On August 09 2012 01:57 Savio wrote: Apparently, Romney left Bain in 1999 and that plant was closed in 2001 (someone else made the decision to close). The woman died 6 years later.
Its a pretty sick ad claiming that Romney is responsible for her death. If Obama doesn't condemn the ad quickly and harshly, then it will reflect very poorly on him.
There's plenty of very, very irresponsible anti-Obama ads that are equally disgusting that Romney hasn't said boo about.
Theses are the rules of the game that Republicans helped create. No use crying about them now.
Check out this disgusting ad.
These types of ads should be a godsend for Romney. Not because people will be swayed by them but because they are so far out there that he can speak out against them. If I were him I would make a big deal about shutting down insane ads like this one and watch undecided voters roll over for the act. The idea of a candidate willing to reign in his base is compelling to many even if it is pure misdirection.
On August 09 2012 01:57 Savio wrote: Apparently, Romney left Bain in 1999 and that plant was closed in 2001 (someone else made the decision to close). The woman died 6 years later.
Its a pretty sick ad claiming that Romney is responsible for her death. If Obama doesn't condemn the ad quickly and harshly, then it will reflect very poorly on him.
There's plenty of very, very irresponsible anti-Obama ads that are equally disgusting that Romney hasn't said boo about.
Theses are the rules of the game that Republicans helped create. No use crying about them now.
Check out this disgusting ad.
http://youtu.be/JZYsYtX1Za0
That ad is so amazing.
That has to be a parody, surely. In the list of countries which America shouldn't act diplomatically towards by apologising it included France. France is in NATO, Jesus. How is it an issue that the President is fostering good relations with your allies?!
On August 09 2012 01:57 Savio wrote: Apparently, Romney left Bain in 1999 and that plant was closed in 2001 (someone else made the decision to close). The woman died 6 years later.
Its a pretty sick ad claiming that Romney is responsible for her death. If Obama doesn't condemn the ad quickly and harshly, then it will reflect very poorly on him.
There's plenty of very, very irresponsible anti-Obama ads that are equally disgusting that Romney hasn't said boo about.
Theses are the rules of the game that Republicans helped create. No use crying about them now.
Check out this disgusting ad.
http://youtu.be/JZYsYtX1Za0
That ad is so amazing.
That has to be a parody, surely. In the list of countries which America shouldn't act diplomatically towards by apologising it included France. France is in NATO, Jesus. How is it an issue that the President is fostering good relations with your allies?!
Pffft.. first you apologize to your allies.. then you start apologizing to your enemies.. and then to everyone. It all starts somewhere.
Why does Obama sound so good? 16 trillion in debt is going to be payed back by this generation. Obama has tripled the largest deficit of all time, four years in a row. At least the GOP is for cuts and austerity measures. Obama divided the nation with "class warfare", drawing lines between classes. Anyone care to explain to me why Obama is such a great president?
On August 09 2012 04:25 mmR wrote: Why does Obama sound so good? 16 trillion in debt is going to be payed back by this generation. Obama has tripled the largest deficit of all time, four years in a row. At least the GOP is for cuts and austerity measures. Obama divided the nation with "class warfare", drawing lines between classes. Anyone care to explain to me why Obama is such a great president?
The Grand Bargain, the deal that Obama's administration spend months negotiating directly with Boehner and Cantor, was kiboshed by a contingent of Tea Party congressmen because they couldn't accept a nickel in tax increases.
Romney's tax plan has been proven not to be revenue neutral without dramatic tax increases to the middle-class, which will never happen. There is NOTHING 'austere' about his tax plan.
Romney and the GOP is exacerbating class warfare for not allowing tax increases for the very wealthy to increase to even Clinton-era levels -- a time where the US economy was strong.
If these are your 'reasons' for arguing that Obama is a 'bad' president, then you don't know what you're talking about, because you should conclude that Romney would be even worse.
On August 09 2012 04:25 mmR wrote: Why does Obama sound so good? 16 trillion in debt is going to be payed back by this generation. Obama has tripled the largest deficit of all time, four years in a row. At least the GOP is for cuts and austerity measures. Obama divided the nation with "class warfare", drawing lines between classes. Anyone care to explain to me why Obama is such a great president?
The Grand Bargain, the deal that Obama's administration spend months negotiating directly with Boehner and Cantor, was kiboshed by a contingent of Tea Party congressmen because they couldn't accept a nickel in tax increases.
Romney's tax plan has been proven not to be revenue neutral without dramatic tax increases to the middle-class, which will never happen. There is NOTHING 'austere' about his tax plan.
Romney and the GOP is exacerbating class warfare for not allowing tax increases for the very wealthy to increase to even Clinton-era levels -- a time where the US economy was strong.
If these are your 'reasons' for arguing that Obama is a 'bad' president, then you don't know what you're talking about, because you should conclude that Romney would be even worse.
Well, by GOP I wasn't just speaking about Romney's tax plan. I understand Romney is not the greatest choice for a candidate, but Obama has not lived up to his promises in the least but. He had two years of a Democratic majority Congress and it seems all he did was make the issue of class warfare prominent.
I am someone who is in the middle of the road, don't get me wrong, but to me, it seems as if the Obama supporters just choose Obama because that's the "right" or "cool" candidate. From what I've read, the US ran a surplus during the Clinton days! That's incredible! Let's aim for that! But Obama has spent 1.5 trillion more than we have, each year of his presidency.
On August 09 2012 04:25 mmR wrote: Why does Obama sound so good? 16 trillion in debt is going to be payed back by this generation. Obama has tripled the largest deficit of all time, four years in a row. At least the GOP is for cuts and austerity measures. Obama divided the nation with "class warfare", drawing lines between classes. Anyone care to explain to me why Obama is such a great president?
The Grand Bargain, the deal that Obama's administration spend months negotiating directly with Boehner and Cantor, was kiboshed by a contingent of Tea Party congressmen because they couldn't accept a nickel in tax increases.
Romney's tax plan has been proven not to be revenue neutral without dramatic tax increases to the middle-class, which will never happen. There is NOTHING 'austere' about his tax plan.
Romney and the GOP is exacerbating class warfare for not allowing tax increases for the very wealthy to increase to even Clinton-era levels -- a time where the US economy was strong.
If these are your 'reasons' for arguing that Obama is a 'bad' president, then you don't know what you're talking about, because you should conclude that Romney would be even worse.
Well, by GOP I wasn't just speaking about Romney's tax plan. I understand Romney is not the greatest choice for a candidate, but Obama has not lived up to his promises in the least but. He had two years of a Democratic majority Congress and it seems all he did was make the issue of class warfare prominent.
I am someone who is in the middle of the road, don't get me wrong, but to me, it seems as if the Obama supporters just choose Obama because that's the "right" or "cool" candidate. From what I've read, the US ran a surplus during the Clinton days! That's incredible! Let's aim for that! But Obama has spent 1.5 trillion more than we have, each year of his presidency.
Go google the US budget and you will discover that Clinton ran a surplus followed by giant deficits during Bush. Obama has indeed further increased the deficit because he is fighting a depression. That shit costs money and he is unable to increase taxes due to the Republican congress blocking everything to save there own wallet. Also the 2 year majority is not correct since Democrats lost there super majority a lot sooner which just made the republicans filliburster everything.
On August 09 2012 04:25 mmR wrote: Why does Obama sound so good? 16 trillion in debt is going to be payed back by this generation. Obama has tripled the largest deficit of all time, four years in a row. At least the GOP is for cuts and austerity measures. Obama divided the nation with "class warfare", drawing lines between classes. Anyone care to explain to me why Obama is such a great president?
The Grand Bargain, the deal that Obama's administration spend months negotiating directly with Boehner and Cantor, was kiboshed by a contingent of Tea Party congressmen because they couldn't accept a nickel in tax increases.
Romney's tax plan has been proven not to be revenue neutral without dramatic tax increases to the middle-class, which will never happen. There is NOTHING 'austere' about his tax plan.
Romney and the GOP is exacerbating class warfare for not allowing tax increases for the very wealthy to increase to even Clinton-era levels -- a time where the US economy was strong.
If these are your 'reasons' for arguing that Obama is a 'bad' president, then you don't know what you're talking about, because you should conclude that Romney would be even worse.
Well, by GOP I wasn't just speaking about Romney's tax plan. I understand Romney is not the greatest choice for a candidate, but Obama has not lived up to his promises in the least but. He had two years of a Democratic majority Congress and it seems all he did was make the issue of class warfare prominent.
I am someone who is in the middle of the road, don't get me wrong, but to me, it seems as if the Obama supporters just choose Obama because that's the "right" or "cool" candidate. From what I've read, the US ran a surplus during the Clinton days! That's incredible! Let's aim for that! But Obama has spent 1.5 trillion more than we have, each year of his presidency.
alot of that debt increase was automatic. The wars + tax cuts would be in effect regardless of who was in president. Obama actually increased the debt himself the lowest of any president % wise. Not saying hes done a good job with the deficit, but it is highly inaccurate to blame the entire 5 trillion increase in debt on Obama.
Soptic's wife died five years after GST filed for bankruptcy. His wife reportedly had her own health insurance after Soptic left GST. And Romney had long since left Bain Capital at the time of her death.
The whole troops being pulled out thing upsets me as well. I know people who are stationed in the Middle East still, where Obama campaigned on us being pulled out rapidly.
"The wars + tax cuts would be in effect regardless of who was in president." I totally agree! But the tax raises aren't necessarily a good thing. The top 50% of earners in America pays 100% of the taxes. This is just unfortunate because the super wealthy and wealthy get stuck with this negative image of not paying their "fair share". It seems like they have worked hard and earned what they have, when many of the not as fortunate give up on their jobs, quit, and live literally forever off of food stamps. lol
As for being in a depression, the market has not gotten significantly better since Obama has taken office. The "real" rate of unemployment is not 8% (this is apparently the percentage of those both willing AND able to work, not truly unemployed), but closer to 20%. This scares me.
Again, just the overarching image I receive as someone who doesn't like to listen to CNN liberal or Fox hyper-conservative rhetoric. Thoughts?
On August 09 2012 05:03 mmR wrote: The whole troops being pulled out thing upsets me as well. I know people who are stationed in the Middle East still, where Obama campaigned on us being pulled out rapidly.
"The wars + tax cuts would be in effect regardless of who was in president." I totally agree! But the tax raises aren't necessarily a good thing. The top 50% of earners in America pays 100% of the taxes. This is just unfortunate because the super wealthy and wealthy get stuck with this negative image of not paying their "fair share". It seems like they have worked hard and earned what they have, when many of the not as fortunate give up on their jobs, quit, and live literally forever off of food stamps. lol
As for being in a depression, the market has not gotten significantly better since Obama has taken office. The "real" rate of unemployment is not 8% (this is apparently the percentage of those both willing AND able to work, not truly unemployed), but closer to 20%. This scares me.
Again, just the overarching image I receive as someone who doesn't like to listen to CNN liberal or Fox hyper-conservative rhetoric. Thoughts?
While the US isnt doing that much better you also have to look at the rest of the world. Now im no financial expert and i dont follow it all as close as i can but the entire world is still pretty fucked. With the interconnection of modern day economics your not going to pull the US out if the rest of the world isnt doing well either.
On August 09 2012 05:03 mmR wrote: The whole troops being pulled out thing upsets me as well. I know people who are stationed in the Middle East still, where Obama campaigned on us being pulled out rapidly.
"The wars + tax cuts would be in effect regardless of who was in president." I totally agree! But the tax raises aren't necessarily a good thing. The top 50% of earners in America pays 100% of the taxes. This is just unfortunate because the super wealthy and wealthy get stuck with this negative image of not paying their "fair share". It seems like they have worked hard and earned what they have, when many of the not as fortunate give up on their jobs, quit, and live literally forever off of food stamps. lol
As for being in a depression, the market has not gotten significantly better since Obama has taken office. The "real" rate of unemployment is not 8% (this is apparently the percentage of those both willing AND able to work, not truly unemployed), but closer to 20%. This scares me.
Again, just the overarching image I receive as someone who doesn't like to listen to CNN liberal or Fox hyper-conservative rhetoric. Thoughts?
While the US isnt doing that much better you also have to look at the rest of the world. Now im no financial expert and i dont follow it all as close as i can but the entire world is still pretty fucked. With the interconnection of modern day economics your not going to pull the US out if the rest of the world isnt doing well either.
So why Obama? Why pick someone who has, seemingly, only worsened the overall American economic situation?
On August 09 2012 05:03 mmR wrote: The whole troops being pulled out thing upsets me as well. I know people who are stationed in the Middle East still, where Obama campaigned on us being pulled out rapidly.
"The wars + tax cuts would be in effect regardless of who was in president." I totally agree! But the tax raises aren't necessarily a good thing. The top 50% of earners in America pays 100% of the taxes. This is just unfortunate because the super wealthy and wealthy get stuck with this negative image of not paying their "fair share". It seems like they have worked hard and earned what they have, when many of the not as fortunate give up on their jobs, quit, and live literally forever off of food stamps. lol
As for being in a depression, the market has not gotten significantly better since Obama has taken office. The "real" rate of unemployment is not 8% (this is apparently the percentage of those both willing AND able to work, not truly unemployed), but closer to 20%. This scares me.
Again, just the overarching image I receive as someone who doesn't like to listen to CNN liberal or Fox hyper-conservative rhetoric. Thoughts?
While the US isnt doing that much better you also have to look at the rest of the world. Now im no financial expert and i dont follow it all as close as i can but the entire world is still pretty fucked. With the interconnection of modern day economics your not going to pull the US out if the rest of the world isnt doing well either.
So why Obama? Why pick someone who has, seemingly, only worsened the overall American economic situation?
On August 09 2012 05:03 mmR wrote: The whole troops being pulled out thing upsets me as well. I know people who are stationed in the Middle East still, where Obama campaigned on us being pulled out rapidly.
"The wars + tax cuts would be in effect regardless of who was in president." I totally agree! But the tax raises aren't necessarily a good thing. The top 50% of earners in America pays 100% of the taxes. This is just unfortunate because the super wealthy and wealthy get stuck with this negative image of not paying their "fair share". It seems like they have worked hard and earned what they have, when many of the not as fortunate give up on their jobs, quit, and live literally forever off of food stamps. lol
As for being in a depression, the market has not gotten significantly better since Obama has taken office. The "real" rate of unemployment is not 8% (this is apparently the percentage of those both willing AND able to work, not truly unemployed), but closer to 20%. This scares me.
Again, just the overarching image I receive as someone who doesn't like to listen to CNN liberal or Fox hyper-conservative rhetoric. Thoughts?
While the US isnt doing that much better you also have to look at the rest of the world. Now im no financial expert and i dont follow it all as close as i can but the entire world is still pretty fucked. With the interconnection of modern day economics your not going to pull the US out if the rest of the world isnt doing well either.
So why Obama? Why pick someone who has, seemingly, only worsened the overall American economic situation?
Where did i say he worsend it? Hes trying but at the end of the day the president has limited power to bring the economy out of a depressing like this. Besides. the only other option is someone who will not raise taxes, will increase military spending and yet says this will increase money income because as soon as he comes to power the US will have a magical 8% economic growth.
On August 09 2012 05:03 mmR wrote: The whole troops being pulled out thing upsets me as well. I know people who are stationed in the Middle East still, where Obama campaigned on us being pulled out rapidly.
"The wars + tax cuts would be in effect regardless of who was in president." I totally agree! But the tax raises aren't necessarily a good thing. The top 50% of earners in America pays 100% of the taxes. This is just unfortunate because the super wealthy and wealthy get stuck with this negative image of not paying their "fair share". It seems like they have worked hard and earned what they have, when many of the not as fortunate give up on their jobs, quit, and live literally forever off of food stamps. lol
As for being in a depression, the market has not gotten significantly better since Obama has taken office. The "real" rate of unemployment is not 8% (this is apparently the percentage of those both willing AND able to work, not truly unemployed), but closer to 20%. This scares me.
Again, just the overarching image I receive as someone who doesn't like to listen to CNN liberal or Fox hyper-conservative rhetoric. Thoughts?
While the US isnt doing that much better you also have to look at the rest of the world. Now im no financial expert and i dont follow it all as close as i can but the entire world is still pretty fucked. With the interconnection of modern day economics your not going to pull the US out if the rest of the world isnt doing well either.
So why Obama? Why pick someone who has, seemingly, only worsened the overall American economic situation?
The other choice seems even worse.
As much as I'd like to agree, the Democratic party is based on the ideal that we need to tax more so we can spend more where the Republican party is based on less government and less spending period, and I really like this idea. Doesn't exaclty seem like Romney is the knight in shining white armor, of course, but his party seems to have the right ideas during this massive economic downturn. So, yes, I am 'hoping' that Romney decides to really stand for something or Obama decides to help the economy.
On August 09 2012 05:03 mmR wrote: The whole troops being pulled out thing upsets me as well. I know people who are stationed in the Middle East still, where Obama campaigned on us being pulled out rapidly.
"The wars + tax cuts would be in effect regardless of who was in president." I totally agree! But the tax raises aren't necessarily a good thing. The top 50% of earners in America pays 100% of the taxes. This is just unfortunate because the super wealthy and wealthy get stuck with this negative image of not paying their "fair share". It seems like they have worked hard and earned what they have, when many of the not as fortunate give up on their jobs, quit, and live literally forever off of food stamps. lol
As for being in a depression, the market has not gotten significantly better since Obama has taken office. The "real" rate of unemployment is not 8% (this is apparently the percentage of those both willing AND able to work, not truly unemployed), but closer to 20%. This scares me.
Again, just the overarching image I receive as someone who doesn't like to listen to CNN liberal or Fox hyper-conservative rhetoric. Thoughts?
Gotta correct you on the economy. The market is significantly better since Obama has taken office. But the problem is that Obama talked about a V-shaped recovery and we were supposed to return to our pre-crisis trajectory as a result of his policies. By the standard he set for himself, he has fallen very short. But the economy is definitely in a better place in 2012 than in 2009.
On August 09 2012 05:03 mmR wrote: The whole troops being pulled out thing upsets me as well. I know people who are stationed in the Middle East still, where Obama campaigned on us being pulled out rapidly.
"The wars + tax cuts would be in effect regardless of who was in president." I totally agree! But the tax raises aren't necessarily a good thing. The top 50% of earners in America pays 100% of the taxes. This is just unfortunate because the super wealthy and wealthy get stuck with this negative image of not paying their "fair share". It seems like they have worked hard and earned what they have, when many of the not as fortunate give up on their jobs, quit, and live literally forever off of food stamps. lol
As for being in a depression, the market has not gotten significantly better since Obama has taken office. The "real" rate of unemployment is not 8% (this is apparently the percentage of those both willing AND able to work, not truly unemployed), but closer to 20%. This scares me.
Again, just the overarching image I receive as someone who doesn't like to listen to CNN liberal or Fox hyper-conservative rhetoric. Thoughts?
While the US isnt doing that much better you also have to look at the rest of the world. Now im no financial expert and i dont follow it all as close as i can but the entire world is still pretty fucked. With the interconnection of modern day economics your not going to pull the US out if the rest of the world isnt doing well either.
So why Obama? Why pick someone who has, seemingly, only worsened the overall American economic situation?
Where did i say he worsend it? Hes trying but at the end of the day the president has limited power to bring the economy out of a depressing like this. Besides. the only other option is someone who will not raise taxes, will increase military spending and yet says this will increase money income because as soon as he comes to power the US will have a magical 8% economic growth.
"While the US isnt doing that much better you also have to look at the rest of the world. Now im no financial expert and i dont follow it all as close as i can but the entire world is still pretty fucked. With the interconnection of modern day economics your not going to pull the US out if the rest of the world isnt doing well either."
You did not say Obama worsened the American economy. He did though, or so it seems. We are having just as tough a time as four or five years ago, if not worse. I believe he is trying and that's great! But i think he's going about it in all the incorrect ways. Raising taxes and raising spending is not the way to exit a recession; cutting taxes and raising spending is the proper, by the book way, according to any economics professor not looking at a specific situation xD. It allows for money to flow through the economy to try to kick-start it. Once again, Romney may not have the right idea about the economy, just yet, but the current president does not, either.
On August 09 2012 05:03 mmR wrote: The whole troops being pulled out thing upsets me as well. I know people who are stationed in the Middle East still, where Obama campaigned on us being pulled out rapidly.
"The wars + tax cuts would be in effect regardless of who was in president." I totally agree! But the tax raises aren't necessarily a good thing. The top 50% of earners in America pays 100% of the taxes. This is just unfortunate because the super wealthy and wealthy get stuck with this negative image of not paying their "fair share". It seems like they have worked hard and earned what they have, when many of the not as fortunate give up on their jobs, quit, and live literally forever off of food stamps. lol
As for being in a depression, the market has not gotten significantly better since Obama has taken office. The "real" rate of unemployment is not 8% (this is apparently the percentage of those both willing AND able to work, not truly unemployed), but closer to 20%. This scares me.
Again, just the overarching image I receive as someone who doesn't like to listen to CNN liberal or Fox hyper-conservative rhetoric. Thoughts?
Gotta correct you on the economy. The market is significantly better since Obama has taken office. But the problem is that Obama talked about a V-shaped recovery and we were supposed to return to our pre-crisis trajectory as a result of his policies. By the standard he set for himself, he has fallen very short. But the economy is definitely in a better place in 2012 than in 2009.
According to the Wall Street side of things, yes. And the president's policies have had little-to-nothing to do with that. Can we agree there, or am i misinformed? The Dow has moved a massive amount from 2009 which is superb (I invest a bit myself xD), but anyone who claimed it was a hard economic time in 2009 will still say it's a hard time now.
"By the standard he set for himself, he has fallen very short." I totally agree. He said he was going to be the most transparent presidency of all time, then used "executive privilege" to get out of a narrow situation. Thoughts?
Pretty sure that he is still one of the most transparent presidents of all time, if executive privilege is the way of measuring it. It's been used since Washington, and one time is pretty low compared to modern presidents. (3 times for Reagan, 14 for Clinton, 6 G.W. Bush, etc.)
On August 09 2012 05:03 mmR wrote: The whole troops being pulled out thing upsets me as well. I know people who are stationed in the Middle East still, where Obama campaigned on us being pulled out rapidly.
"The wars + tax cuts would be in effect regardless of who was in president." I totally agree! But the tax raises aren't necessarily a good thing. The top 50% of earners in America pays 100% of the taxes. This is just unfortunate because the super wealthy and wealthy get stuck with this negative image of not paying their "fair share". It seems like they have worked hard and earned what they have, when many of the not as fortunate give up on their jobs, quit, and live literally forever off of food stamps. lol
As for being in a depression, the market has not gotten significantly better since Obama has taken office. The "real" rate of unemployment is not 8% (this is apparently the percentage of those both willing AND able to work, not truly unemployed), but closer to 20%. This scares me.
Again, just the overarching image I receive as someone who doesn't like to listen to CNN liberal or Fox hyper-conservative rhetoric. Thoughts?
While the US isnt doing that much better you also have to look at the rest of the world. Now im no financial expert and i dont follow it all as close as i can but the entire world is still pretty fucked. With the interconnection of modern day economics your not going to pull the US out if the rest of the world isnt doing well either.
So why Obama? Why pick someone who has, seemingly, only worsened the overall American economic situation?
The other choice seems even worse.
As much as I'd like to agree, the Democratic party is based on the ideal that we need to tax more so we can spend more where the Republican party is based on less government and less spending period, and I really like this idea. Doesn't exaclty seem like Romney is the knight in shining white armor, of course, but his party seems to have the right ideas during this massive economic downturn. So, yes, I am 'hoping' that Romney decides to really stand for something or Obama decides to help the economy.
To put it more specifically, the Republican party is based on the principle that the government should not interfere in affairs that the people themselves can handle. That is obviously the correct notion, but it's a lot more complicated than it seems. When you let the people do as they please, you let the corrupt do as they please (for instance, bankers). Romney has already pledged to cut all the red tape the Obama administration has enacted in a time where we need more regulation so large banks and corporations don't toy with the economy and make the public bail them out.
Obama is not for raising taxes on everyone, but rather for raising taxes on the wealthy and keeping taxes low for those with under $200K annual income. With the extended Bush Tax Cuts the top bracket pays 35%. While this may sound like a lot, the present loopholes allow them to pay significantly less, not to mention the corporate tax loopholes (and offshoring). In any case, due to these tax cuts we have, naturally, received less tax revenue over the years, driving up our deficit. But the bigger problem with tax cuts for the wealthy is the classic case of "the rich get richer and the poor... are still poor." The income disparity within America has grown enormously ever since the Bush Tax Cuts were introduced. The top 1% of all wage-earners experienced over 80% of all income growth while the working class's wages remained stagnant. I'm also sure you've heard of the numbers 1% owning 40% of all wealth, 10% owning 80% of all wealth. Despite all this Romney wants to keep cutting taxes for the wealthy and for corporations, and this will end up biting us in the butt by either obliging us to raise taxes on the middle-class or cutting spending on essential services such as education (the backbone of any nation) or both (the more likely option).
So while I do agree with the Republican ideal of less government when appropriate (i.e. let the state handle matters of gun control, education, etc.) there are areas where the Federal government must step in so that those in power don't trample over the unsuspecting public.
Other reasons not to vote for Romney? Personally, I'm much more left-leaning in terms of abortion, gay rights, etc.
I'm not a fan of Obama and his inability to get much done (yes, Republicans have been assholes but Obama is bad at politics), but he is definitely the lesser of two evils. As far as his economic policies go, I'd say he inherited a lot of crap from his predecessor and hasn't had enough time nor support to do what he needs (which is his own fault plus the fault of the Republican Congress).
EPT
