President Obama Re-Elected - Page 485

On September 11 2012 08:21 Savio wrote:


Wow, September polls must be SO ACCURATE huh?

On September 11 2012 07:09 Roe wrote:

Calling someone dumb is a good argument... What he wrote is factually correct. When taxes are low, business hire less (in fact they lay off more), when taxes are high they invest in their company more and the economy of the country is much healthier because you have people actually spending their money instead of hoarding it off shore. Are you simply aware that businesses aren't competent and won't be able to invest their money appropriately, so you argue for these types of regressive policies? I really do want to know from where you get this distorted view of reality.

On September 11 2012 08:28 Defacer wrote:


Not just this poll. Four separate polls point to a trend of Obama gaining favor. I'll try to find links later.

It doesn't mean that Obama will ultimately win, but considering that Romney has spent the past 5 years and hundreds of millions of dollars trying to be president he should be polling better by now.

On September 11 2012 08:36 Pufftrees wrote:
http://www.ijreview.com/2012/09/15290-case-closed-if-moderate-voters-see-this-video-its-over-for-obama/

There is a great video for people which outlines the lies and broken promises by Obama. I 100 percent think Obama is going to be Re-elected (I would bet nearly everything I own on the issue), but that doesn't mean you can't watch a video and laugh at how ignorant the USA voters really are.

On September 11 2012 08:47 ticklishmusic wrote:
There were some significant differences between Carter's loss and this election though. Carter refused to participate in a debate, sustained some damage from Ted Kennedy during the primary, and Reagan was arguably a much stronger candidate than Romney.

Obama is far from perfect and has not met the expectations that were thrust upon him in 2008 (who could have?), but I think he's a lot more honest and pragmatic than the republican alternative. IMO its far from "choosing the lesser of two evils" as the republicans essentially are trying to frame the election as. I don't even have to say better the evil we know than the evil we don't, because that's not what the election is to me.

On September 11 2012 08:35 ziggurat wrote:

No. If taxes are high people are incentivized to think "I could work really hard and start a great business ... but I'd lose most of the profits in taxes anyway so why bother?" Or, they think "I'm going to invest my money, should I invest it here where the govt will take a ton of my profits? Or should I invest it offshore where I'll get to keep most of the profits myself?"

Starting a business is a big risk. Many businesses fail. So when a smart person is trying to decide if they will start one or not they look at the possible outcomes, and reasistically assess the risk/reward ratio. For example, say I am considering $1,000,000 in a business and I see the following possible outcomes:

Scenario 1 - 10% chance that this will happen - Huge success - I make $500,000 a year from this business

Scenario 2 - 50% chance that this will happen - moderate success - I make $200,000 a year from this business

Scenario 3 - 40% chance - business fails, I lose my investment

You can make up whatever numbers you want, but if the tax rate is really high a lot of people will simply look at the numbers and decide its not worth it. If tax rates are low people are encouraged to start businesses because the rewards are that much greater if they are successful.

On September 11 2012 08:57 Derez wrote:

Let's not forget about the hostage crisis.

On September 11 2012 09:24 xDaunt wrote:
The polls out there aren't really worth the paper that they're written on. They are oversampling democrats, which skews the results. Just go look at the latest CNN poll. In fact, the pre-election day polling has been pretty bad in terms of skewing democratic since the 2010 elections.

On September 11 2012 09:24 xDaunt wrote:
The polls out there aren't really worth the paper that they're written on. They are oversampling democrats, which skews the results. Just go look at the latest CNN poll. In fact, the pre-election day polling has been pretty bad in terms of skewing democratic since the 2010 elections.

On September 11 2012 08:58 HellRoxYa wrote:


Yet you're forgetting an important part of the equation. Are you fucked if your company does not succeed or not? The higher the taxrate the less likely you are to be fucked if your business fails. I actually find your argument highly lacking due to this.

Also, people are, in general, risk averse, which means that a safer society (one where you don't fail at life if your company fails in this scenario) would make people more willing to start a new company, not less.

On September 11 2012 09:49 Defacer wrote:


Normally I would agree with you, but Even the Rasmussen Report Polls, which is notorious for leaning right and had Obama behind Romney for most of the year, indicates that Obama has a 5% lead after the election.

This doesn't mean Obama is going to win, but it does raise the question of whether or not their is something with the Republican's strategy.

A strong performance by Romney during the debates would make a big difference, but both Ryan's and Romney's recent statements to some of the criticism levelled at them during the DNC having them doing backflips.

I get the sense that Clinton speech suddenly reminded journalists and broadcasters what their jobs actually are, and they're finally starting to ask -- gasp -- follow up questions in interviews. Whenever Romney gives some kind of nebulous response to his position on healthcare and tries to move to the middle without alienating the right, it only reinforces Obama's assertion that they don't actually have a real position or plan at all.

What's really depressing is watching Ryan getting flummoxed by the platform and it's agenda. I know the Ryan nomination is one of the reasons you feel more comfortable voting for Romney, but it seems like Ryan is being Romnified, and not the other way around.

On September 11 2012 08:58 HellRoxYa wrote:


Yet you're forgetting an important part of the equation. Are you fucked if your company does not succeed or not? The higher the taxrate the less likely you are to be fucked if your business fails. I actually find your argument highly lacking due to this.

Also, people are, in general, risk averse, which means that a safer society (one where you don't fail at life if your company fails in this scenario) would make people more willing to start a new company, not less.

On September 11 2012 13:00 ziggurat wrote:

No, I think you have it all wrong. If my business fails I'm not fucked -- unless I invested every last cent I own into it, which few people would do. Even if I did, I can always go out and get a job.

I doubt the social safety net is much of a factor. The highly motivated people who are going to start successful businesses are not likely to end up on welfare no matter how bad the economy is. But the fact the govt will take half of any money I make is a huge disincentive.

On September 11 2012 13:10 HunterX11 wrote:


Is there any evidence that this is true? I don't think it's at all self-evident that people wouldn't want to be more successful if it means being not as much more successful than they might be. The more money you make, the more money you make, even with taxes. Taxes are a percentage. Maybe if the top tax bracket were 90% or something this might come into play, but even when the top tax bracket was that high, an entrepreneur was far from certain to reach it anyway.

On September 11 2012 13:21 xDaunt wrote:

Let's wait and see what happens to France when Hollande enacts his confiscatory 75% tax rate on the rich.