Obama Or Romney?

Are you familiar with the ramifications of globalization and the Trickle Down theory? Do you realize that the middle class pay more taxes than that 1%? You are saying that by giving more money to the wealthy and fueling the ever increasing gap between the top 2% of society and the rest is a positive thing, while most of the manufacturing jobs that the working class and lower middle class thrive on are exported to other countries. If you compare what it is like today with what it was like in the coal fields of the Appalachian mountains in the 20 - 40s with the Medieval feudalistic system - you will notice a trend. It is the massive wealth separation and oppression of workers, I am not saying take money from those who have earned it but if I have to pay 30% taxes it isn't fair that someone who makes $5 million only has to pay 17%. We work on a regressive tax system, if anything it should be a flat tax or possibly even a progressive tax system.

Check out this article about Warren Buffet and this problem: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../06/27/AR2007062700097.html?hpid=sec-politics

 

How specifically has Obama hurt the nation? How specifically is Romney going to get the economy going?

What is "small government"? Romney certainly does not believe in it, just by the way.

Redistribution of wealth is necessary at least to some extent. If you make enough to have disposable income you should help those who can't make ends meet. This is good for the economy and good for the country. It is also the morally correct thing to do. Secondly, the "lazy welfare people" is not accurate. Yes there is some fraud. Yes people abuse the system but the majority do not. The majority really do need the help and without it would not be able to get by. You only notice when people have food stamps when they seem to have money. Its just like you say "THIS GOD DAMN PRINTER NEVER WORKS WHEN I NEED TO PRINT IN THE MORNING". The truth is it most likely works 90% of the time but you do not find those times important so your brain forgets them. Food stamps are also based on income, not wealth. So people with millions in the bank can get them. Common sense reforms could solve some of these issues very easily. Food stamps are also a small part of the overall budget issue. The main issue is stuff like unemployment benefits which are very important and you can't really be cutting those or people would be homeless and hungry and the economy would just end up worse off.

He didn't lie. He tried to close Guantanamo and Congress blocked it. Not sure what else he promised but when the Republicans stated that their number one objective was to make him a one term President, the ability to do much of anything was destroyed.

Romney is a liar. Possibly a criminal. Afraid to show us his tax returns. He hates the non-rich. We have no idea what he really believes.


Reagan increased our debt and also raised taxes 11 times after he cut them. He wasn't some perfect god.

And no. Climate change is destroying our economy. A new report showed that climate change as removed over a TRILLION dollars from the world economy and if we don't do something to stop it, it is just going to keep getting worse. Nuclear is not the solution for the long term. Truly renewables are. The more solar panels we buy the cheaper they will get. Invest in research and they will only get better. If in 10 years we can double efficiency without increasing the cost they will be extremely viable.

 

Ok guys lets get one thing str8,USA BANKRUPTED 100 YEARS AGO,BANKRUPTED,your wages are loans from other countries,things that are being done are loans,it wouldnt matter what president,NOONE CAN BRING BACK USA BECAUSE THE SHTHOLE IS SUCH BIG ITS IMPOSSIBLE TO GET OUT OF IT,so honestly,prezident doesnt make a fkin diffrent,other people are running things,DC is all corrupted,president is just a friendly face it would easier to believe in something good and to have a hope in something. here article http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...en-know-commentary-by-laurence-kotlikoff.html just for someone who will want to argue,but i guess everyone knows its.so overall,who cares,you wont run into bigger sh1thole because president wouldnt be allowed to make critical decisions,honestly,president lacks of power,there are way more powerfull institutions that a president cant do anything to,so basicly it dont matter too much.

 

tl;dr

obama hasnt had the time to clean up the mess he was introduced into. 4 moar yeers

i cant stand the idea of another republican president

 

isnt that somewhat similar to obama refusing to show his birth certificate?
certainly reminds me of that. so what if he outdoes want to show his tax returns? im sure that if he committed tax fraud, the irs would be on that. theyve probably double checked it by now, and i dont seem to remember Romney being put away for tax evasion...

and the point isnt climate change. the point is the laws that the EPA got put in place are hurting americas economy. they drive up costs for drilling on american soil, therefore causing us to be dependent on foreign oil.

thats bad for a couple reasons. obvoiusly, less jobs in america. the money we pump into the middle east is going straight to corrupt regimes.

if you think nuclear isnt the answer, your crazy. its clean(as long as the waste is put away correctly...), it provides a huge amount of energy for the material thats used... its the best long term solution weve got at the time, its proven to work, and the epa wont let a single reactor be built. tell me thats wrong, and your crazy.

ya, solar panels are great. any clean energy source is. but until you make it reasonably cost effective, its not gonna catch on. that isnt done by selling more of them, that wont happen in the current economy. obama hasnt done much to change that...anyways, the price drop is gonna come from research, and both parties(obama and romney) support that. they will get cheaper. wind powered energy will get cheaper. but its not gonna be for a while, and nuclear is the best we've got for right now.

by the way, when the house blocked the shutdown of Guantanamo Bay, the democrats had the house. the house leader...was a democrat. it obviously wasnt a smart idea. it would have cost a ton of money, and why would we? it holds terrorists. what problem could you possibly have with that? none of the states that the detainees would have been moved too wanted them, they would have no other place to go.

and no, i look at every single person who buys food stamps. i havnt seen very many who look like they needed them...

we need reform in the public aid sector. romney wants to do that.

we need reform on healthcare, specifically medicare. baby boomers are getting old, and obamacare only takes money from medicare...

we need reform on immigration. so far the obama administration has been completely against that(do the arizona laws ring any bells?).

 

Okay emperor_nero. You're lying. There isn't even room for debate. You straight up lied.

"The top 3% pay less taxes than the other 97% do."

You're an indoctrinated die-hard Obama supporter and it shows. Anyways.... "Romney is so out of touch with the American majority" typical, don't focus on the issues, focus on the candidates, mudslinging, yada yada...

Let me give you a lesson in economics, because you seem so interested in the ramifications of globalization. Protectionism, tariffs, etc, cause strife. They cause conflict. The only reason a country enforces protectionist policies is to defend favoured industries from foreign competition. As a society, our resources are limited. If a foreign country is producing products at a rate so significantly better than ours that it requires tariffs to create an even footing, we are either not using our resources efficiently or we are not using our resources effectively. Either way, protectionism and tariffs/etc DO NOT SOLVE STRUCTURAL PROBLEMS. Take you anti-globalization drivel elsewhere... I'd rather not have another recession thanks

 

On the topic of immigrations policies:

I thought it would be interesting to bring some facts out - Approximately 70% of new US immigrants are allowed in for familiar reasons.

In Canada, only ~20% of new immigrants are let in for familiar reasons, the vast majority are let in because they have skills/capital to contribute.

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/immigration

On his website, Mitt proposes policies I believe will help America.

"Every foreign student who obtains an advanced degree in math, science, or engineering at a U.S. university should be granted permanent residency." - a policy aimed at increasing US dominance in technological advances.

"Governor Romney opposes all “magnets” that entice illegal immigrants to come to our country. As governor, he vetoed in-state tuition benefits for illegal immigrants and opposed driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants."

Anyways, room for debate, but I think his immigration policies are spot on, compared to Obama's "lets give amnesty to illegals because their legal family/friends will then vote for us"....

 

I'm just going to leave this here.... Obama released his short form birth certificate. That wasn't enough. A few months later he released his long form birth certificate. Hawaii changed the law to allow people to pay for a copy (not official) of someone else's birth certificate (I'm fairly sure on this) so you could go buy a copy of it if you want. In addition his birth was recording in multiple local newspapers. He was born in Hawaii. It's not a debatable fact. He released the documents to prove it.

Secondly, the IRS granted thousands of people amnesty from criminal charges in return for paying what was due. This was a few years ago and Romney could have very easily been one of those thousands that broke the law but wasn't charged because he paid when confronted. If he released his tax return for that year it would be clear that he broke the law and wasn't thrown in jail and his campaign would be dead.

Thirdly, you are wrong. The oil we drill is just as expensive as the oil we buy. Its call the world oil market. If it is more profitable to ship it to China or Europe, they will and they do. Getting it in the US doesn't reduce its cost at all. Driving down demand is the while increasing output is the best way to lower prices. We have increased production and we are trying to lower demand (fuel economy standards that Obama has put into place). We also get a large chunk of our oil from Canada, if I remember correctly.

Nuclear is not the solution because it will take multitudes more energy in the future to store the waste than it produced in its lifetime. It is also dangerous if anything goes wrong. It is also expensive. I'd rather have us build natural gas plants as they are much cleaner than coal and other types of production and since natural gas is basically dirt cheap, the electricity will be very cheap. This is only the stopgap until we can really start moving over to renewables which is hopefully in the next decade or so.

Have you ever heard of economics of scale? The more that are sold the cheaper you can make them for. The more demand the more people will get into the market and hopefully that will also mean cheaper. In addition to this there are currently many breakthroughs happening at Universities, such as a solar panel that mimics photosynthesis, which will be much cheaper and much more efficient. Right now solar panels are approaching the point of being competitive against current fuels and with all the breakthroughs and with more funding they could easily have their price cut in half in a decade as I have said.

I never said it was a good idea or not (although I think it is). All I said was that he has tried to fulfill his promises but he isn't a king. He must go through congress and if they say no he can't do much.

Could just be your area as the majority of people on them really do need them.

Wrong. Obamacare reduces spending on Medicare by changing the way doctors are paid and such. Paying them for having healthy patients rather than for ordering a bunch of tests. The level of care will not drop but the cost will. Romney has also supported the same cuts Obama has made and would cut the program even further.

Arizona was attempting to take immigration into its own hands when it is the job of the federal government. Obama supports the Dream act and would sign it if it landed on his desk. The republicans do not want immigration reform other than build a bigger wall. That won't work. Also more people are going back across the border than coming in now.

I don't trust a word Romney says as he has changed his mind about every issue depending on who he is speaking to. During the primaries he took a very hard line stance against immigration. I would support giving foreign students residency if they get a degree. Obama also supports this. The Dream act deals with allowing people who were brought here as young children to stay here if they have graduated high school or gotten a degree (or something like this). Not allowing illegal immigrants to go to college is silly. If they are smart we should let them stay and get educated and help us build a great economy.

 

Tell me SuF - What's the point in having a reasoned debate when you can just say "I don't trust a word Romney says." .... anyways

If Obama wanted to do things like this he'd make it a part of his platform - oh wait, he hasn't.

Romney didn't take a hard stance against immigration. That's a lie. He took a hard stance against illegal immigration. Most illegal immigration is familial-based, provides little to no growth, and provides more people to care for, who don't pay into the system. It'd be nice if we could pay for everyone to live happily ever after, but when children are being used as anchor babies for entire families to stay here, it's excessive and an abuse of the system.

 

You can't trust what Romney says since he changes it every other day it seems. And I'll accept your premise that he only took a hard line against illegal immigration. That still doesn't help because there are illegal people here that could definitely help us.

I've glanced through: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Dec...-immigration/Comprehensive-immigration-reform

They ultimately are not all that dissimilar. Obama has deported more people than any President since the 50s, apparently. I'd rather not spend a lot more on a border fence because it doesn't work. The cartels just build contraptions to drive cars right over it (which are actually very cool. Converting a dump truck into a ramp that opens over the fence that cars drive right over?). More agents would work though (both Romney and Obama have supported more agents). I however still would rather Obama because of the Dream Act and his opinion that database searches must be done more carefully because there has been errors in the past and it isn't fair if a legal person gets denied a job or gets arrested because some database wrongfully said he was illegal.

 

what problem could i possibly have with that? the people that are in Guantanamo have not been charged with a crime. they have no rights to a trial, are kept in torturous conditions, and really have no chance of leaving. many have been found to be innocent, but since they don't get tried for any crime, we can't know who is actually guilty of the crimes. Your argument is why Americans are losing freedoms.

 

Wrongy. They are getting charged with crimes and tried in military courts. And lots of them have been shipped back to their home countries for house arrest or release. A Canadian was just shipped back to Canada a few days ago to serve an eight year sentence for killing a Marine with a grenade in Afghanistan.

 

In addition to SuF's point, Canada and the United States both came to an agreement in the ruling of an early transfer of the prisoner, therefore proving that all prisoners being held in the facility are being supervised and treated fairly.

 

I actually heard Canada didn't want to accept him and the US had to tell them off about it.

 

The US had to force the concept of him being transferred. Essentially the facility is used to question possible terrorism organizations along with holding prisoners of war crimes, he was of no use to the system, he was caught in a situation at a young age. He was nor informative or had a proper cause to stay incarcerated there. He was wasting space which is why our government wanted to get rid of him. Canada felt as if he was our problem after holding him for such a long period of time, but obviously they came to the agreement.

 

ill back this up with a personal experience of mine. the guys who do our yard(not because im rich, because my dad works alot, as do i...) have a village in mexico. theyre trying to bring them all over, in order to work. however, they arent doing this legally... theyll come to america, work, have some kids, and be able to stay. now, i have absolutely no problem with them bringing their family over in order to work. however, they never become legal, so they stay outside of tax laws. this is the kind of thing that needs to stop. they need to either make it harder to get in, or make it easier to earn citizenship. if they became citizens, they would pay taxes just like the rest of us. not only would they be helping themselves, but they would be helping out everyone else. thats the kind of thing that needs to be done. instead of becoming burdens on the system(not so much the labor part, but as far as taking and not giving back), they could become contributing members to society. do i believe that kicking them out helps? no. i think we need to get them legal, so they can pay the same taxes as everyone else.

this is literally exactly what good ole mitt wants to do. taken directly from his personal website...

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/immigration

btw...take a look at most insanely rich people...the vast majority of them do pay lower taxes than us. but thats only because of charitable contributions. hell, even my parent pay a little less taxes because of the amount they give back. so before you say theyre getting away with murder, think of all the possibilities.

and fyi..it is a hard fact that the top 3% pay 60%+ of taxes for america. once again, if everyone would pay their taxes...this wouldnt be an issue. that goes back to the immigrant thing as well...

the dream act is an aweful idea. its only a way to make people wanna immigrate illegally. why not just become a legal citizen? they would be able to do every single thing in this, without relying on a cartel to get them across the border?

 

You don't know how the tax and naturalization system functions and this post has made that clear. You don't pay less taxes for altruistic interest in society. You pay less taxes because you are in a higher tax bracket, as I have said before income tax is a regressive system meaning the more money you make the less you have to pay. The fact is that you are saying that people giving to charity accomplishes more than it does giving to the government is flawed, charity at it's core is terrible. Charity is something awful to give money to because all the big charities are just corporate entities that have CEOs making $500k+ per year and do little to no good beyond filling their own pockets. At least the federal government is fairly organized and can be held accountable for their actions and make sure people receive what they need. I think SuF said something similar to this in an earlier post or possibly on another thread. The government provides a highly controlled method of dispersal.

Also are you familiar with the term intellectualism? Intellectualism is the culture of intellectuals and breeding intellectualism through something like the dream act is a positive. More intelligent people means more advancements, stronger business, and a generally stronger economy and a stronger society. If you get a person that comes here, gets a degree, and then is sent packing then that is useless. We need to keep all of the intellectuals that are bred here because in the long run it will strengthen us.

You have failed to realize several points. Did you know that republican presidents have done much more to grow and expand the power of the government? Nixon, Reagan, Bush I and II have all done much more than any democratic president to make the federal government bigger. I mean look at Bush II, he created one of the most useless and intrusive cabinets in the federal government - the Department of Homeland Security.

In the end Mitt Romney would be a terrible leader. He has no firm opinions and his running mate seems like he would be infinitely more electable, even though he is also a bigot. I hope people who don't make millions a year aren't placing their faith in Romney, he has already proven that he only cares for those who are massively wealthy and that the middle class means little to nothing to him. This country runs on the backs of the middle and working class.

 

romney or obama can neither produce jobs. Im all about bring clinton back atleast he knows how to get a blow job and party right. Plus our country was never better under his rule and alot of middle east countries respect him ect..

 

So what do you propose we do? Obama has made so many Americans lose their job(s). It's absurd to let him back in office. We can't afford four more.