On October 05 2012 07:13 Silidons wrote: Did anyone see this from ReasonTV? Just saw it on TheYoungTurks, as a rebuttal to the video from Samuel L Jackson. Brilliant video... (Warning: NSFW - Language)
I think blacks are starting to wake up check out this new ad for Romney not everyone is fooled by Samuel L Jackson and blind celebrities.
The one I linked wasn't for Romney though.
I know this one was against yours because not everyone is tarded and listens to Samuel L Jackson
nope not everyone is tarded but if you're going to use a derogatory term to insult someone at least add the extra 2 letters in front.
Samuel L. Jackson's video had a pretty concrete point, if you're broke or middle class you're about to get fucked.
I'm broke, I'm still not voting for fiscal irresponsibility.
Voting for the candidate with no fiscal plan is the definition of fiscal irresponsibility.
Obama's plan is projected to put us at 22 trillion in debt in 4 years, Romney's is not.
Lol let's see that data please. I feel like this will be another republican "You got pregnant on year 16, you got pregnant on year 18... AT THIS RATE YOU'll HAVE 32 babies by the average mortality rate of 80!!!!.
On October 05 2012 12:36 TheRabidDeer wrote:
On October 05 2012 12:28 biology]major wrote:
On October 05 2012 12:07 kmillz wrote:
On October 05 2012 12:06 biology]major wrote:
On October 05 2012 12:05 kmillz wrote:
On October 05 2012 12:04 rogzardo wrote:
On October 05 2012 12:01 kmillz wrote:
On October 05 2012 10:18 rogzardo wrote: [quote]
Voting for the candidate with no fiscal plan is the definition of fiscal irresponsibility.
Obama's plan is projected to put us at 22 trillion in debt in 4 years, Romney's is not.
Incorrect. Romney has no plan. It is whatever he says it is, based on how he feels at the moment, and has no basis in reality.
If he listens to the GOP then he get things more under control than the 4$ billion+ a day we rack up under Obama.
how is a 5 trillion dollar tax cut more under control?
It isn't a $5 trillion dollar tax cut, did you even watch the debates or look at the factcheckers? This was already proven a false claim.
yeah I watched it, and I realized how I wasted 2 hours of my life listening to that garbage. Romney just showed up, and as per usual he switched his stance to whatever was most popular to the eyes/ears of the average american viewer. I did not anticipate such a blatant flop though... I understand that obama failed in the debate, but atleast he was consistent.
and as per the 5 trillion, the claim is based on a study done by the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan group that has analyzed the tax plans of the candidates. The center examined Romney’s proposals for a 20 percent reduction in all federal income tax rates, eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, eliminating the estate tax and other tax reductions.The center estimated that altogether, the lost revenues would total $480 billion by 2015. The Obama campaign adds up the cost over a decade and winds up with $4.8 trillion, which it then rounds up to $5 trillion. Until he states how EXACTLY he is going to compensate for that 5 trillion, it is a true statement.
The absolute worst part of that debate was when Romney referred to his sons about how when you say something false over and over it might become true, does he not realize the irony in his statement?
saying things not based on reality is his only strategy. Taxes, no he won't raise them. Spending, he's going to cut it(but america needs to be strong militarily! lol). Deficit, he's going to reduce it. It all sounds great but the math just isn't there to support it.
Care to demonstrate things where he switched his stance?
Big numbers are scary but it's time you realistically understand what the number means and where the US stacks up compared to other nations.
You should note this is a very unbiased article (it critiques the current spending) but it goes to show how the numbers can look different ranging from 4x the number presented by the government to less due to how the debt in America works.
On October 05 2012 12:22 TheFrankOne wrote: Can someone explain to me why should we implement any sort of austerity when the economy is so bad and the bond market is acting the way it is?
because there are several problems with Keynesian solutions right now..
1. Keynesian works when you are experiencing temporary business cycles. This isn't' a cycle, it's a shift in economic reality. Keynesian may not be the best way to go about it here.
2. Our rates are already extremely low.
3. Austerity is about closing down the deficit. This is a problem for us regardless of the recession. Even if we recover, we still can't continue the way we are.
it all depends on whether you can find worthwhile projects to spend money on. private corporations have to identify actually efficient projects as well, and to partly compensate the lack of failure as a check on inefficiency, more panels could be created. (ok this is sounding like a parody but it isnt) but basically, i don't see much reason to discriminate government fiscal spending, particularly when the economy is facing structural transformations that may well require govt effort to overcome initial cost, shoulder some risks and provide infrastructure.
trying to influence the behavior of businesses with tax or cheap credit isn't working all that well.
it's pretty clear that some infrastructure upgrades are due, and there are a bunch of projects identified by the energy department that seem worthwhile. could always give basic research a big boost for the future, as well as attracting top talent to the u.s.
I know this one was against yours because not everyone is tarded and listens to Samuel L Jackson
nope not everyone is tarded but if you're going to use a derogatory term to insult someone at least add the extra 2 letters in front.
Samuel L. Jackson's video had a pretty concrete point, if you're broke or middle class you're about to get fucked.
I'm broke, I'm still not voting for fiscal irresponsibility.
Voting for the candidate with no fiscal plan is the definition of fiscal irresponsibility.
Obama's plan is projected to put us at 22 trillion in debt in 4 years, Romney's is not.
Lol let's see that data please. I feel like this will be another republican "You got pregnant on year 16, you got pregnant on year 18... AT THIS RATE YOU'll HAVE 32 babies by the average mortality rate of 80!!!!.
On October 05 2012 12:36 TheRabidDeer wrote:
On October 05 2012 12:28 biology]major wrote:
On October 05 2012 12:07 kmillz wrote:
On October 05 2012 12:06 biology]major wrote:
On October 05 2012 12:05 kmillz wrote:
On October 05 2012 12:04 rogzardo wrote:
On October 05 2012 12:01 kmillz wrote: [quote]
Obama's plan is projected to put us at 22 trillion in debt in 4 years, Romney's is not.
Incorrect. Romney has no plan. It is whatever he says it is, based on how he feels at the moment, and has no basis in reality.
If he listens to the GOP then he get things more under control than the 4$ billion+ a day we rack up under Obama.
how is a 5 trillion dollar tax cut more under control?
It isn't a $5 trillion dollar tax cut, did you even watch the debates or look at the factcheckers? This was already proven a false claim.
yeah I watched it, and I realized how I wasted 2 hours of my life listening to that garbage. Romney just showed up, and as per usual he switched his stance to whatever was most popular to the eyes/ears of the average american viewer. I did not anticipate such a blatant flop though... I understand that obama failed in the debate, but atleast he was consistent.
and as per the 5 trillion, the claim is based on a study done by the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan group that has analyzed the tax plans of the candidates. The center examined Romney’s proposals for a 20 percent reduction in all federal income tax rates, eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, eliminating the estate tax and other tax reductions.The center estimated that altogether, the lost revenues would total $480 billion by 2015. The Obama campaign adds up the cost over a decade and winds up with $4.8 trillion, which it then rounds up to $5 trillion. Until he states how EXACTLY he is going to compensate for that 5 trillion, it is a true statement.
The absolute worst part of that debate was when Romney referred to his sons about how when you say something false over and over it might become true, does he not realize the irony in his statement?
saying things not based on reality is his only strategy. Taxes, no he won't raise them. Spending, he's going to cut it(but america needs to be strong militarily! lol). Deficit, he's going to reduce it. It all sounds great but the math just isn't there to support it.
Care to demonstrate things where he switched his stance?
Big numbers are scary but it's time you realistically understand what the number means and where the US stacks up compared to other nations.
You should note this is a very unbiased article (it critiques the current spending) but it goes to show how the numbers can look different ranging from 4x the number presented by the government to less due to how the debt in America works.
So i just watched the debate on youtube, and not being from America I have formed my opinions largely based on this thread and the resources linked within it. So you can imagine i have a pretty democratic view of things at the moment.
What I gathered from the debate was that everything I had read about Romney's policies was incorrect - but according to Romney! I didn't understand how anything he was saying was consistent with the party position, and more importantly I heard very, very little detail other than "We need more jobs" and "small businesses are the way of the future (code for: fuck the working class)." There was almost zero discussion around specific policies and zero substance given to how Romney plans to fund his "revenue-neutral" tax plan.
Maybe someone from the US can also explain why the Fed and the latest round QE was not a topic for discussion. I assume like most other central banks they are meant to be independent of government, but there is so much debate about the fiscal cliff, or currency crashes and inflation from printing money etc - is this not a topic of concern in the presidential race?
What I can't get over is Romney's tax plan to remain revenue neutral, yet he's pushing that defense spending increase (2 trillion over 10 years). That will increase defense spending from 5x as much as our closest competitor to 6.4x as much. Why have that spending increase while we're winding down two wars? What are we going to need that extra money for? Attacking Iran? Not to mention it will just blow up the deficit even more.
On October 05 2012 13:53 bkrow wrote: So i just watched the debate on youtube, and not being from America I have formed my opinions largely based on this thread and the resources linked within it. So you can imagine i have a pretty democratic view of things at the moment.
What I gathered from the debate was that everything I had read about Romney's policies was incorrect - but according to Romney! I didn't understand how anything he was saying was consistent with the party position, and more importantly I heard very, very little detail other than "We need more jobs" and "small businesses are the way of the future (code for: fuck the working class)." There was almost zero discussion around specific policies and zero substance given to how Romney plans to fund his "revenue-neutral" tax plan.
Maybe someone from the US can also explain why the Fed and the latest round QE was not a topic for discussion. I assume like most other central banks they are meant to be independent of government, but there is so much debate about the fiscal cliff, or currency crashes and inflation from printing money etc - is this not a topic of concern in the presidential race?
In all honesty I'm not sure Romney and Obama understand the finer details of such topics and economics in general (not many people do, including me).
On October 05 2012 13:58 seiferoth10 wrote: What I can't get over is Romney's tax plan to remain revenue neutral, yet he's pushing that defense spending increase (2 trillion over 10 years). That will increase defense spending from 5x as much as our closest competitor to 6.4x as much. Why have that spending increase while we're winding down two wars? What are we going to need that extra money for? Attacking Iran? Not to mention it will just blow up the deficit even more.
Yea, the defense budget is one big big big thing that I am both confused about and wildly against.
On October 05 2012 14:01 Zaqwert wrote: One thing Obama supporters consistently fail in is seeming to not realize that Obama offers no specifics either.
Romney is just making lots of grand promises to win and you seem super eager to point out all the details missing from his statements.
But then you turn around and give Obama a free pass, just like everyone has been doing for years. The guy is an empty suit.
I'm not to thrown by the past 4 years from Obama, especially when Romney is the alternative. Again, not that I am American. Furthermore, why propose a plan that has been shown by many to be mathematically impossible.
On October 05 2012 13:58 seiferoth10 wrote: What I can't get over is Romney's tax plan to remain revenue neutral, yet he's pushing that defense spending increase (2 trillion over 10 years). That will increase defense spending from 5x as much as our closest competitor to 6.4x as much. Why have that spending increase while we're winding down two wars? What are we going to need that extra money for? Attacking Iran? Not to mention it will just blow up the deficit even more.
Yea, the defense budget is one big big big thing that I am both confused about and wildly against.
Didn't you hear? Russia's on the rise. Gotta start diggin' them holes again.
On October 05 2012 13:58 seiferoth10 wrote: What I can't get over is Romney's tax plan to remain revenue neutral, yet he's pushing that defense spending increase (2 trillion over 10 years). That will increase defense spending from 5x as much as our closest competitor to 6.4x as much. Why have that spending increase while we're winding down two wars? What are we going to need that extra money for? Attacking Iran? Not to mention it will just blow up the deficit even more.
Yea, the defense budget is one big big big thing that I am both confused about and wildly against.
What people don't seem to understand that increasing/decreasing the defense "budget" only means that we're going to give more or less money to the major corporations that sell everything that the military uses. Our military spending is ridiculous and an outright scam.
On October 05 2012 14:01 Zaqwert wrote: One thing Obama supporters consistently fail in is seeming to not realize that Obama offers no specifics either.
Romney is just making lots of grand promises to win and you seem super eager to point out all the details missing from his statements.
But then you turn around and give Obama a free pass, just like everyone has been doing for years. The guy is an empty suit.
Actually, that is completely false. The Obama tax plan, which is featured in his 2013 budget, is extremely detailed. The budget is 256 pages long and I posted it myself a couple of pages ago. Here it is again. And, in case you missed it, here is his jobs act.
Romney's the one who's not giving specifics - certainly not Obama.
Interesting, I had no idea that the issue of abortion had this big of an impact on voting...I knew it was big, but not this big:
One in six registered voters (17%) say they will vote only for candidates for major office who share their own views on abortion, including 9% who are "pro-life," 7% who are "pro-choice," and 1% who are neither.
If you seriously believe that's how Bain worked you really need to not vote because your understanding is very limited.
All companies bought by Bain are failing and going out of business. Bain's job is to take the business and restructure it so it can A) Survive and B) Make a profit. Without Bain every person in every business they purchase would be out of work instead of only some. To say Bain just buys businesses and fires people is ignorant and stupid because they would have no job if not for Bain. I suppose your angry about them making a profit off of helping businesses survive as well?
That's not actually true. PE firms buy a wide range of companies. Some of them are struggling, but most of them aren't. Sometimes it's a family business that the founders are ready to retire from. Sometimes it's a part of a larger company that wants to change its focus. There are a huge number of rationales for PE transactions, so it's not fair to say that every company they buy would be out of business otherwise.
HOWEVER, you make a very important point, which is that Bain and other PE firms make the most money when their investments are successful. The goal is always to leave the company as profitable as possible (when you sell a company, the buyer generally pays some industry-appropriate percentage of earnings; the higher the earnings, the better Bain does). So yes, sometimes that means moving/consolidating production facilities, but IMO that's not a bad thing. Improved efficiency is a constant of business. It certainly hurts the people whose jobs are lost, but it's inevitable. PE gets a bad wrap for that kind of thing because they are often seen as the instigators.
If you want to read more about the PE aspects of the election, Dan Primack writes for Fortune about the industry, and his takes on the election have thus far been fairly insightful from someone who knows how the industry actually works.
On October 05 2012 14:17 oneofthem wrote: most of those are probably catholics. or southern evangelicals, but these are not valuable undecided independent votes
I think they're both weak candidates tbh. I wouldn't vote for either of them, but it's either R or D who'll win, so I choose the lesser of two evils, which, imo, is Obama. At least I know what he's planning on doing and where he'll take the country (and honestly, I don't mind how he's run the last four years). Not to mention, if I think both candidates are poor, then support of women's rights and LGBTQ equality will always lead the way for me.
Incidentally, one of my roommates probably can't get his absentee ballot in time to vote in his home state, so he'll have to vote for this state. Which sucks. Because his home state is NC and his residential state right now is IL. Talk about bad planning. I was a little late getting my voter registration in too, but my home state is GA, so it doesn't really matter. :/
Romney promised quite a lot yet idk how he could even manage to pull that off. It's like we're gonna live in heaven with more jobs, more income, same tax rate and more budget to military. Fucking bullshit lol.
EPT
