower. Only took two years to built the Twin Towers.
If shouldn't of taken 12 years to built the Bay Bridge. Only took 3 years to built the old one in 1933.
The economy sucks right now and Obama's 10 year plans isn't making it grow fast enough.
We need a President that will make it grow faster within 1 year. Not 10.
If none of the above were true, and you people really believe that the economy is doing just fine, then why hasn't the Freedom Tower been completed yet? Why isn't the Bay Bridge up yet? Why are major stores at some malls going out of business?
It should of taken 2 years to complete the 1,770 foot Freedom Tower. Only took two years to built the Twin Towers.
If shouldn't of taken 12 years to built the Bay Bridge. Only took 3 years to built the old one in 1933.
The economy sucks right now and Obama's 10 year plans isn't making it grow fast enough.
We need a President that will make it grow faster within 1 year. Not 10.
How does any of that correlate with the state of the economy? Especially since the Bay Bridge was started six years before the economy collapsed?
-people generally thought there was a good chance we were headed for next Great Depression
-The Global Banking system had mostly stopped working due to economic and sub-prime fears
-The Unemployment rate was skyrocketing, eventually to reach 10%
I'm probably forgetting a lot more, and this was just 2008. Once Obama took office he couldnt just wave a magic wand and make everything better again. It took the next year for things to stabilize... a year during which more jobs were lost and the economic mess expanded to Europe and the rest of the world. So if you people are really going to sit there and tell me things are not better now than in 2008, you are simply ignoring the facts of what happened and why.
Communism and socialism are economic strategies proven to not work. The Reagan-style economic strategies where even adopted by HongKong, which is part of Communist China.
It has one of the highest capita of any place in the world, despite it being a teeny tiny island. All that's done there is a flat tax and no restrictions to jobs and companies, as is the case time and time and time again in California, New York etc.
(these links are to illustrate Reaganomics. I tried finding a good Hong Kong one, but they all talk about China trying to regain economic control over the island. I even tried to avoid the more famous sites so as I'm not called a Capitalist liar. I even avoided popular "progressive" sites because, while people love them, I find that they are just as biased as people tell me Fox News is.)
Communism and socialism are economic strategies proven to not work. The Reagan-style economic strategies where even adopted by HongKong, which is part of Communist China.
It has one of the highest capita of any place in the world, despite it being a teeny tiny island. All that's done there is a flat tax and no restrictions to jobs and companies, as is the case time and time and time again in California, New York etc.
While socialism and communism had their problems, it's also a fact that the Soviet Unions collapse was in large part also due to their overspending on the military.
As far as Reaganomics, I'll just say it again... it doesnt work. This article you linked to is written by a libertarian, so you should consider the source.
How about we talk about an actual study done by non-partisans?
“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”
This is a study done by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, a report that the Republicans tried to suppress.
Communism and socialism are economic strategies proven to not work. The Reagan-style economic strategies where even adopted by HongKong, which is part of Communist China.
It has one of the highest capita of any place in the world, despite it being a teeny tiny island. All that's done there is a flat tax and no restrictions to jobs and companies, as is the case time and time and time again in California, New York etc.
(these links are to illustrate Reaganomics. I tried finding a good Hong Kong one, but they all talk about China trying to regain economic control over the island. I even tried to avoid the more famous sites so as I'm not called a Capitalist liar. I even avoided popular "progressive" sites because, while people love them, I find that they are just as biased as people tell me Fox News is.)
I really dont have time to go into everything that's wrong with the Forbes opinion article on Reaganomics, but it's a lot. I browsed the others you posted and they dont look much better. Normally they completely either ignore or misunderstand the context of what they're talking about. Also, you might want to notice these articles are written by people who are trying to push their trickle-down economics agenda. I'd suggest you find your information at unbiased sources and try to be critical about what you're reading.
Dude, it does work. If it didn't work, it would have gone extinct instead of Communism nearly being wiped out (although it remains fully in Cuba and N. Korea, and has been given a face-lift with Socialism).
If Capitalism, as defined by Reagan, was so stupidly bad, why has Russia become more "conservative" since the fall of the Soviet Union? (it'll never be fully conservative, but it sure as Hell is a lot less liberal than the US.)
Dude, it does work. If it didn't work, it would have gone extinct instead of Communism nearly being wiped out (although it remains fully in Cuba and N. Korea, and has been given a face-lift with Socialism).
If Capitalism, as defined by Reagan, was so stupidly bad, why has Russia become more "conservative" since the fall of the Soviet Union? (it'll never be fully conservative, but it sure as Hell is a lot less liberal than the US.)
You are mashing too many things together and as usual ignoring context. There's reasons why Russia did really badly, then really well, then really badly again after the fall of the Soviet Union. Likewise there's a lot of context to look at when analyzing places like China, Cuba, and North Korea. I dont have time to explain all this to you, nor am I an expert on all these topics. Regardless, I already posted a link to a non-partisan study that clearly shows that supply-side economics doesnt work. If you want to ignore it and base your opinions on biased sources, that's entirely your prerogative. Feel free to do so.
It will not be the first or last time that people are convinced to believe in and vote against their best interests. As an example, I submit Romney and the 47%. Romney blatantly insulted people who are generally poor, and his policies would hurt those people most. But, ironically, most of those "red" states that support him are exactly the states where those same people live. See, all this government money from taxes that goes to helping those 47%... a lot of that comes from "blue" Democratic states and gets funnels into "red" states. Seriously, take a good look at all those Republican states in the south, they all use up more money from the government than they pay into it. If Romney actually did what he wants to do, those people clutching their guns and Bibles would be the first to get screwed. But, this wont stop them from voting for him.
The "47 percent" quote? That was a private conversation between him and several campaign contributors and was never meant to be said aloud.
What he meant by the "47 percent" was that 47 percent of the population relies on government intervention. What was he supposed to say, that the "1 percent rule everything"? No, he didn't. Nor he could.
Besides, part of his talk was in part true. A lot more people now rely entirely on government intervention, and I can guess the number is closer to 47 percent, then anything else.
But if what he said is so wrong and incorrect, why haven't I heard a major news outlet on the Tv stations that give a counter argument rather than rant and scream like the Big Bird debauchery.
The "47 percent" quote? That was a private conversation between him and several campaign contributors and was never meant to be said aloud.
What he meant by the "47 percent" was that 47 percent of the population relies on government intervention. What was he supposed to say, that the "1 percent rule everything"? No, he didn't. Nor he could.
Besides, part of his talk was in part true. A lot more people now rely entirely on government intervention, and I can guess the number is closer to 47 percent, then anything else.
But if what he said is so wrong and incorrect, why haven't I heard a major news outlet on the Tv stations that give a counter argument rather than rant and scream like the Big Bird debauchery.
I dont know, maybe it's because you only watch Fox News and listen to Rush Limbaugh? That's just my guess, I could be wrong.
But, there's been plenty of coverage of what he said and why it's not just wrong, but horribly insulting not just to Americans, but also to Palestinians.
So, what you're saying is that if what he said was in private, then what? Then we should ignore it?
Which part was true?
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax."
"And so my job is not to worry about those people—I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
Not only is this really insulting to these people who are the 47% who dont pay income taxes, it's also complete and utter bullshit. He's saying those people will vote for Obama automatically no matter what... not true. In fact many of those people, like I already said, live in red states and are Republicans. He's saying that these people feel entitled, believe they're victims, and dont take personal responsibility for their lives. Also, not just untrue, but insulting.
The fact is that most of those people in the "46%" are simply too poor to pay income taxes, but still pay payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, gasoline taxes, etc. Many of them are elderly and many are veterans. Which ones of those are you claiming are the freeloaders?
"And I look at the Palestinians not wanting to see peace anyway, for political purposes, committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel, and these thorny issues, and I say there's just no way."
And here he throws out a nice little insult to Palestinians, who he claims dont want peace. How nice.
Oh, and later on he insults hispanics... really nice.
I like Obama more then Romney but I was not AT ALL impressed by Obama. I don't see that he accomplished anything that will leave a positive mark on society
This.
Especially the "not AT ALL impressed by Obama" part.
Everybody wants a quick fix to this problem with the economy. I just don't think either President will accomplish that. I don' think there is a quick fix.
Everybody wants a quick fix to this problem with the economy. I just don't think either President will accomplish that. I don' think there is a quick fix.
There is a quick fix. Stop spending over seas immediately. QUACK!
@DonaldDuck: That could help. Don't think it would fix the whole problem.
It would quack quack... The current gov spends more over seas than it does here in the mother land. If they spend it all here for a good 8 years, the deficit would drop dramatically and after the 10th year we can spend over seas again for prices much cheaper.
Log in to comment