2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Hooahguy]

Why?

What policies of his benefit you? What policies benefit America as a whole?

I'm sorry, but business as usual (as represented by the GOP) is not going to help the states this time around.

As if Obama's policies are doing any good...

While I hate Romney's social conservative side, I have faith that he will substantially help the economy, which, IMO, is much more important than most social issues.

[rvg]

...I have faith that he will substantially help the economy, which, IMO, is much more important than most social issues.

Could you elaborate on that? How do you think Romney will help the economy?

[Hooahguy]

Could you elaborate on that? How do you think Romney will help the economy?

Hes a fiscal conservative. I like that. Less regulation means more company growth. Which in turn creates jobs. Taxing the rich even more doesnt do anything because they can still afford to take advantage of loopholes. Plus what kind of message does that send? That success is punished? We should not be vilifying the rich just for being rich. Taxing them will not solve the debt problem as Obama seems to think. To solve the debt problem we need to take in more than we spend. The fact that Obama increased the debt by trillions in one term, and yet still thinks that the solution to the debt problem is more taxation is foolish and incredibly naive. I have to wonder who is giving economic advice to him.

So lets say Obama wins, and increases the tax rates on the rich even more. What happens when their money dries up? Im fairly certain that the rich people in this country do not have $16 trillion to solve the debt problem.

And about Romney's comment about the poor- so what? There are charities and other programs in place that assist them. Welfare is a massive sinkhole for federal spending. Ive seen many people who are on welfare using iPods and other fancy electronics. For a while I volunteered regularly at a soup kitchen. I would often see people who we served on smartphones after they took their food. If they were really that poor, why do they have those things? Granted, poverty is still an issue and Im not saying that we should ignore the poor, but it cannot be a concern of the Feds.

[rvg]

Hes a fiscal conservative. I like that. Less regulation means more company growth. Which in turn creates jobs. Taxing the rich even more doesnt do anything because they can still afford to take advantage of loopholes. Plus what kind of message does that send? That success is punished? We should not be vilifying the rich just for being rich. Taxing them will not solve the debt problem as Obama seems to think.

Certainly. But on the other hand, reducing taxes on the rich won't help the economy either and will only eat into the already low revenue stream. As for what message it sends, that might be important from a symbolic perspective but irrelevant from the practical one.

To solve the debt problem we need to take in more than we spend.

Absolutely. The question is, how is Romney gonna go about doing that.

The fact that Obama increased the debt by trillions in one term,...

He has no money and an uncooperative House. What do you expect him to do, default?

and yet still thinks that the solution to the debt problem is more taxation is foolish and incredibly naive. I have to wonder who is giving economic advice to him.

Taxation today is at its lowest level in the past ...umm... 30 years or so.

So lets say Obama wins, and increases the tax rates on the rich even more. What happens when their money dries up?

Their money won't dry up.

Im fairly certain that the rich people in this country do not have $16 trillion to solve the debt problem.

Raising taxes on the rich won't help much, I agree there. Romney wants to *lower* their taxes. How's that supposed to help?

And about Romney's comment about the poor- so what? There are charities and other programs in place that assist them. Welfare is a massive sinkhole for federal spending. Ive seen many people who are on welfare using iPods and other fancy electronics. For a while I volunteered regularly at a soup kitchen. I would often see people who we served on smartphones after they took their food. If they were really that poor, why do they have those things? Granted, poverty is still an issue and Im not saying that we should ignore the poor, but it cannot be a concern of the Feds.

Here's the thing...the poor like to spend, which in many cases accounts for their poverty. Poor will spend close to 100% of what they make. The rich won't. That means that pumping money into the poor == boosting the economy, as almost 100% of that money will be spent. And that's what our economy needs right now: spending. Giving a tax break to the rich will just mean that they have more money to play with on the stock market. How does it help the economy? It doesn't. The poor and their spending drives this economy far more than the rich and their spending. By further crippling the poor, we'll be crippling ourselves. Is it fair to give money to the poor? Hell no. The question is: do you want the economy to recover? If you do, then spending on the poor is a good strategy.

[Hooahguy]

Absolutely. The question is, how is Romney gonna go about doing that.

Cut spending. Its the best way. Cut out unnecessary programs, and consolidate ones that overlap.

He has no money and an uncooperative House. What do you expect him to do, default?

He had control of both for the first two years. Even then he didnt do anything. People voted out the Democratic house because of this. Not saying that the Repubs did any better, but its fair to point out that even when he had both there was nothing.

Even so, he didnt have to spend like crazy, $6+ trillion in four years! I mean come on, at this rate the national debt will be way over $20 trillion in 2016.

Taxation today is at its lowest level in the past ...umm... 30 years or so.

Ok, but that doesnt change the fact that Obama still drones on about how the solution to the debt problem is high taxes for the rich.

Their money won't dry up.

Is that guarantee? I think that when push comes to shove, they will just move their capital somewhere else.

Raising taxes on the rich won't help much, I agree there. Romney wants to *lower* their taxes. How's that supposed to help?

See below.

Here's the thing...the poor like to spend, which in many cases accounts for their poverty. Poor will spend close to 100% of what they make. The rich won't. That means that pumping money into the poor == boosting the economy, as almost 100% of that money will be spent. And that's what our economy needs right now: spending. Giving a tax break to the rich will just mean that they have more money to play with on the stock market. How does it help the economy? It doesn't. The poor and their spending drives this economy far more than the rich and their spending. By further crippling the poor, we'll be crippling ourselves. Is it fair to give money to the poor? Hell no. The question is: do you want the economy to recover? If you do, then spending on the poor is a good strategy.

Lol wut?

Because they are spending 100% of their money, which isnt a lot, they will stay forever poor. Do you even realize what you are saying? If that was really true, why isnt the nation better off? Because the poor are a small percentage of the population. There simply are not enough of them that if they all did what you are saying, to make a difference. If the majority of the country was poor, then maybe it would make a difference. But thankfully, most of Americans are not poor, so your idea has no solid ground to stand upon. A couple million people spending their paychecks, either through a job or through welfare, wont boost the economy.

However, the rich do not just "play with the stock market." They invest. Invest in the stock market, which has a major effect on the economy, they invest in companies, in new businesses. I wouldnt turn to a poor person to help me fund my new small business proposal. Like it or not, the rich drive the economy.

[Lemur]

He had control of both for the first two years.

How often does this lie need to be debunked? The correct figure for a super-majority (which is what you need to override a filibuster) was seven weeks.

[rvg]

Cut spending. Its the best way. Cut out unnecessary programs, and consolidate ones that overlap.

That's very broad. Can you be more specific?

He had control of both for the first two years. Even then he didnt do anything. People voted out the Democratic house because of this. Not saying that the Repubs did any better, but its fair to point out that even when.

Yes, Obamacare is a shame. I'll just point out that Romney was thinking along the same lines in MA.

Even so, he didnt have to spend like crazy, $6+ trillion in four years! I mean come on, at this rate the national debt will be way over $20 trillion in 2016.

Can you be specific about the "like crazy" part?

Ok, but that doesnt change the fact that Obama still drones on about how the solution to the debt problem is high taxes for the rich.

Fair enough. So, neither candidate is offering anything tangible.

Is that guarantee? I think that when push comes to shove, they will just move their capital somewhere else.

You might notice a trend: European elite tends to move their money and residency to the U.S. to avoid taxes. Not the other way around. Capital gains is 15%, that's pretty low considering that most people who work for a living are paying twice as much in taxes.

Lol wut?

Because they are spending 100% of their money, which isnt a lot, they will stay forever poor.

So? Let them stay poor. Their choice. We're talking about boosting the economy.

Do you even realize what you are saying? If that was really true, why isnt the nation better off? Because the poor are a small percentage of the population. There simply are not enough of them that if they all did what you are saying, to make a difference.

Hmm...15% of the 300,000,000. That's 45 million people. I wouldn't call that "small"

If the majority of the country was poor, then maybe it would make a difference. But thankfully, most of Americans are not poor, so your idea has no solid ground to stand upon. A couple million people spending their paychecks, either through a job or through welfare, wont boost the economy.

45 million. 45.

However, the rich do not just "play with the stock market." They invest. Invest in the stock market, which has a major effect on the economy,

Can you be more specific about how that would have a major effect?

they invest in companies, in new businesses. I wouldnt turn to a poor person to help me fund my new small business proposal. Like it or not, the rich drive the economy.

And their tax rate is 15%. Lower than anyone else except the poorest of the poor.

[Lemur]

Not that anyone cares, but apparently Paul Ryan's speech last night set some sort of land-speed record for easily disproved falsehoods. But I'm not sure anyone gives a damn, given how entrenched positions are. As Romney's pollster said, "We aren't going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers."

Eerie flashbacks to Bush 43 and his administration's dismissal of the "reality-based community."

“[Obama] created a bipartisan debt commission. They came back with an urgent report,” Ryan stated. “He thanked them, sent them on their way, and then did exactly nothing.” But the bipartisan debt commission itself didn’t come back with a report. There were not enough votes to agree upon recommendations, in part due to opposition from committee member, er, Paul Ryan. The statement misleads viewers by implying that Ryan supports the proposal, when he aggressively opposed it, and by using the third person to avoid noting that Ryan was on the commission and voted no.

[Hooahguy]

That's very broad. Can you be more specific?

How specific? Like naming specific programs?

Yes, Obamacare is a shame. I'll just point out that Romney was thinking along the same lines in MA.

For the record, if it wasnt for the fact that Obamacare would force people to get health insurance, Id be behind it. Its only for that reason I dont like it.

Can you be specific about the "like crazy" part?

Seriously? Is $6+ trillion in 4 years not enough?

#

Fair enough. So, neither candidate is offering anything tangible.

Says you.

You might notice a trend: European elite tends to move their money and residency to the U.S. to avoid taxes. Not the other way around. Capital gains is 15%, that's pretty low considering that most people who work for a living are paying twice as much in taxes.

Exactly. So why stop a good thing?

So? Let them stay poor. Their choice. We're talking about boosting the economy.

But would it actually do anything? My bet is on no.

Hmm...15% of the 300,000,000. That's 45 million people. I wouldn't call that "small"

But how much of that would get back to the government? I remind you that not every poor person has the same spending habits. Lets say someone gets a check for $1,000. How much of that do you honestly think would get back to the government? Id say, not that much.

And 15% is pretty small.

Can you be more specific about how that would have a major effect?

Seriously?
When the stock market is doing well it usually translates to an overall good economy.

And their tax rate is 15%. Lower than anyone else except the poorest of the poor.

Can you be more specific?

I think it is cute, hooahguy has bought into the sound bytes without looking into the real numbers.

Feel free to refute me rather than make snide comments.

And @Lemur: Im sorry, you are right. I keep forgetting that fact. I stand corrected.