|
|
On September 19 2012 09:50 jellyjello wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 06:13 MinusPlus wrote:On September 19 2012 05:19 xDaunt wrote:
...
I think that a little much is being made of the significance of the 47% comments. Was it helpful? Of course not. Is it harmful? Possibly at the margins, and probably only short term. Hopefully Romney will use this as an opportunity to take the gloves off and throw out some meaty policy for people to chew on.
...
By whom? I mean...the GOP kinda built their whole convention around "You didn't build that," so calling 47% of the nation entitled, victimized dependents not worth pandering to seems significant (relatively). And that's taken in context, on video, and using the same wording. On September 19 2012 05:59 jdseemoreglass wrote:On September 19 2012 05:57 Gorsameth wrote:On September 19 2012 05:53 Wolvmatt. wrote:On September 19 2012 05:47 Gorsameth wrote:
How can anyone running for President say that almost half of the people in the country that he wants to lead are insignificant.
Im sorry but i think a president should do more then cater to the 50.1% that voted for him. You can't give everybody everything. Ofcourse you can't but there is a different between trying to do the best for everyone and flat out dismissing 47% of your country as useless bags of meat. That's not what he did. He said it's a waste to fight for the vote of people who are already decided. How do you read that as "half the country is insignificant"? Come on people, do you think Obama is fighting for the Tea Party vote? Should he? Does that mean he dismisses them as insignificant citizens? This stuff is very basic. This reminded me. I realize the Non-Payers by State image was posted earlier, but no one juxtaposed that one with polling data by state, which had been my first thought after seeing it. So, in case anyone reading wasn't already acutely aware, here's how we supposedly stand today. ( source) ![[image loading]](http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/UserFiles/Image/Fiscal%20Facts/20100524-229-nonpayers-map-.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/Pngs/Sep18.png) The interesting thing about what Romney said is that he didn't just say that 47% of Americans will vote for Obama no matter what -- it's that he also insulted a significant portion of his own base. Or maybe they aren't significant. I never know what's going to come out of this Romney guy next. (Sorry for old news & large images) LOL at that image of non-payers. That's the prime example of misleading the viewers with stats. I hope you guys are smarter than that.
More rural country people are on welfare than urban dwellers. Fact of the matter is, cities pay more taxes than the countryside, and receive fewer subsidies. This is not new, or revolutionary, it's been true for decades. Jobs are in the cities, not in the countryside. Yes you can find a higher CONCENTRATION of poor people in cities. But only because there's a higher concentration of people in general. Generally the more rural the population, the more people reliant on government handouts. But being more diffuse, the poverty is more hidden.
|
On September 19 2012 09:46 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 09:37 aksfjh wrote:On September 19 2012 09:28 sevencck wrote:On September 19 2012 09:21 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:10 sevencck wrote:I think Mitt has officially thrown away any chance of winning this election, I'd be utterly amazed if he could come back at this point. Between the Palestiniains not wanting peace comment, the economy improving if he's elected even before he's had a chance to do anything comments, the 47% comments, and this latest gem. http://www.upworthy.com/mitt-romney-accidentally-confronts-a-gay-veteran-awesomeness-ensuesIt's just becoming a PR nightmare at this point, and overshadowing any legit points he might have. Edit: the video is dated 2011, but seems to be getting circulating recently, I hadn't seen it before. He already has come back, its a 1% election right now according to gallup (the most accurate poll with a 2% margin of error, predicted the most elected presidents of any poll). That video was leaked weeks ago. It resulted in nothing. So no, he hasn't thrown anything away. You're implying that the majority of people have been exposed to the 47% comments and the country has had a chance to digest them already. You're implying this won't snowball away from Mitt. He said 47% of Americans will back Obama no matter what and “my job is not to worry about those people.” (among saying other things) The election is more than a month away, the U.S. public will have alot of time to reflect on those comments. It will likely just solidify Obama's support, push those who were on the fence toward Obama, and push many Republicans toward the independent. It's more that it will dissuade Republicans from voting. Really? It hasn't dissuaded me and I'm Independent. That video does not convince me that Obama is the right choice for America, as such, I will still cast my vote for the most likely candidate to dethrone him, and you are foolishly ignorant if you think most people will suddenly get a change of heart and vote Obama from that video or NOT vote for the guy to unseat him.
Yea, you're independent. And I thought Paul Ryan was a liar.
|
On September 19 2012 09:28 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 09:21 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:10 sevencck wrote:I think Mitt has officially thrown away any chance of winning this election, I'd be utterly amazed if he could come back at this point. Between the Palestiniains not wanting peace comment, the economy improving if he's elected even before he's had a chance to do anything comments, the 47% comments, and this latest gem. http://www.upworthy.com/mitt-romney-accidentally-confronts-a-gay-veteran-awesomeness-ensuesIt's just becoming a PR nightmare at this point, and overshadowing any legit points he might have. Edit: the video is dated 2011, but seems to be getting circulating recently, I hadn't seen it before. He already has come back, its a 1% election right now according to gallup (the most accurate poll with a 2% margin of error, predicted the most elected presidents of any poll). That video was leaked weeks ago. It resulted in nothing. So no, he hasn't thrown anything away. You're implying that the majority of people have been exposed to the 47% comments and the country has had a chance to digest them already. You're implying this won't snowball away from Mitt. He said 47% of Americans will back Obama no matter what and “my job is not to worry about those people.” (among saying other things) The election is more than a month away, the U.S. public will have alot of time to reflect on those comments. It will likely just solidify Obama's support, push those who were on the fence toward Obama, and push many Republicans toward the independent.
I think that people are more concerned with Obama's failed policies, particularly to do with the economy and foreign policy, than they are of Mitt Romney's lack of concern for dissuading Obama supporters. Maybe they are more worried about what DIDN'T happen when Obama got elected. Things he PROMISED America (where good or bad, important or unimportant, he still made them). No excuse for not fulfilling them either because he controlled the House for the first 2 years of his term, and the Senate for all of it. Here you go..
Barack Obama PROMISED to:
Increase the capital gains and dividends taxes for higher-income taxpayers
Expand the child and dependent care credit
Create a foreclosure prevention fund for homeowners
Provide option for a pre-filled-out tax form
Require automatic enrollment in 401(k) plans
Require automatic enrollment in IRA plans
Create a retirement savings tax credit for low incomes
End income tax for seniors making less than $50,000
End no-bid contracts above $25,000
Create a $60 billion bank to fund roads and bridges
Repeal the Bush tax cuts for higher incomes
Phase out exemptions and deductions for higher earners
Sign the Employee Free Choice Act, making it easier for workers to unionize
Lift the payroll tax cap on earnings above $250,000
Forbid companies in bankruptcy from giving executives bonuses
Allow workers to claim more in unpaid wages and benefits in bankruptcy court
Allow imported prescription drugs
Prevent drug companies from blocking generic drugs
Allow Medicare to negotiate for cheaper drug prices
Appoint federal-level coordinator to oversee all federal autism efforts
Double federal funding for cancer research
Direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct a comprehensive study of federal cancer initiatives
Provide the CDC $50 million in new funding to determine the most effective approaches for cancer patient care
Fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
Create a National Commission on People with Disabilities, Employment, and Social Security
Change federal rules so small businesses owned by people with disabilities can get preferential treatment for federal contracts
Reduce the threshhold for the Family and Medical Leave Act from companies with 50 employees to companies with 25 employees
Provide a $1.5 billion fund to help states launch programs for paid family and medical leave
Require employers to provide seven paid sick days per year
Expand the Family Medical Leave Act to include leave for domestic violence or sexual assault
Form international group to help Iraq refugees
Work with Russia to move nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert
Close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center
Develop an alternative to President Bush's Military Commissions Act on handling detainees
Secure ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)
Seek to negotiate a political agreement on Cyprus
Reinstate special envoy for the Americas
Double the Peace Corps
Seek independent watchdog agency to investigate congressional ethics violations
Create a public "Contracts and Influence" database
Expose Special Interest Tax Breaks to Public Scrutiny
Allow five days of public comment before signing bills
Tougher rules against revolving door for lobbyists and former officials
Double funding for afterschool programs
Expand the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to include sexual orientation and gender identity
Urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws
Support repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)
Sign the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act into law
Allow bankruptcy judges to modify terms of a home mortgage
Increase the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour
Restore Superfund program so that polluters pay for clean-ups
Support tax deduction for artists
Re-establish the National Aeronautics and Space Council
Support human mission to moon by 2020
Pay for the national service plan without increasing the deficit
Reduce the number of middle managers in the federal workforce
Strengthen the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
Limit term of director of national intelligence
Give annual "State of the World" address
Reduce earmarks to 1994 levels
Work to ban the permanent replacement of striking workers
Establish a low carbon fuel standard
Enact windfall profits tax for oil companies
Create cap and trade system with interim goals to reduce global warming
Use revenue from cap and trade to support clean energy and environmental restoration
Require plug-in fleet at the White House
Require new federal fleet purchases to be half plug-in hybrids or electric vehicles
Require more flex-fuel cars for the federal government
Mandate flexible fuel vehicles by 2012
Double federal program to help "reverse" commuters who go from city to suburbs
Require energy conservation in use of transportation dollars
Provide an annual report on "state of our energy future"
Devote federal resources to promote cellulosic ethanol
Sign the Freedom of Choice Act
Allow penalty-free hardship withdrawals from retirement accounts in 2008 and 2009
Give the White House's Privacy and Civil Liberties Board subpoena power
Recognize the Armenian genocide
No family making less than $250,000 will see "any form of tax increase."
Negotiate health care reform in public sessions televised on C-SPAN
Create a public option health plan for a new National Health Insurance Exchange.
Cut the cost of a typical family's health insurance premium by up to $2,500 a year
Bring Democrats and Republicans together to pass an agenda
Introduce a comprehensive immigration bill in the first year
Now I am pretty glad that SOME of these promises were broken, but that is a pretty big list of things to promise the country.
|
On September 19 2012 09:59 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 09:46 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:37 aksfjh wrote:On September 19 2012 09:28 sevencck wrote:On September 19 2012 09:21 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:10 sevencck wrote:I think Mitt has officially thrown away any chance of winning this election, I'd be utterly amazed if he could come back at this point. Between the Palestiniains not wanting peace comment, the economy improving if he's elected even before he's had a chance to do anything comments, the 47% comments, and this latest gem. http://www.upworthy.com/mitt-romney-accidentally-confronts-a-gay-veteran-awesomeness-ensuesIt's just becoming a PR nightmare at this point, and overshadowing any legit points he might have. Edit: the video is dated 2011, but seems to be getting circulating recently, I hadn't seen it before. He already has come back, its a 1% election right now according to gallup (the most accurate poll with a 2% margin of error, predicted the most elected presidents of any poll). That video was leaked weeks ago. It resulted in nothing. So no, he hasn't thrown anything away. You're implying that the majority of people have been exposed to the 47% comments and the country has had a chance to digest them already. You're implying this won't snowball away from Mitt. He said 47% of Americans will back Obama no matter what and “my job is not to worry about those people.” (among saying other things) The election is more than a month away, the U.S. public will have alot of time to reflect on those comments. It will likely just solidify Obama's support, push those who were on the fence toward Obama, and push many Republicans toward the independent. It's more that it will dissuade Republicans from voting. Really? It hasn't dissuaded me and I'm Independent. That video does not convince me that Obama is the right choice for America, as such, I will still cast my vote for the most likely candidate to dethrone him, and you are foolishly ignorant if you think most people will suddenly get a change of heart and vote Obama from that video or NOT vote for the guy to unseat him. Yea, you're independent. And I thought Paul Ryan was a liar.
You challenge my political stance? I am a libertarian, the OPPOSITE of a socialist. I want LESS government. LESS taxes. LESS involvement in things the government has NO BUSINESS in. The opposite of Obama is Ron Paul, not Mitt Romney, I think Mitt Romney is very similar to Obama in MANY ways, but is still a far more appealing choice than Obama is. If you think Paul Ryan is a liar, than why don't you tell me what you think of my list of BROKEN PROMISES by OBAMA the LIAR OF THE YEAR in my book.
|
It's too bad that this guy figured out the copy/paste function.
|
On September 19 2012 10:01 rogzardo wrote:
It's too bad that this guy figured out the copy/paste function.
It's too bad that you can't challenge me on any one of the broken promises.
|
You're right. Obama should have taken the Romney approach, and just written off half of the country before election. No promise, no problem.
|
On September 19 2012 10:03 rogzardo wrote:
You're right. Obama should have taken the Romney approach, and just written off half of the country before election. No promise, no problem.
No, you're right, Mitt Romney should just pretend like he is going to fix 50 things in this country to entice voters, then get elected, and do NONE of those things he said he would do.
|
We will see. Election day is getting close.
|
On September 19 2012 10:08 rogzardo wrote:
We will see. Election day is getting close.
Yes it is, while I will be voting to get Barack Obama out of office, if he doesn't get out I legitamately hope his policies put our country on track. I don't think it is going to, but I hope the economy turns around at least. We need something to happen.
|
On September 19 2012 09:57 MisterFred wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 09:50 jellyjello wrote:On September 19 2012 06:13 MinusPlus wrote:On September 19 2012 05:19 xDaunt wrote:
...
I think that a little much is being made of the significance of the 47% comments. Was it helpful? Of course not. Is it harmful? Possibly at the margins, and probably only short term. Hopefully Romney will use this as an opportunity to take the gloves off and throw out some meaty policy for people to chew on.
...
By whom? I mean...the GOP kinda built their whole convention around "You didn't build that," so calling 47% of the nation entitled, victimized dependents not worth pandering to seems significant (relatively). And that's taken in context, on video, and using the same wording. On September 19 2012 05:59 jdseemoreglass wrote:On September 19 2012 05:57 Gorsameth wrote:On September 19 2012 05:53 Wolvmatt. wrote:On September 19 2012 05:47 Gorsameth wrote:
How can anyone running for President say that almost half of the people in the country that he wants to lead are insignificant.
Im sorry but i think a president should do more then cater to the 50.1% that voted for him. You can't give everybody everything. Ofcourse you can't but there is a different between trying to do the best for everyone and flat out dismissing 47% of your country as useless bags of meat. That's not what he did. He said it's a waste to fight for the vote of people who are already decided. How do you read that as "half the country is insignificant"? Come on people, do you think Obama is fighting for the Tea Party vote? Should he? Does that mean he dismisses them as insignificant citizens? This stuff is very basic. This reminded me. I realize the Non-Payers by State image was posted earlier, but no one juxtaposed that one with polling data by state, which had been my first thought after seeing it. So, in case anyone reading wasn't already acutely aware, here's how we supposedly stand today. ( source) The interesting thing about what Romney said is that he didn't just say that 47% of Americans will vote for Obama no matter what -- it's that he also insulted a significant portion of his own base. Or maybe they aren't significant. I never know what's going to come out of this Romney guy next. (Sorry for old news & large images) LOL at that image of non-payers. That's the prime example of misleading the viewers with stats. I hope you guys are smarter than that. More rural country people are on welfare than urban dwellers. Fact of the matter is, cities pay more taxes than the countryside, and receive fewer subsidies. This is not new, or revolutionary, it's been true for decades. Jobs are in the cities, not in the countryside. Yes you can find a higher CONCENTRATION of poor people in cities. But only because there's a higher concentration of people in general. Generally the more rural the population, the more people reliant on government handouts. But being more diffuse, the poverty is more hidden.
Ever bothered to consider why the image is showing a "percentage" of total population per state instead of actual numbers of non-payers?
The fact is that non-payer issue is not restricted to southern states, but rather it's a nation-wide problem. The image is just trying to mislead the viewers that the problem mostly resides in GOP leaning states (oh, and I just love how it's supposed to show "top 10" non-payers states).
|
On September 19 2012 07:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 07:21 biology]major wrote:On September 19 2012 07:06 kwizach wrote:On September 19 2012 07:04 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2012 06:58 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 06:55 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2012 06:52 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 06:48 HunterX11 wrote:On September 19 2012 06:44 jdseemoreglass wrote:On September 19 2012 06:34 TheTenthDoc wrote:
If you can find me a single quote from a Democrat that won an election that dismisses the entire Republican party as [insert negative property here] I will agree with this. I could probably offer numerous examples. Obviously it won't be as explicit as you want it to be. But the first comment that comes to mind is this one by Obama, quite obviously referring to many Republican voters: "And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." Obama probably did permanently lose a lot of voters from that remark. And despite how people like to explain it away, "You didn't build that" hurt him as well. Actually, I'm not sure it really has. It's hard to look at the polls and say, "that comment cost Obama X%." I just don't really get the sense that the comment has demonstrably moved public opinion one way or another since it was made three-four months ago. I wouldn't say "public opinion", but it had its effect on small business owners, not all of whom were always, or automatically in Romney's camp. I don't understand why any small business owner would vote for a democrat unless their social values greatly outweighed their economic values and interests. Because the economic plans of Democrats are better for the economy and for business owners in general. if you give the top bracket tax breaks they will share the wealth and help grow the economy instead of putting it in their pockets!. It is only logical for people to share their wealth and hire more workers without any change in demand just because they acquired a little more profit on the side? right??Oh and if the wealth does not go into their pockets guess where it goes? Overseas (Not america) So no, wealth does not trickle down, at least not to us. Why not? Businesses can increase their demand by lowering prices / stealing market share. Lower taxes create an incentive for them to do more of that.
But then one has to ignore the research which disproves this idea. What happens is that by and large the rich pocket the money.
The free market is bullshit (it doesn't exist, and what does exist doesn't operate as the theory would suggest). Trickle down economics is bullshit (nice theory, requires the existance of a free market, the one I just said was bullshit - and even then it might still be bullshit, but we'll never know).
But of course, ideology rules. And propaganda. This is why a lot of republicans simply vote against their own interests, because they are uneducated when it comes to the subject and actively misled.
Edit: Pretty good rundown by biology]major below:
On September 19 2012 08:27 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 08:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:50 rogzardo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:21 biology]major wrote:On September 19 2012 07:06 kwizach wrote:On September 19 2012 07:04 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2012 06:58 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 06:55 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2012 06:52 Kaitlin wrote:
[quote]
And despite how people like to explain it away, "You didn't build that" hurt him as well. Actually, I'm not sure it really has. It's hard to look at the polls and say, "that comment cost Obama X%." I just don't really get the sense that the comment has demonstrably moved public opinion one way or another since it was made three-four months ago. I wouldn't say "public opinion", but it had its effect on small business owners, not all of whom were always, or automatically in Romney's camp. I don't understand why any small business owner would vote for a democrat unless their social values greatly outweighed their economic values and interests. Because the economic plans of Democrats are better for the economy and for business owners in general. if you give the top bracket tax breaks they will share the wealth and help grow the economy instead of putting it in their pockets!. It is only logical for people to share their wealth and hire more workers without any change in demand just because they acquired a little more profit on the side? right??Oh and if the wealth does not go into their pockets guess where it goes? Overseas (Not america) So no, wealth does not trickle down, at least not to us. Why not? Businesses can increase their demand by lowering prices / stealing market share. Lower taxes create an incentive for them to do more of that. Trust the rich. They will take care of you. Trickle down economics has been proven to be effective. This is why our current economic state is so positive. This is why the wealth gap between the poor and the rich is at the lowest its ever been. If only we allow the rich to expand our economy, and pay less taxes than those who will one day work in a job created by the rich, poverty will be nothing but a distant memory. This isn't trickle down economics. This is how a market economy is supposed to function. When profits go up competition should increase and push profits back down. We aren't currently seeing that and there's no one "there it is!" problem and solution. A reasonable diagnosis of the problem is that businesses do not see current profits as sustainable and / or see uncertainty as too great a factor. Lowering taxes would then help remedy that. If you disagree, fine, but please offer some logic behind your disagreement. Businesses are willing to expand and hire more workers when they see opportunity for growth, i.e., more products to sell. Cutting taxes is simply a false growth for business - they didn't sell more products or necessarily make more of their goods, they simply got more money off of what they're already doing. You basically made status quo practices more profitable. So you just gave them some extra cash which won't go into investment, because opportunity and demand didn't change.
|
On September 19 2012 10:01 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 09:59 aksfjh wrote:On September 19 2012 09:46 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:37 aksfjh wrote:On September 19 2012 09:28 sevencck wrote:On September 19 2012 09:21 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:10 sevencck wrote:I think Mitt has officially thrown away any chance of winning this election, I'd be utterly amazed if he could come back at this point. Between the Palestiniains not wanting peace comment, the economy improving if he's elected even before he's had a chance to do anything comments, the 47% comments, and this latest gem. http://www.upworthy.com/mitt-romney-accidentally-confronts-a-gay-veteran-awesomeness-ensuesIt's just becoming a PR nightmare at this point, and overshadowing any legit points he might have. Edit: the video is dated 2011, but seems to be getting circulating recently, I hadn't seen it before. He already has come back, its a 1% election right now according to gallup (the most accurate poll with a 2% margin of error, predicted the most elected presidents of any poll). That video was leaked weeks ago. It resulted in nothing. So no, he hasn't thrown anything away. You're implying that the majority of people have been exposed to the 47% comments and the country has had a chance to digest them already. You're implying this won't snowball away from Mitt. He said 47% of Americans will back Obama no matter what and “my job is not to worry about those people.” (among saying other things) The election is more than a month away, the U.S. public will have alot of time to reflect on those comments. It will likely just solidify Obama's support, push those who were on the fence toward Obama, and push many Republicans toward the independent. It's more that it will dissuade Republicans from voting. Really? It hasn't dissuaded me and I'm Independent. That video does not convince me that Obama is the right choice for America, as such, I will still cast my vote for the most likely candidate to dethrone him, and you are foolishly ignorant if you think most people will suddenly get a change of heart and vote Obama from that video or NOT vote for the guy to unseat him. Yea, you're independent. And I thought Paul Ryan was a liar. You challenge my political stance? I am a libertarian, the OPPOSITE of a socialist. I want LESS government. LESS taxes. LESS involvement in things the government has NO BUSINESS in. The opposite of Obama is Ron Paul, not Mitt Romney, I think Mitt Romney is very similar to Obama in MANY ways, but is still a far more appealing choice than Obama is. If you think Paul Ryan is a liar, than why don't you tell me what you think of my list of BROKEN PROMISES by OBAMA the LIAR OF THE YEAR in my book.
Ever been to France?
|
On September 19 2012 09:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 08:27 biology]major wrote:On September 19 2012 08:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:50 rogzardo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:21 biology]major wrote:On September 19 2012 07:06 kwizach wrote:On September 19 2012 07:04 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2012 06:58 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 06:55 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Actually, I'm not sure it really has. It's hard to look at the polls and say, "that comment cost Obama X%." I just don't really get the sense that the comment has demonstrably moved public opinion one way or another since it was made three-four months ago. I wouldn't say "public opinion", but it had its effect on small business owners, not all of whom were always, or automatically in Romney's camp. I don't understand why any small business owner would vote for a democrat unless their social values greatly outweighed their economic values and interests. Because the economic plans of Democrats are better for the economy and for business owners in general. if you give the top bracket tax breaks they will share the wealth and help grow the economy instead of putting it in their pockets!. It is only logical for people to share their wealth and hire more workers without any change in demand just because they acquired a little more profit on the side? right??Oh and if the wealth does not go into their pockets guess where it goes? Overseas (Not america) So no, wealth does not trickle down, at least not to us. Why not? Businesses can increase their demand by lowering prices / stealing market share. Lower taxes create an incentive for them to do more of that. Trust the rich. They will take care of you. Trickle down economics has been proven to be effective. This is why our current economic state is so positive. This is why the wealth gap between the poor and the rich is at the lowest its ever been. If only we allow the rich to expand our economy, and pay less taxes than those who will one day work in a job created by the rich, poverty will be nothing but a distant memory. This isn't trickle down economics. This is how a market economy is supposed to function. When profits go up competition should increase and push profits back down. We aren't currently seeing that and there's no one "there it is!" problem and solution. A reasonable diagnosis of the problem is that businesses do not see current profits as sustainable and / or see uncertainty as too great a factor. Lowering taxes would then help remedy that. If you disagree, fine, but please offer some logic behind your disagreement. Businesses are willing to expand and hire more workers when they see opportunity for growth, i.e., more products to sell. Cutting taxes is simply a false growth for business - they didn't sell more products or necessarily make more of their goods, they simply got more money off of what they're already doing. You basically made status quo practices more profitable. So you just gave them some extra cash which won't go into investment, because opportunity and demand didn't change. Businesses have plenty of opportunities to grow. Most only have a tiny fraction of market share - for an individual business there's tons and tons of demand out there to be had.
No there isn't. Economists from across the board have argued that one of the most important problems right now is a lack of consumer demand. In fact, in a survey published in February of this year, small business owners pointed to "weak consumer demand" as the most important problem they were facing - and by far.
|
On September 19 2012 10:01 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 09:59 aksfjh wrote:On September 19 2012 09:46 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:37 aksfjh wrote:On September 19 2012 09:28 sevencck wrote:On September 19 2012 09:21 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:10 sevencck wrote:I think Mitt has officially thrown away any chance of winning this election, I'd be utterly amazed if he could come back at this point. Between the Palestiniains not wanting peace comment, the economy improving if he's elected even before he's had a chance to do anything comments, the 47% comments, and this latest gem. http://www.upworthy.com/mitt-romney-accidentally-confronts-a-gay-veteran-awesomeness-ensuesIt's just becoming a PR nightmare at this point, and overshadowing any legit points he might have. Edit: the video is dated 2011, but seems to be getting circulating recently, I hadn't seen it before. He already has come back, its a 1% election right now according to gallup (the most accurate poll with a 2% margin of error, predicted the most elected presidents of any poll). That video was leaked weeks ago. It resulted in nothing. So no, he hasn't thrown anything away. You're implying that the majority of people have been exposed to the 47% comments and the country has had a chance to digest them already. You're implying this won't snowball away from Mitt. He said 47% of Americans will back Obama no matter what and “my job is not to worry about those people.” (among saying other things) The election is more than a month away, the U.S. public will have alot of time to reflect on those comments. It will likely just solidify Obama's support, push those who were on the fence toward Obama, and push many Republicans toward the independent. It's more that it will dissuade Republicans from voting. Really? It hasn't dissuaded me and I'm Independent. That video does not convince me that Obama is the right choice for America, as such, I will still cast my vote for the most likely candidate to dethrone him, and you are foolishly ignorant if you think most people will suddenly get a change of heart and vote Obama from that video or NOT vote for the guy to unseat him. Yea, you're independent. And I thought Paul Ryan was a liar. You challenge my political stance? I am a libertarian
Didn't have to read any further than that.
|
On September 19 2012 09:59 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 09:28 sevencck wrote:On September 19 2012 09:21 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:10 sevencck wrote:I think Mitt has officially thrown away any chance of winning this election, I'd be utterly amazed if he could come back at this point. Between the Palestiniains not wanting peace comment, the economy improving if he's elected even before he's had a chance to do anything comments, the 47% comments, and this latest gem. http://www.upworthy.com/mitt-romney-accidentally-confronts-a-gay-veteran-awesomeness-ensuesIt's just becoming a PR nightmare at this point, and overshadowing any legit points he might have. Edit: the video is dated 2011, but seems to be getting circulating recently, I hadn't seen it before. He already has come back, its a 1% election right now according to gallup (the most accurate poll with a 2% margin of error, predicted the most elected presidents of any poll). That video was leaked weeks ago. It resulted in nothing. So no, he hasn't thrown anything away. You're implying that the majority of people have been exposed to the 47% comments and the country has had a chance to digest them already. You're implying this won't snowball away from Mitt. He said 47% of Americans will back Obama no matter what and “my job is not to worry about those people.” (among saying other things) The election is more than a month away, the U.S. public will have alot of time to reflect on those comments. It will likely just solidify Obama's support, push those who were on the fence toward Obama, and push many Republicans toward the independent. I think that people are more concerned with Obama's failed policies, particularly to do with the economy and foreign policy, than they are of Mitt Romney's lack of concern for dissuading Obama supporters. Maybe they are more worried about what DIDN'T happen when Obama got elected. Things he PROMISED America (where good or bad, important or unimportant, he still made them). No excuse for not fulfilling them either because he controlled the House for the first 2 years of his term, and the Senate for all of it. Here you go.. + Show Spoiler +Barack Obama PROMISED to:
Increase the capital gains and dividends taxes for higher-income taxpayers
Expand the child and dependent care credit
Create a foreclosure prevention fund for homeowners
Provide option for a pre-filled-out tax form
Require automatic enrollment in 401(k) plans
Require automatic enrollment in IRA plans
Create a retirement savings tax credit for low incomes
End income tax for seniors making less than $50,000
End no-bid contracts above $25,000
Create a $60 billion bank to fund roads and bridges
Repeal the Bush tax cuts for higher incomes
Phase out exemptions and deductions for higher earners
Sign the Employee Free Choice Act, making it easier for workers to unionize
Lift the payroll tax cap on earnings above $250,000
Forbid companies in bankruptcy from giving executives bonuses
Allow workers to claim more in unpaid wages and benefits in bankruptcy court
Allow imported prescription drugs
Prevent drug companies from blocking generic drugs
Allow Medicare to negotiate for cheaper drug prices
Appoint federal-level coordinator to oversee all federal autism efforts
Double federal funding for cancer research
Direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct a comprehensive study of federal cancer initiatives
Provide the CDC $50 million in new funding to determine the most effective approaches for cancer patient care
Fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
Create a National Commission on People with Disabilities, Employment, and Social Security
Change federal rules so small businesses owned by people with disabilities can get preferential treatment for federal contracts
Reduce the threshhold for the Family and Medical Leave Act from companies with 50 employees to companies with 25 employees
Provide a $1.5 billion fund to help states launch programs for paid family and medical leave
Require employers to provide seven paid sick days per year
Expand the Family Medical Leave Act to include leave for domestic violence or sexual assault
Form international group to help Iraq refugees
Work with Russia to move nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert
Close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center
Develop an alternative to President Bush's Military Commissions Act on handling detainees
Secure ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)
Seek to negotiate a political agreement on Cyprus
Reinstate special envoy for the Americas
Double the Peace Corps
Seek independent watchdog agency to investigate congressional ethics violations
Create a public "Contracts and Influence" database
Expose Special Interest Tax Breaks to Public Scrutiny
Allow five days of public comment before signing bills
Tougher rules against revolving door for lobbyists and former officials
Double funding for afterschool programs
Expand the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to include sexual orientation and gender identity
Urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws
Support repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)
Sign the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act into law
Allow bankruptcy judges to modify terms of a home mortgage
Increase the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour
Restore Superfund program so that polluters pay for clean-ups
Support tax deduction for artists
Re-establish the National Aeronautics and Space Council
Support human mission to moon by 2020
Pay for the national service plan without increasing the deficit
Reduce the number of middle managers in the federal workforce
Strengthen the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
Limit term of director of national intelligence
Give annual "State of the World" address
Reduce earmarks to 1994 levels
Work to ban the permanent replacement of striking workers
Establish a low carbon fuel standard
Enact windfall profits tax for oil companies
Create cap and trade system with interim goals to reduce global warming
Use revenue from cap and trade to support clean energy and environmental restoration
Require plug-in fleet at the White House
Require new federal fleet purchases to be half plug-in hybrids or electric vehicles
Require more flex-fuel cars for the federal government
Mandate flexible fuel vehicles by 2012
Double federal program to help "reverse" commuters who go from city to suburbs
Require energy conservation in use of transportation dollars
Provide an annual report on "state of our energy future"
Devote federal resources to promote cellulosic ethanol
Sign the Freedom of Choice Act
Allow penalty-free hardship withdrawals from retirement accounts in 2008 and 2009
Give the White House's Privacy and Civil Liberties Board subpoena power
Recognize the Armenian genocide
No family making less than $250,000 will see "any form of tax increase."
Negotiate health care reform in public sessions televised on C-SPAN
Create a public option health plan for a new National Health Insurance Exchange.
Cut the cost of a typical family's health insurance premium by up to $2,500 a year
Bring Democrats and Republicans together to pass an agenda
Introduce a comprehensive immigration bill in the first year Now I am pretty glad that SOME of these promises were broken, but that is a pretty big list of things to promise the country.
I don't think Obama's policies have failed. The word fail implies an ideal frame of reference that has not been met. What reference frame are you using to judge Obama's policies? The one where the nation fully recovered in four years? Also, just curious, are you a libertarian? You must be if you support Ron Paul. I agree with many things he has to say, and I think he's a pretty smart man. I think that he's a better choice than Romney and Ryan by miles. But, would the hands-off approach to managing the market really solve the problems the U.S. faces (many of which were arguably created by that same economic philosophy)? The economy isn't simple enough to simply let certain businesses go broke, everything is pretty intricately connected. Isn't it thus more reasonable to ensure the marketplace is tightly regulated? Further, are you not at all concerned with social issues? Can the marketplace really guide humanity's unfolding vision of social morality? You make this long list implying that Obama is this lunatic idealist with his head in the clouds. I'd prefer a leader who at the very least acknowledges the myriad of social/political/economic problems facing the country, and who can provide a reasoned plan for solving them (even if he's been blocked at every turn by the partisanship in D.C., which now accuses him of not getting enough done).
On September 19 2012 10:04 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 10:03 rogzardo wrote:
You're right. Obama should have taken the Romney approach, and just written off half of the country before election. No promise, no problem. No, you're right, Mitt Romney should just pretend like he is going to fix 50 things in this country to entice voters, then get elected, and do NONE of those things he said he would do.
In my opinion, the difference is that Mitt doesn't care enough to list 50 things which could use a refit, he's singularly focused on his (problematic in my view) plan for the economy, which, humerously enough, is poorly fleshed out (in my opinion), and numerically impossible.
On September 19 2012 10:02 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 10:01 rogzardo wrote:
It's too bad that this guy figured out the copy/paste function. It's too bad that you can't challenge me on any one of the broken promises.
Prove he deliberately broke them, or intentionally misled the American public. In my judgement he did neither.
|
On September 19 2012 10:19 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 09:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 08:27 biology]major wrote:On September 19 2012 08:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:50 rogzardo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:21 biology]major wrote:On September 19 2012 07:06 kwizach wrote:On September 19 2012 07:04 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2012 06:58 Kaitlin wrote:
[quote]
I wouldn't say "public opinion", but it had its effect on small business owners, not all of whom were always, or automatically in Romney's camp. I don't understand why any small business owner would vote for a democrat unless their social values greatly outweighed their economic values and interests. Because the economic plans of Democrats are better for the economy and for business owners in general. if you give the top bracket tax breaks they will share the wealth and help grow the economy instead of putting it in their pockets!. It is only logical for people to share their wealth and hire more workers without any change in demand just because they acquired a little more profit on the side? right??Oh and if the wealth does not go into their pockets guess where it goes? Overseas (Not america) So no, wealth does not trickle down, at least not to us. Why not? Businesses can increase their demand by lowering prices / stealing market share. Lower taxes create an incentive for them to do more of that. Trust the rich. They will take care of you. Trickle down economics has been proven to be effective. This is why our current economic state is so positive. This is why the wealth gap between the poor and the rich is at the lowest its ever been. If only we allow the rich to expand our economy, and pay less taxes than those who will one day work in a job created by the rich, poverty will be nothing but a distant memory. This isn't trickle down economics. This is how a market economy is supposed to function. When profits go up competition should increase and push profits back down. We aren't currently seeing that and there's no one "there it is!" problem and solution. A reasonable diagnosis of the problem is that businesses do not see current profits as sustainable and / or see uncertainty as too great a factor. Lowering taxes would then help remedy that. If you disagree, fine, but please offer some logic behind your disagreement. Businesses are willing to expand and hire more workers when they see opportunity for growth, i.e., more products to sell. Cutting taxes is simply a false growth for business - they didn't sell more products or necessarily make more of their goods, they simply got more money off of what they're already doing. You basically made status quo practices more profitable. So you just gave them some extra cash which won't go into investment, because opportunity and demand didn't change. Businesses have plenty of opportunities to grow. Most only have a tiny fraction of market share - for an individual business there's tons and tons of demand out there to be had. No there isn't. Economists from across the board have argued that one of the most important problems right now is a lack of consumer demand. In fact, in a survey published in February of this year, small business owners pointed to "weak consumer demand" as the most important problem they were facing - and by far.
Businesses can create demand. They can lower prices or change the products / services they offer.
Ex. 1 Apple has the products people want and sees plenty of demand.
Ex. 2 Nat gas prices have fallen very low and that has spurred new demand.
|
On September 19 2012 10:19 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 10:01 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:59 aksfjh wrote:On September 19 2012 09:46 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:37 aksfjh wrote:On September 19 2012 09:28 sevencck wrote:On September 19 2012 09:21 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:10 sevencck wrote:I think Mitt has officially thrown away any chance of winning this election, I'd be utterly amazed if he could come back at this point. Between the Palestiniains not wanting peace comment, the economy improving if he's elected even before he's had a chance to do anything comments, the 47% comments, and this latest gem. http://www.upworthy.com/mitt-romney-accidentally-confronts-a-gay-veteran-awesomeness-ensuesIt's just becoming a PR nightmare at this point, and overshadowing any legit points he might have. Edit: the video is dated 2011, but seems to be getting circulating recently, I hadn't seen it before. He already has come back, its a 1% election right now according to gallup (the most accurate poll with a 2% margin of error, predicted the most elected presidents of any poll). That video was leaked weeks ago. It resulted in nothing. So no, he hasn't thrown anything away. You're implying that the majority of people have been exposed to the 47% comments and the country has had a chance to digest them already. You're implying this won't snowball away from Mitt. He said 47% of Americans will back Obama no matter what and “my job is not to worry about those people.” (among saying other things) The election is more than a month away, the U.S. public will have alot of time to reflect on those comments. It will likely just solidify Obama's support, push those who were on the fence toward Obama, and push many Republicans toward the independent. It's more that it will dissuade Republicans from voting. Really? It hasn't dissuaded me and I'm Independent. That video does not convince me that Obama is the right choice for America, as such, I will still cast my vote for the most likely candidate to dethrone him, and you are foolishly ignorant if you think most people will suddenly get a change of heart and vote Obama from that video or NOT vote for the guy to unseat him. Yea, you're independent. And I thought Paul Ryan was a liar. You challenge my political stance? I am a libertarian Didn't have to read any further than that.
Good
|
On September 19 2012 10:15 jellyjello wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 10:01 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:59 aksfjh wrote:On September 19 2012 09:46 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:37 aksfjh wrote:On September 19 2012 09:28 sevencck wrote:On September 19 2012 09:21 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:10 sevencck wrote:I think Mitt has officially thrown away any chance of winning this election, I'd be utterly amazed if he could come back at this point. Between the Palestiniains not wanting peace comment, the economy improving if he's elected even before he's had a chance to do anything comments, the 47% comments, and this latest gem. http://www.upworthy.com/mitt-romney-accidentally-confronts-a-gay-veteran-awesomeness-ensuesIt's just becoming a PR nightmare at this point, and overshadowing any legit points he might have. Edit: the video is dated 2011, but seems to be getting circulating recently, I hadn't seen it before. He already has come back, its a 1% election right now according to gallup (the most accurate poll with a 2% margin of error, predicted the most elected presidents of any poll). That video was leaked weeks ago. It resulted in nothing. So no, he hasn't thrown anything away. You're implying that the majority of people have been exposed to the 47% comments and the country has had a chance to digest them already. You're implying this won't snowball away from Mitt. He said 47% of Americans will back Obama no matter what and “my job is not to worry about those people.” (among saying other things) The election is more than a month away, the U.S. public will have alot of time to reflect on those comments. It will likely just solidify Obama's support, push those who were on the fence toward Obama, and push many Republicans toward the independent. It's more that it will dissuade Republicans from voting. Really? It hasn't dissuaded me and I'm Independent. That video does not convince me that Obama is the right choice for America, as such, I will still cast my vote for the most likely candidate to dethrone him, and you are foolishly ignorant if you think most people will suddenly get a change of heart and vote Obama from that video or NOT vote for the guy to unseat him. Yea, you're independent. And I thought Paul Ryan was a liar. You challenge my political stance? I am a libertarian, the OPPOSITE of a socialist. I want LESS government. LESS taxes. LESS involvement in things the government has NO BUSINESS in. The opposite of Obama is Ron Paul, not Mitt Romney, I think Mitt Romney is very similar to Obama in MANY ways, but is still a far more appealing choice than Obama is. If you think Paul Ryan is a liar, than why don't you tell me what you think of my list of BROKEN PROMISES by OBAMA the LIAR OF THE YEAR in my book. Ever been to France?
No, I have been to Japan, Okinawa, Thailand, Cambodia and Malaysia, but not France.
|
So, if Obama wins re-election, and the Republicans retain control of the House, what will happen over the next 4 years ? Does anyone think that Obama will give in to the Republicans or that the House Republicans will give in to him ? The only time I can remember of a compromise between them was the extension of the Bush Tax Cuts. They couldn't even compromise on the debt ceiling extension without blowing everything up with the looming cuts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
