Azelma wrote:
Mayo pointed out correctly that the debt ceiling fiasco was a result of house republicans stalling. It was also a simple issue of general fucktardishness in congress. I don't see how you can place blame for that squarely at Obama's feet.
You can't say, "The debt ceiling fiasco was because of Republicans", but then say it was also an issue of fucktardishness of congress - a body that was largely split in debate on how to move forward. In the house, the final passage of the bill had only 50% of the Democrats supporting the bill, and 72% of Republican support. The 'stalling', by Republicans, was to force some cuts to the budget. Ask yourself this... if someone is incapable of controlling their spending, and they ask for over a trillion more dollars to spend, doesn't it make sense to put a caveat on that request? I think we all can agree that deficits that exceed revenue by 150% are a bad thing, so why is having a dialog on ways to cut spending and balance budgets a bad thing. Over-spending is why we had the debt ceiling issue, anyways.
I said in another post, this is more of a criticism of Obama's inability to bring the teams broker a deal sooner. Both sides came to a concensus but it didn't happen sooner and I think that's a reflection of Obama's inability to lead.
Azelma wrote:
Debt loads...fair points all, but do you know when the deficits and debt started to get out of control? It was during the Bush presidency. And military spending ballooned before Obama ever stepped foot in office due to Iraq and Afghanistan. Romney has said he wants to INCREASE military spending.
I don't know if you're aware of this, but Bush isn't running for Office. Obama is. You need to look at
his record and stop placing blame on past administrations. Yes, Bush had an issue with running a deficit, but it wasn't nearly as bad as Obama's, and that's while Bush was running two full fledged wars. This administration, on the other hand, has been spending more while military operations have been drawing down.
Romney wanting to increase defense spending at a 4% floor is kinda high for my tastes, but if he can find a way to shore up the increase in cost by drawing more revenue, then I'd probably be fine with it. I don't hate the military like you do.
Quote:
We should be blaming the entire government, the federal reserve, and the huge banks for this mess...not Obama.
I'm not electing the entire government. I'm electing a President who should be a leader. I want a President who can work with Democrats and Republicans. I want a President who knows the level of his influence.
Azelma wrote:
The Fed decides to do Quantitative Easing (which is retarded btw). You cannot blame Obama for the Fed deciding to do QE. If they do it while Romney's president, will you blame Romney for it?
Yep. Romney said he's going to remove Ben Bernanke (which is something the President can do, although its never been done), so I guess that's a good start.
Azelma wrote:
Eturnalshift wrote:
* Our growth has been slow
Again, how is this entirely Obama's fault? There are a myriad of issues that have been problematic here.
It's not entirely his fault... but in November, I can vote against Obama, since he is part of the problem.
Eturnalshift wrote:
Check where your facts are coming from. Where did you hear that number?
Congressional Budget Office. I'm sure you can google analysis on the reports from year to year. The legislation increases taxes on people, increases spending, and still runs a deficit. The purpose of the legislation is to drive down the costs of medical care and insure a larger number of uninsured Americans, but it doesn't do that. This expands the government and now makes an individuals health a concern of everyones, and not just those who pay to a particular insurance company, and least of all, to those individuals who would otherwise have to care for themselves.
Azelma wrote:
Eturnalshift wrote:
* 1/6 Americans are in 'poverty'
This is Obama's fault? Do you believe Romney will fix this?
It's not Obama's fault, but Obama hasn't had the leadership to make things better. Will Romney be better? I don't know, but like I said before, I'm willing to take a chance.
Azelma wrote:
Yep. Not impressed. Appointing the first latina to the Supreme Court, signing ObamaCare, maintaining the Iraq withdrawal timeline that Bush set, killing Osama bin Laden or killing some Somali pirates, adding money to various causes and funds when we can barely afford our current obligations and discretionary spending, etc. etc.
Eturnalshift wrote:
Did you see the link I posted? It's a point by point analysis of WHY this policy simply won't work:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -tax-plan/ Weird. Unless I misread the piece, it looks like they're saying Romney's plan
might work based on the definitions of 'wealthy' and based on what deductions, loopholes and credits are changed. Romney and Ryan said those items would be determined by Congress through debate and discussion, so it's hard to say exactly what might change.
Azelma wrote:
Listen Eturnal, I'm going to level with you, I work alongside some very very wealthy people. I'm a partner in a small business. I am a job creator. I can tell you, 100%, that the trickle down effect has not ever worked or ever been true. If you give a millionaire more money, that millionaire will not create more jobs with it...that millionaire will put it away in savings, will sit on it, will tie it up with Goldman Sachs or some company that services the already rich...it will not trickle down. Now if you're talking about tax breaks for small businesses and other incentives (which Obama has supported)...THEN I'll say, hell yes...that'll create a job potentially. And we've discussed this before...a 20% cut to someone making $25,000 a year is not the same as a cut to someone making $2,500,000 a year. We're talking a few extra hundred bucks maybe...that doesn't change someone's life. That doesn't help them drive the economy more. It just doesn't.
You work alongside wealthy people!? So do I! Isn't it strange that we work... alongside... wealthy people... who worked their asses off? You're going to run your mouth and say, "Trickle down never works", except for the fact that you have a job. Except for the fact that people are able to invest in businesses. Except for the fact that banks are able to lend money to grow business or improve an individuals life. Except for the fact that everyone who works in your company is on the payroll and they maintain their job, and don't go elsewhere, because the money given to them is adequate for their needs... and if it isn't, those people are free to find another job or work their ass off to make themselves worth more to your company.
When has "trickle up" worked? The government is paying more and more to entitlement spending (welfare, foodstamps, unemployment, medicare/medicaid, etc.) but that money hasn't "trickled up" to create an economic boom. Why is that?
Also, if a poor person receives a 20% cut to their marginal rate, then that's 20% less in taxes that they would've otherwise spent. If it's a $10 gain, or a $100,000 gain, at some point that money will work it's way into the economy. If it sits in savings, that money is available to a bank to loan to other companies or individuals. If that money is spent on a fifth yacht, then a company gets money to give to their employees. If that money is invested into a business, then a business has more money to grow their business. In either case, it's money that individual didn't have before, and that gain has more spending power than no gain or a loss. Interestingly, you want to give poor people more money by increasing taxes on the rich, but you're against giving poor people more money by reducing their marginal tax rates. Do your partners know you loathe their success so much?
Azelma wrote:
You said that there is high poverty in America. As someone who came from poverty and had a mother on food stamps I can tell you that no millionaires in the hamptons' tax breaks helped us. My mother worked at McDonalds...giving McDonalds' CEO a huge tax break didn't create that job for her. He didn't funnel that money down to her. It's a myth, I wish I knew how to convince you that it's a myth...I really do. It hurts me that you believe it will help.
Let me ask you this, and forgive me if this comes off rude... was your mom worth any cut of that tax break? Was she a decision maker or did she simply do a job that didn't require thought? Sadly, jobs that require little to no skill or intellectual capacity aren't going to receive any increase in pay based on a companies tax breaks. What they
will receive is better management, perhaps better benefits, more efficient food lines, etc.
Quote:
Romney is not interested in helping alleviate poverty. He himself stated that the 47% of people who don't pay federal income taxes won't vote for him anyway. He's not concerned about them Eturnal. He's going to protect big business...he's going to protect people who are rich. This is why the people I know who are extremely wealthy are all interested in Mitt becoming president.
Look at any poll, Azelma. Romney and Obama are both floating in the mid-to-high 40s with support. Fact: There are about 47% of people who don't pay federal income taxes. Fact: Obama has about 47% of the vote already secured, just as Romney has about the same percentage secured from the other side. Romney is being real... people who are supporting Obama aren't going to vote for Romney, and the reverse is also true. Both candidates are fighting for the independent vote and the battleground states. Does it make any sense for Obama to spend money campaigning in Texas? Does it make sense for Romney to make an expensive pitch to Black America? These locations and demographics are already locked and they're lost causes.
Ask yourself this: Which party will get more votes from people on unemployment, welfare, food stamps, etc.?
Quote:
I'm telling you that given all the facts I've seen, the history I know, and every credible source I can find....Romney's ideas are worse and will not help the issues you're upset at Obama for not fixing. I implore you to reconsider your vote. If not, and Romney wins...then I want to talk with you in 2016. If things have gotten better, I'll concede that you were right. If they are the same or worse, I hope you're prepared to place all the blame at Romney's feet.
The facts you've seen about a plan which is partly unrevealed has no bearing on the reality of the country during the last four years. You say Romney's ideas are worse. I say Obama's ideas are worse. We're both smart guys, right? Only one of us has seen the true, economic and social impact of one of our candidates policy. So, yes. Although Romney doesn't embody all the principals, beliefs and values that I hold, I will be voting for him because I think he'll be better than four more years of our current President's administration. (I'm not placing all the blame on Obama, either... I'm simply hoping to remove one problematic and ineffectual cog from the machine.)
Edit: To spare everyone our back-and-forth dick slapping, I'd be willing to take this to PM. Obviously, I can be very long about this crap...
