2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[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.

[rvg]

How specific? Like naming specific programs?

Yeah. What would he cut, what would he keep, what would he boost. Like boosting the defense budget, how would you justify that?

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.

Same here. I'm just saying that Romney has no moral ground to criticize Obama for Obamneycare.

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

Did you expect him to default?

Says you.

I have yet to hear Romney offer anything worthwhile.

Exactly. So why stop a good thing?

Nobody's stopping it. Apparently for Romney 15% is still too high.

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

Sure it will. That money will stimulate business because it will be spent immediately.

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.

People who have to decide on whether or not pay their power bill or spend money on food will spend every penny of that $1000, i.e. pour all that money directly into small businesses (like grocery stores etc.)

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

DOW today closed at just over 13000. That's pretty high. Yet the economy is not doing so hot.

Can you be more specific?

These are the individual Income tax brackets for 2012. Income from investments is taxed at flat 15% (Capital Gains Tax). The only people paying lower rate than Romney are the ones making less than 20k a year. Case closed.

Marginal Tax Rate Single Married Filing Jointly or Qualified Widow(er) Married Filing Separately Head of Household
10% $0 – $8,700 $0 – $17,400 $0 – $8,700 $0 – $12,400
15% $8,701 – $35,350 $17,401 – $70,700 $8,701 – $35,350 $12,401 – $47,350
25% $35,351 – $85,650 $70,701 – $142,700 $35,351 – $71,350 $47,351 – $122,300
28% $85,651 – $178,650 $142,701 – $217,450 $71,351 – $108,725 $122,301 – $198,050
33% $178,651 – $388,350 $217,451 – $388,350 $108,726 – $194,175 $198,051 – $388,350
35% $388,351+ $388,351+ $194,176+ $388,351+

[Centurion1]

Yeah. What would he cut, what would he keep, what would he boost. Like boosting the defense budget, how would you justify that?



Same here. I'm just saying that Romney has no moral ground to criticize Obama for Obamneycare.



Did you expect him to default?



I have yet to hear Romney offer anything worthwhile.



Nobody's stopping it. Apparently for Romney 15% is still too high.


Sure it will. That money will stimulate business because it will be spent immediately.


People who have to decide on whether or not pay their power bill or spend money on food will spend every penny of that $1000, i.e. pour all that money directly into small businesses (like grocery stores etc.)



DOW today closed at just over 13000. That's pretty high. Yet the economy is not doing so hot.



These are the individual Income tax brackets for 2012. Income from investments is taxed at flat 15% (Capital Gains Tax). The only people paying lower rate than Romney are the ones making less than 20k a year. Case closed.

Marginal Tax Rate Single Married Filing Jointly or Qualified Widow(er) Married Filing Separately Head of Household
10% $0 – $8,700 $0 – $17,400 $0 – $8,700 $0 – $12,400
15% $8,701 – $35,350 $17,401 – $70,700 $8,701 – $35,350 $12,401 – $47,350
25% $35,351 – $85,650 $70,701 – $142,700 $35,351 – $71,350 $47,351 – $122,300
28% $85,651 – $178,650 $142,701 – $217,450 $71,351 – $108,725 $122,301 – $198,050
33% $178,651 – $388,350 $217,451 – $388,350 $108,726 – $194,175 $198,051 – $388,350
35% $388,351+ $388,351+ $194,176+ $388,351+

I LIEK WHEN PEOPLE WHO NO NOTHING A BOWT THE MARKETS TLK ABOWT THM!!!

[a completely inoffensive name]

I LIEK WHEN PEOPLE WHO NO NOTHING A BOWT THE MARKETS TLK ABOWT THM!!!

Ur caps is on btw.

[Hooahguy]

Did you expect him to default?

True, but I didnt expect him to spend that much money either.

I was going to keep arguing, but then I realized that I dont know very much about the economy, so Im going to concede this argument on the basis of ignorance.

[Ice]

These are the individual Income tax brackets for 2012. Income from investments is taxed at flat 15% (Capital Gains Tax). The only people paying lower rate than Romney are the ones making less than 20k a year. Case closed.

Marginal Tax Rate Single Married Filing Jointly or Qualified Widow(er) Married Filing Separately Head of Household
10% $0 – $8,700 $0 – $17,400 $0 – $8,700 $0 – $12,400
15% $8,701 – $35,350 $17,401 – $70,700 $8,701 – $35,350 $12,401 – $47,350
25% $35,351 – $85,650 $70,701 – $142,700 $35,351 – $71,350 $47,351 – $122,300
28% $85,651 – $178,650 $142,701 – $217,450 $71,351 – $108,725 $122,301 – $198,050
33% $178,651 – $388,350 $217,451 – $388,350 $108,726 – $194,175 $198,051 – $388,350
35% $388,351+ $388,351+ $194,176+ $388,351+

Romney pays an effective federal tax rate of 13% per year. Marginal tax rates really are useless when debating this issue as one has to take into account deductions, exemptions, credits, and additional taxes (ex payroll taxes) to see how much tax a individual pays out of pocket. State taxes also add to the burden ranging from 0% in Florida to a high of 11% in California. An argument for the 15% tax rate (0% for low earners) on dividends is that it prevents heavy double taxation (corporation distributes its already taxed earnings to its shareholders where they are taxed again). As for capital gains, well they probably should be taxed at ordinary rates as many of our tax laws are in place to deter people from abusing the 15% dividend rate and classifying something as a "dividend".

[Hooahguy]

I wish this system was more friendly to third party candidates. If it was Id totally be voting for Gary Johnson.

[Major Robert Dump]

All the arguments in favor of the two party system are deemed invalid the more and more each of the two current parties exploit public funding.

Kill public funding, and open it up. Tree will be shaken. This is ridiculous. I cannot stand either candidate for the last 4 elections now

Oh, and Ross Perot was right. Suck on that. Too late to go back now