| 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 | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On October 19 2012 11:21 DoubleReed wrote: Again, I have no idea how you can say that Romney would somehow be better for the deficit, when literally everything he has shown goes against that. You have no reason at all to think that. he worked in the private sector | ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
He was Governor of Massachusetts. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On October 19 2012 11:21 DoubleReed wrote: Again, I have no idea how you can say that Romney would somehow be better for the deficit, when literally everything he has shown goes against that. You have no reason at all to think that. It's really simple. Republicans and Romney will reform and cut entitlements, which are the real problems. Obama and the democrats won't. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On October 19 2012 09:28 NeMeSiS3 wrote: http://americanvisionnews.com/4646/obama-phone-debunked-actually-signed-into-law-by-bush Also "obamaphones" were put in by Bush, not obama lol... Republicans can never get the facts right, I remember in an interview a republican congressmen brought this up and I was like ... Wait a second here... Wait wait... This was a republicans idea -.- Lifeline is a good example of costs spiraling out of control in government programs. What began as a cheap program grew into a behemoth. ![[image loading]](http://media.townhall.com/townhall/blog/lifelinefunding.png) | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On October 19 2012 11:21 DoubleReed wrote: Again, I have no idea how you can say that Romney would somehow be better for the deficit, when literally everything he has shown goes against that. You have no reason at all to think that. I never said he would be great for the deficit, I simply said likely better than Obama. What evidence has anyone presented so far that Obama would do a thing for the deficit? So far these are the points that have been brought up. 1) We shouldn't even reduce deficit because EU austerity = bad. 2) He spent more money on stimulus which probably helped the economy, we think. 3) The wars were being scaled back so we will give him credit for that inexplicably. So yes, I do think Romney will be better, with regards to the deficit at least. | ||
|
JinDesu
United States3990 Posts
On October 19 2012 11:21 DoubleReed wrote: Again, I have no idea how you can say that Romney would somehow be better for the deficit, when literally everything he has shown goes against that. You have no reason at all to think that. I'm with Doublereed on this subject. I'm voting Obama because the economy has stopped freefalling and settled even under him - and even some slight growth now. I would love MORE growth, but I can accept lowered expectations. I, however, do not thing that Romney - even with a cooperative congress - is going to improve our economic situation. I fear that we get dragged into a war with Iran, based on his and his party's comments. I don't agree with a tax cut for the rich. I'm willing to give Obama 4 more years - and hope that the Republican party evolves into a better party. That's why I'm voting Obama. | ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 19 2012 11:30 xDaunt wrote: It's really simple. Republicans and Romney will reform and cut entitlements, which are the real problems. Obama and the democrats won't. Funny you mention that since it would be liberals who would pass the best type of entitlement reform: single-payer health insurance. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On October 19 2012 11:30 xDaunt wrote: It's really simple. Republicans and Romney will reform and cut entitlements, which are the real problems. Obama and the democrats won't. Well, I think everyone is going to reform Social Security because it's really easy to make S.S. solvent (and in fact a 2nd term president is more likely to do so than a 1st term president because the reforms will be slightly unpopular). And Romney/Ryan have gone on record saying they're reversing the ACA and not going to change Medicare in any way (not even vouchers, last I heard). I mean, ACA DID reform and cut entitlements, it just wasn't the reform some people wanted. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On October 19 2012 11:31 jdseemoreglass wrote: I never said he would be great for the deficit, I simply said likely better than Obama. What evidence has anyone presented so far that Obama would do a thing for the deficit? So far these are the points that have been brought up. 1) We shouldn't even reduce deficit because EU austerity = bad. 2) He spent more money on stimulus which probably helped the economy, we think. 3) The wars were being scaled back so we will give him credit for that inexplicably. So yes, I do think Romney will be better, with regards to the deficit at least. This is despite the fact that the republicans and Romney are all talking about tax cuts. You know, those things that reduce revenue and increase the deficit. I'm just baffled. Romney has made no suggestion of reducing the deficit anywhere in any of his policies. The only policies he's talked about would increase the deficit. | ||
|
nevermindthebollocks
United States116 Posts
On October 19 2012 11:00 Souma wrote: I hate the fact that we even have to rely on Obamacare. single-payer healthcare where art thooouuuuuu. Obama did everything he could but the republicans want to be the only country in the world without health care. they didn't let him have the 3 or 4 trillion dollars krugman says we needed to really fix our economy and then blame him when things aren't good enough for thier impossible imaginary standards. republicans did everything short of leave the country to prevent obama from doing what we the majority of americans elected him to do. now they have media doing stories with stupid polls to get people to depressed to vote to get rid of obama | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On October 19 2012 11:34 TheTenthDoc wrote: Well, I think everyone is going to reform Social Security because it's really easy to make S.S. solvent (and in fact a 2nd term president is more likely to do so than a 1st term president because the reforms will be slightly unpopular). And Romney/Ryan have gone on record saying they're reversing the ACA and not going to change Medicare in any way (not even vouchers, last I heard). I mean, ACA DID reform and cut entitlements, it just wasn't the reform some people wanted. What? Obamacare is a brand new entitlement that won't be revenue neutral after 10 years. It expands Medicaid and siphons money from Medicare. It doesn't significantly reform anything. | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On October 19 2012 11:38 DoubleReed wrote: This is despite the fact that the republicans and Romney are all talking about tax cuts. You know, those things that reduce revenue and increase the deficit. I'm just baffled. Romney has made no suggestion of reducing the deficit anywhere in any of his policies. The only policies he's talked about would increase the deficit. You can't get elected promising entitlement cuts. Everyone knows this. Do you think it is a coincidence he chose Ryan as his running mate? You have to read between the lines. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
On October 19 2012 11:38 DoubleReed wrote: This is despite the fact that the republicans and Romney are all talking about tax cuts. You know, those things that reduce revenue and increase the deficit. I'm just baffled. Romney has made no suggestion of reducing the deficit anywhere in any of his policies. The only policies he's talked about would increase the deficit. you have to look at his record, and since he has been so inconsistent when he says he wants to decrease taxes and increase military funding you actually have to infer the exact opposite. So he will increase taxes and decrease military funding ---> thus lower the deficit. Makes sense to me | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
turdburgler
England6749 Posts
On October 19 2012 11:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Lifeline is a good example of costs spiraling out of control in government programs. What began as a cheap program grew into a behemoth. isnt the reason most government programs spiral in cost due to the outsourcing of control to a private company who would actually rather do more work as it generates more profit, and then anyone who questions the increase in budget is stonewalled because of the people in charge being in the pocket or lobbyists? its not that government programs suck, its that theres so much money in US politics the politicians dont care. | ||
|
nevermindthebollocks
United States116 Posts
On October 19 2012 11:32 JinDesu wrote: I'm with Doublereed on this subject. I'm voting Obama because the economy has stopped freefalling and settled even under him - and even some slight growth now. I would love MORE growth, but I can accept lowered expectations. I, however, do not thing that Romney - even with a cooperative congress - is going to improve our economic situation. I fear that we get dragged into a war with Iran, based on his and his party's comments. I don't agree with a tax cut for the rich. I'm willing to give Obama 4 more years - and hope that the Republican party evolves into a better party. That's why I'm voting Obama. i really wish Obama would run on not just "ending tax breaks for the rich" but on raising the taxes and explaining to everyone why it is necessary. I'm not saying like france with 75% exactly though it's probably what we need. and since when did $250,000 become not rich? $100,000 is like double what most people make and 4 or 5 times what a lot of people make. that's pretty rich to me | ||
|
theaxis12
United States489 Posts
I think that the false doubling the deficit claim that Romney was so fond of in both debates was the most interesting one. I can't believe he can stand up there and lie like that in front of millions of people and get away with it. For anyone that thinks that Romney will be good for the economy just think about how he has more extreme pro big business and finance than even Bush. How long will it take for people to understand that the republicans increase the GDP solely through the top 5% of wealthy people in the nation? We need the middle class to grow, and doubling down on the boom and bust model is not the way to do that. It is sad to me how many people they scare with the national debt because they can relate it to their own debt; when really they should be pissed as hell that middle income wages have stagnated since the republican god Regan brought about top down economics, which is what brought about that debt that they live under. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On October 19 2012 11:42 oneofthem wrote: much of the cost burden from govt programs is from all the rent seeking by the private industry around it. compare the expense and effective of the single payer nationalized veterans health system to medicare and you'll see that it can work in the u.s. You really expect a government that can't even efficiently run snack bar service on Amtrak (much less Amtrak) to efficiently run our healthcare? I don't think I could write LOL in a big enough font. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 19 2012 11:47 xDaunt wrote: You really expect a government that can't even efficiently run snack bar service on Amtrak (much less Amtrak) to efficiently run our healthcare? I don't think I could write LOL in a big enough font. yes, health professionals are highly trained and responsible when they are acting like professional caretakers. maybe double the # of doctors. with government owned hospitals you can eliminate a lot of the superfluous medical "cost" typical of the bloat in the private system. the VA health system is huge and pretty great. it's a mini nationalized healthcare system with its own hospitals and stuff. this is while dealing with generally elderly patients http://www.rand.org/commentary/2012/08/08/RAND.html | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Horang2 Stormgate 4548Flash  2949Bisu 2653Shuttle 2359EffOrt  958Mini 852Jaedong 807BeSt 667Zeus 619Larva 471[ Show more ] Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games singsing2149 B2W.Neo1137 DeMusliM472 crisheroes401 Lowko308 XaKoH  189QueenE50 ZerO(Twitch)21 trigger3 Happy0 |
|
WardiTV European League
PiGosaur Monday
OSC
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
Online Event
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
Online Event
Sparkling Tuna Cup
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://bp1.blogger.com/_QTMkWfqFyfk/SHGY4lb05MI/AAAAAAAAA0s/OHXT63QtXVg/s400/purple_heart_bandaid.jpg)
