EPTOn August 15 2012 09:49 xDaunt wrote:
You could eliminate 100% of defense spending and not cut the deficit in half.
You could eliminate 100% of defense spending and not cut the deficit in half.
No one is saying only cut defense spending.
President Obama Re-Elected - Page 288
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
TOloseGT
United States1145 Posts
No one is saying only cut defense spending. | ||
|
RCMDVA
United States708 Posts
On August 15 2012 09:54 Actionfigurejesus wrote: I don't think Romney could get elected. The cultural disparity between the rich and the poor in America is really astounding, and hopefully anybody without 2 yachts and 5 houses realizes this and doesn't vote for him. Although ignorance is also prevalent in America, so who knows >.> Obama will win by no more than 3 states and less than a combined total of 250,000 votes more than Romney in those 3 states. If Romney wins I don't see him breaking 280 electoral votes. If Obama wins I don't see him breaking 300 electoral votes. He'd need to win Florida to break 300. It's going to be close. Seriously... about the wealth thing... John Kerry = Mitt Romney in terms of wealth. It's the same at 200 million or so they both have. They have the same number of houses and same number of yachts. You look at all the wealthiest politicians...and it's just about equal if you take away Michael Bloomberg. His 22 billion skews the numbers. (so Bloomberg is ONE HUNDRED TIMES richer than Romney). You look at the top richest americans... the top 3 billionaires are Democrats and the top 10 even out overall. So just get off the wealth thing. It's equal. Gates + Buffet + Ellision + Soros is equal to Koch Brothers + Walmart Family + Adelson. | ||
|
Risen
United States7927 Posts
On August 15 2012 09:54 Actionfigurejesus wrote: I don't think Romney could get elected. The cultural disparity between the rich and the poor in America is really astounding, and hopefully anybody without 2 yachts and 5 houses realizes this and doesn't vote for him. Although ignorance is also prevalent in America, so who knows >.> Obama is rich, too. I don't think people hate rich people. This article does the job better than I could for why people don't like him... http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/14/opinion/granderson-romney-likeability/index.html Edit: Most specifically, this part. "When men like Ryan or Obama or Vice President Joe Biden roll their sleeves up to talk to blue collar voters, it feels real because it's coming from a real place inside. When Romney rolls his sleeves up, it's clear he's trying to send a message -- because his sense of entitlement and social disconnect prevents him from being the message." And I hate LZ Granderson so much of the time, too... | ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On August 15 2012 10:21 RCMDVA wrote: Obama will win by no more than 3 states and less than a combined total of 250,000 votes more than Romney in those 3 states. If Romney wins I don't see him breaking 280 electoral votes. If Obama wins I don't see him breaking 300 electoral votes. He'd need to win Florida to break 300. It's going to be close. Seriously... about the wealth thing... John Kerry = Mitt Romney in terms of wealth. It's the same at 200 million or so they both have. They have the same number of houses and same number of yachts. You look at all the wealthiest politicians...and it's just about equal if you take away Michael Bloomberg. His 22 billion skews the numbers. (so Bloomberg is ONE HUNDRED TIMES richer than Romney). You look at the top richest americans... the top 3 billionaires are Democrats and the top 10 even out overall. So just get off the wealth thing. It's equal. Gates + Buffet + Ellision + Soros is equal to Koch Brothers + Walmart Family + Adelson. You totally went off topic. He's talking about the cultural disparity in general. How does comparing rich Democrats with rich Republicans matter at all? He's saying he hopes poor/middle-class people vote for Obama because the disparity is alarming and Romney will probably make it worse. Or, well, that's what I hope he's trying to say. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On August 15 2012 09:17 aksfjh wrote: I need to do some surfing to confirm this, but I think the bill stalled before the recess with it only making "recommendations" to companies it found to be vulnerable. If I'm not mistaken, that's what the Republicans pushed for at the start of the debate, and they ended up being the ones to block it before recess. Like I said, I need to do some research on that to make sure I heard and remember it all correctly. Republicans don't want to do nothing about it. Everyone acknowledges that cybercrime is rampant and raises a potentially huge threat against the United States. But where the dispute lies is whether we need a regulatory leviathan and particularly one that gives the government vast powers over the internet. In fairness, nobody expected this to pass so close to the election. The American public is highly schizophrenic when it comes to the internet and nobody wants to gamble on whether the public would be more outraged at the potential for privacy/free speech violations (e.g. SOPA) or more furious that the US doesn't have a security regime (e.g. post-9/11). | ||
|
RCMDVA
United States708 Posts
John Kerry was 25 times richer than Bush. Obama will be worth +100 million once he's out of office. Everybody knows this. Clinton had nothing when he won... now he's earnd over $100 million since leaving. Obama will do the same. So worst case Obama is shaping up to be only "half" as wealthy as Romney. There is no difference between your average middle class person and Romney's wealth and the wealth Obama is going to have. The day Obama leaves office he is going to get paid like a #1 NBA/NFL draft pick. | ||
|
DannyJ
United States5110 Posts
| ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On August 15 2012 10:46 RCMDVA wrote: John Kerry was 25 times richer than Bush. Obama will be worth +100 million once he's out of office. Everybody knows this. Clinton had nothing when he won... now he's earnd over $100 million since leaving. Obama will do the same. So worst case Obama is shaping up to be only "half" as wealthy as Romney. There is no difference between your average middle class person and Romney's wealth and the wealth Obama is going to have. The day Obama leaves office he is going to get paid like a #1 NBA/NFL draft pick. Again you're missing the point. Romney is shaping up to be the candidate that supports the wealthy and will only increase the rate of income disparity. That's the only reason why people bring up his wealth. If he instead said, "We will raise taxes on the wealthy!" then not many people would care that he was rich or if they did, it would be in a good light. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On August 15 2012 10:51 DannyJ wrote: Who cares how much they are worth? On a base level, nobody. It has more to do with how they accumulated the wealth than how much they have accumulated. | ||
|
Josealtron
United States219 Posts
| ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
By working verry hard and beeing verry good at his job, turning around businesses in difficult times. Off course he is rightwing and favours the wealthy americans, every republican has been doing so. If he wouldnt he would never have gotten elected a republican candidate in the first place. | ||
|
RMonkeyF
46 Posts
| ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On August 15 2012 10:59 Souma wrote: Again you're missing the point. Romney is shaping up to be the candidate that supports the wealthy and will only increase the rate of income disparity. That's the only reason why people bring up his wealth. If he instead said, "We will raise taxes on the wealthy!" then not many people would care that he was rich or if they did, it would be in a good light. On the tax side we can safely say that Romney favors the rich more than Obama. But on the regulatory side Obama favors the rich more than Romney. Obamacare makes it much easier for established insurance companies to fend off new entrants. The same can be said for Dodd-Frank's impact on banking. Obama's also more likely to favor certain rich that he likes via subsidies, tax credits and loans. So, I really don't see it as one guy being more "pro-rich" than the other. That's just political marketing IMO. | ||
|
ItsMarvelBabyyy
Vatican City State135 Posts
| ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Taxes are THE crux of income disparity in America at the moment, and I'm glad Obama has addressed that. I'm also hoping if he's elected for a second term, he can do more with Obamacare and Dodd-Frank... a lot more than I can say for Romney who wants to get rid of Obamacare and remove all the red tape that was put in place to protect consumers in the first place. Obama's also more likely to favor certain rich that he likes via subsidies, tax credits and loans. Yeah... that's an outlandish claim. Like I mentioned, Obama does support some of the wealthy, but to say he's "more likely to favor" them than Romney is nonsense. I don't think one can claim that until Romney takes office, puts his budget into place with full details and rides out his term. btw we keep using the terms "rich" and "wealthy" as if they're the worst insult one can possibly label someone. I just want to state for the record that I am not against people having money. I just rather see the country as a whole prosper, and that definitely won't happen if we keep handing the top 1-10% our pockets while kicking everyone else while they're down. | ||
|
Risen
United States7927 Posts
On August 15 2012 12:10 RMonkeyF wrote: The poll results for as to who people hope wins this election is the very reason i stand by the fact that anyone under the age of 35 should not be allowed to vote. They support the other candidate so they shouldn't be allowed to vote? If you didn't want to sound like a dick instead you'd say, "When polled on basic political facts, X age group scored Y%. Therefor, I don't think they should be allowed to vote." When you say what you said, it just makes you sound like you think you're smarter than everyone else and that you "know" something "they" don't. If that's the case, what do you know that supporters of the other candidate don't? Why not share that information and try to persuade people like xDaunt and others in this thread do instead of whining like a little child. Is it b/c then you'd have people around who were able to fact check and counter your arguments making you question your beliefs? I dislike xDaunt for a lot of stuff, but respect the fact that, for the most part, he comes in here and voices his opinions. He doesn't just hide behind some general inanity. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On August 15 2012 13:19 Souma wrote: There is no doubt in my mind that Obama panders to the rich as well (what candidate doesn't?). But using Obamacare and Dodd-Frank to support that claim... I've really heard it all now, haven't I? While I am unsatisfied with Obamacare (I prefer universal health care) and Dodd-Frank (doesn't do enough) we can see what Obama's intentions are... and it's definitely not meant to prop up the rich, but rather help protect the poor/middle-class. Taxes are THE crux of income disparity in America at the moment, and I'm glad Obama has addressed that. I'm also hoping if he's elected for a second term, he can do more with Obamacare and Dodd-Frank... a lot more than I can say for Romney who wants to get rid of Obamacare and remove all the red tape that was put in place to protect consumers in the first place. Yeah... that's an outlandish claim. Like I mentioned, Obama does support some of the wealthy, but to say he's "more likely to favor" them than Romney is nonsense. I don't think one can claim that until Romney takes office, puts his budget into place with full details and rides out his term. btw we keep using the terms "rich" and "wealthy" as if they're the worst insult one can possibly label someone. I just want to state for the record that I am not against people having money. I just rather see the country as a whole prosper, and that definitely won't happen if we keep handing the top 1-10% our pockets while kicking everyone else while they're down. But if we don't kick them while they're down, how will they be motivated to get up?! | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On August 15 2012 13:19 Souma wrote: There is no doubt in my mind that Obama panders to the rich as well (what candidate doesn't?). But using Obamacare and Dodd-Frank to support that claim... I've really heard it all now, haven't I? While I am unsatisfied with Obamacare (I prefer universal health care) and Dodd-Frank (doesn't do enough) we can see what Obama's intentions are... and it's definitely not meant to prop up the rich, but rather help protect the poor/middle-class. Taxes are THE crux of income disparity in America at the moment, and I'm glad Obama has addressed that. I'm also hoping if he's elected for a second term, he can do more with Obamacare and Dodd-Frank... a lot more than I can say for Romney who wants to get rid of Obamacare and remove all the red tape that was put in place to protect consumers in the first place. Yeah... that's an outlandish claim. Like I mentioned, Obama does support some of the wealthy, but to say he's "more likely to favor" them than Romney is nonsense. I don't think one can claim that until Romney takes office, puts his budget into place with full details and rides out his term. btw we keep using the terms "rich" and "wealthy" as if they're the worst insult one can possibly label someone. I just want to state for the record that I am not against people having money. I just rather see the country as a whole prosper, and that definitely won't happen if we keep handing the top 1-10% our pockets while kicking everyone else while they're down. I wasn't saying that Obama favors the rich more, just that he favors them more with those methods. It's easy to point out the obvious impact of the tax code changes Romney wants to make will have on the wealthy. It's less obvious that many of Obama's policies will also (unfairly) help the wealthy. Yet they will. Obamacare and Dodd-Frank have many good intentions - as do most government programs - but they also have many unintended consequences as well. You can't just ignore that. Bad regulations and programs need to be reformed or eliminated when the costs start outweighing the benefits. | ||
|
RenSC2
United States1040 Posts
On August 15 2012 12:06 Rassy wrote: And how did romney make that monney? By working verry hard and beeing verry good at his job, turning around businesses in difficult times. The success rate of Bain capital wasn't particularly good with the companies they bought out. Approximately one quarter of them went into bankruptcy. Essentially, buy a large stake in a company, charge that company exorbitant consulting fees, and slash the workforce (or send it overseas). If it worked, they made a fortune. If the company failed, they still made money in many cases. There's a reason why people often call it vulture capitalism. To be fair, it was Romney's job to make money for his own company and he did a good job of that. But he was often toxic for the companies Bain bought and almost always toxic for the people who worked at them. Here's a link to a liberal biased site with some more information (they in-turn have links to less biased sources like the WSJ): http://thinkprogress.org/progress-report/romney-job-killer/ | ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
I wasn't saying that Obama favors the rich more, just that he favors them more with those methods. It's easy to point out the obvious impact of the tax code changes Romney wants to make will have on the wealthy. It's less obvious that many of Obama's policies will also (unfairly) help the wealthy. Yet they will. I'm aware of what you were saying, and I said I agree that Obama does help out the wealthy. But my point was that your claim that "he favors them more with those methods" really cannot be supported at this moment since we do not know what Romney will do with his budget. Obamacare and Dodd-Frank have many good intentions - as do most government programs - but they also have many unintended consequences as well. You can't just ignore that. Bad regulations and programs need to be reformed or eliminated when the costs start outweighing the benefits. Once again I agree, but what his intentions do tell us is that he does not favor the rich in regards to Obamacare and Dodd-Frank. That does not mean that he wants to destroy them. No, that would be nonsense. And so there are consequences, just not dire consequences in comparison to what things were like without those bills. In any case, like I said before, Obamacare and Dodd-Frank do need to be reformed. I think it'd be much better than completely eliminating them, which Romney intends to do in one form or another. Personally, reform > present Obamacare/Dodd-Frank > elimination. | ||
| ||
