That is probably the most bloated, deluded post I've ever heard in my life. That's like calling Bill O'Reilly fair and balanced and we know how "true" that is. And again, your lack of understanding on politics in this respect clearly shows and above all, you're just demonstrating partisan nonsense. Again, to simplify everything that even a child with mental retardation could understand: 1. Congressional gridlock thanks to hyper-partisan nonsense. 2. There's no "shift" in ideology. Just disgruntled everyday Americans who feel the economy hasn't picked up quickly enough. 3. Change in congressional make-up happens as expected. 4. Far-right hijacked the GOP. 5. People elected in office doesn't mean there's a shift in political attitudes. Nor a reflection on how people will vote in the upcoming elections. Again, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania could tell you that. 6. Obama has proposed many ideas, including his Grand Bargain, but GOP sentiments thanks to the TEA Party decided to give Obama the big fuck you. 7. The GOP is less about fixing the economy and more about kicking Obama out of office, which is damaging to the people. 8. The economy will be a long standing problem and won't be solved in 5 years or even 10 years. It'll be continuous because of the independent variables. 9. The US is fairing better than it did four years ago. Of course, selective reasoning is jameswilson1's best course of action since reality and political astuteness alludes him ever so dearly.
First, I've never claimed to be bi-partisan...I most definitely am a conservative. But my post was actually balanced as I spelled out which states I believe will go to both candidates and I gave my opinion on the final tally of electoral votes. Everybody else is giving bullshit "Obama will win because Romney is dumb" arguments. And people may not always agree with me on here, but to say I have a lack of understanding politics is in your words "bloated and deluded". 1. There is always partisan gridlock, whether you're Republican or Democrat. Obama is only concerned with re-election. He rarely puts out legislation and when he does, he doesn't want to come back to the table to negotiate. 2. Americans are disgruntled for good reason. The economy is stagnant, there are no jobs, and we have record debt that is mounting daily. This isn't some matter of opinion...this is real life. You're not experiencing "Inception"...this isn't a dream within a dream. 3. Change is congressional makeup happens as expected? Not sure what you mean. 4. Far-right hijacked the GOP? You realize Romney is called a "Massachusetts Moderate". He won a state with 11% registered Republicans. Everyone in Congress knows the Rob Portman is willing to work with Democrats if he supports the direction. 5. People elected in office definitely reflects a shift in political attitudes. That's why we have elections. Especially in swing states like the ones you mentioned. I live in California, a lock for Democrats. But those states up for grabs this election have recently voted for Republican representatives, you cannot ignore that. 6. Again, Obama rarely makes proposals. And when he does he makes them so far left that when Republicans say no, he just turns around and says "See...they don't want to work with me". It's like a boxer you says I'll fight you but I get 95% and you get 5%. Then when the other boxer says no, he turns around and says "See...he doesn't want to fight me". 7. The GOP is 100% about fixing the economy. Fiscal conservatism is the main reason I'm a Republican. Obama doesn't seem to understand that we need pro-growth policies to jump start the economy again. You can't tax and spend your way out of this problem. Tax and spend only works in good economic years like when Clinton was in office. Doesn't work in a recession. 8-9. That's crazy...the US is not better, it's worse. When Reagan and Bush came into office, they both had recessions. Both men turned it around within 18 months. It's 4 years later and we're still around 8.5% unemployment and the labor force participation rate is double that. That includes all of the people who've just said "fuck it" to looking for work.
JW,vision of a Romney win is sure looks like a fairy tale. He had this loop on his head of who gets the credit for making a business. The right's version of Obama's speech appears that in a Darwinian way one person can make a business all by him/her self. I do not see the rightwing having ideas on how to make this nation work. They just want to diss and tear down. I don't think of one wingnut,Republican,Tea Bagger etc say one thing that is positive about Obama. If they can't find that then they are real sheetheads in the highest order.
Contradictions abound, you claim to be fair and balanced, which is the keyword and you sir, played yourself false with your claims. Now you're implying that you can be fair and balanced and hold a conservative bias at the same time? That's some nice trickery right there. I commend you for being blunt on your convictions, but don't lie and say you're "fair and balanced." Now onto the post in question... For the record, when people criticize Romney for being "dumb", the implications are largely based on some of gaffes he's made throughout the campaign. Being a noted flip-flopper to pander towards an idiotic base of people who like to set the US 60-70 years back and hold progress hostage. It's unfortunate that he's dealing with hyperconservatism, and that's the main issue we all take...he's not portraying himself as a person who genuinely holds a viewpoint. You claim he's known as the moderate of Massachusetts? Well, that would be true if he stuck with his original self and act more like his father, who is much more genuine and was ahead of his time for the GOP platform. Furthermore, you sure as hell haven't demonstrated your knack or knowledge in the political arena. You just come off as another talking point. 1. It's expected to have gridlock in any political situation, but unlike the previous ones, we're dealing with the most immature bunch of babies on the far-right side of the GOP. Back in the heydays, people actually argued over the same thing and were more likely to reach across the aisle. The issue with modern politics is that the Democrats would be willing to give up some of their pieces of legislation in a bill than the GOP mantra of "all or nothing". That's where the gridlock comes in. 2. The issue with the American public is that they treat these problems like a two hour movie. Expect things getting done in a short amount of time. With the economy as problematic as it is now, common sense should tell you that it would take much longer than 5-10 years to get it completely turned around. The TEA Party should have fixed this, but no...they've only made things worse. 3. Seems like you forgot about the process of redistricting. Part of the "sway in political" thought contributes to it greatly, especially when dealing with the House, where it's most effected. The state as a whole...there's no actual political shift unless the demographics have increased. 4. He went from the moderate to the pandering right-wing loon. Can you honestly tell me somebody who once was pro-choice, now feel Roe v. Wade needs to be turned a moderate? Are you that dense? Plus, I'm not talking about Romney. I'm speaking on the elected officials who seemingly take a more fiscally butchered libertarian style of thinking. 5. Part of the shift has more to do with people's uneasiness with the progress and undermine that this situation is far bigger than what's been tackled in this ever-growing problem. California is still a blue heavy state and it's not like Mississippi, where there's practically nothing but GOP filled individuals. Again, see point# 2. 6. For one thing, Obama have offered his own proposals, but only AFTER congress couldn't reach any real compromises. The expectation? That Congress can find compromise, but sadly, lunatics in the GOP basically don't have that, even after the luxury of being a majority. 7. Ignoring the fact that Obama hasn't increased taxes to anybody, partly due to the tax cuts already in place, I don't see how you can tell me that he actually increased taxes at all. He made those proposals towards those who are well-off, but give the incentives to those who are working class rather than having the poor pay more on taxes and the rich get tax breaks. The myth of spurring job growth by putting more money in the 1% is a deluded man's paradise. 8. You're logic fails. Bush Jr. basically took the economy into a nose dive, especially with the wars constantly taking advantage of everyone's fears and convince them that more of their tax dollars should go to meaningless wars. As for Reagan, he actually increased taxes 11 times. He worked with Democrats and quite frankly, he wouldn't even pass the GOP litmus test if he were still alive. He was practical, not overly idealistic like the hypernuts in the 102nd Congress. Come on, at least use some common knowledge here before you press your fingers on the keyboard.
Every conservative and small business owner knows that employees help build what they created. Obama was stating that government plays a role in your business by saying "you didn't build that". Just because the government builds roads doesn't mean that you've had a hand in creating every small business. Conservatives have plenty of ideas on how to get this economy working. Romney released a 52 point plan at least 6 months ago. http://www.mittromney.com/blogs/mit...ca-mitt-romneys-plan-jobs-and-economic-growth
No, my point is that you can be fair and balanced and still have conservative values not bias. A bias would be to say Obama will lose every state and Romney is the greatest person who ever lived in the world...which seems to be the argument most Democrats on this board give. 1. The political system is setup with multiple parties and "checks and balances" for a reason. The fact is on both sides, the elected officials stand for the principles they believe in. The Republicans job is not to make Barack's job easy. I would rather have no legislation than bad legislation. I think they can come together on certain smaller issues like extending tax relief on student loan debt- Romney and Obama both agreed on that. But fundamental economic issues is different. 2. I'm an economics major and worked with the Federal Reserve for six months during my senior year. I promise you that if you lowered marginal tax rates on people by 10-20% and reduced the corporate tax rate to 25% you would see unemployment drop and discretionary spending increase within 12 months. 3. In state elections it comes down to raw numbers. So when you see a win in Ohio for Portman 57% to 39% it either means they think he's a great person to lead regardless of party affiliation or they agree with his conservative message. Either way that is a win for the Republicans. 4. I'm not saying Romney has never changed his mind on a particular issue. But almost every politician has done that. It is a natural part of human behavior. As you get older and wiser, your views and opinions might change. My views on certain issues have changed from my early 20's to early 30's. 5. I personally think it would be great to live in a swing state. Like I said, I like to be apart of the political process but my vote is virtually useless being a conservative in California. 6. Obama's proposal was far left. And in the interest of fairness the Paul Ryan plan for the Republicans is far right. If Obama were serious about compromise then he would do what Bill Clinton did- make significant decreases in spending and raise taxes slightly. But Obama wants to have his cake and eat it too. You can't increase spending, raise taxes on top earners, and keep every else on the same tax rate. 7. Obama plans to increase taxes on the top earners which will only fund government for 8 days. Leaving the tax rates the same as the Bush era does no good because we're living in a different time. You need to reduce taxes so that people can save, invest, or spend money to help jump start the economy. Leaving it the same means that they will continue to stay broke. So that does little to nothing, but gets people excited about voting for him because he's "sticking it to the rich". He's deflecting off the crappy job he's doing by saying "look over there at those rich people".The Cato Institute released a great study. If you could have Reagan tax policies and Clinton spending policies, the economy would be booming. http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/obama-plans-fund-government-eight-days 8. Spending during Reagan's two terms averaged 22.4% GDP, well above the 20.6% GDP average from 1971 to 2009. The unemployment rate dropped from 7% in 1980 to 5.4% in 1988. The inflation rate declined from 10% in 1980 to 4% in 1988. As a result of Reaganomics, A net job increase of about 21 million also occurred. So there are some things called facts.
This begs to be said, where in the hell is Saty? Please get back to your thread right quick. Ah, restricted I see....enquiring minds want to know!
Biases can be overt or subtle and that's the main thing you're failing to see. You're exercising bias that's hardly subtle in any way shape or form, especially when inputting your own "solutions" which have been planted before and get this? It made the country worse off when the temptation of more money is put into place if we're speaking businesses. 1. Congress's job is to find compromise to help spur and fix the country. Placing politics ahead of the well-being of the public only creates chaos. Now granted, the media mainly covers the main controversial bills in order to get ratings, but beyond that they often get a lot of legislation done and they are often small bills that could help. 2. That sort of idea looks good in theory, but here's the problem: the rich are more likely to take the money they've received and put more it into their pockets and less likely to invest and be risk-driven. And they are more than likely to continue to outsource their businesses because of cheaper currency exchanges. 3. It actually doesn't. Obama is still leading in Ohio in a slightly bigger margin and even if Romney brings Portman onto the ticket, it wouldn't matter much at all since, after all, Portman isn't running for President. 4. There's a difference between changing one's opinion or evolving out of genuine means and doing it out of political pandering. Romney's running for President and it's evident that he changed his views to garner more votes on the conservative base. He's hardly a moderate anymore and would like to please a nutty base. 5. As long as you're able to elect officials in your state that matches your viewpoints, it'd be silly to think you would rather be in a swing state. 6. If anything, Obama's been on the centre-left. Had he even advocated any sense of "far-left" agenda, he would have proposed the elimination of the Bush Tax cuts. But wait...I do recall Ron Paul and David Stockman proposing the very thing. So that's not far-left at all, huh? The economy has too many problems to be fixed in a short amount of time. But look at what are some economic proposals Obama has spoken of, he really have some good ideas, mixed in with Clinton-esque proposals. So, where's this fictional Obama you keep harping over? 7-8. Reaganomics is a far cry from being perfect and even Stockman felt it was a failure and he's the architect behind it. That was a short-term solution to an ever-continuous problem and guess what? The economy grew worse after he left office. Somehow, that part was largely ignored by the conservative groups. Why not include the immediate effects AFTER Reagan left office?
I see you are still ignoring the facts when it comes to Obama and taxes, see below which I have already posted MANY times. As far as the debt, a republican administration would have listened to the Fed the exact same way Obama's administration did back in 2008 as far as how to deal with it. This recession was MUCH more severe than the one Reagan and Bush inherited. Obama has lowered taxes for 98% of Americans President Obama Cut Taxes for 98% of Working Families in 2009 According to a recent CBS News/New York Times poll, the vast majority of Americans do not perceive that they have received a tax cut from President Obama. Asked if the President “has already raised taxes this past year,” 53 percent of those polled said that the President has “kept taxes the same,” and 24 percent think that the President has “raised taxes.” A mere 12 percent believe that the President has cut their taxes.1 This is an astonishing level of misunderstanding. The truth is that the major tax cuts enacted in the 2009 economic stimulus bill actually reduced federal income taxes for tax year 2009 for 98 percent of all working families and individuals. These tax cuts saved working families and individuals an average of $1,158 on the tax returns they will file by April 15. (The median tax cut was approximately $600.) The stimulus bill included several tax cutting measures for individuals in tax year 2009: # The “Making Work Pay” tax credit gave most working people a $400 refundable tax credit. This credit is worth $800 to most working married couples. More than 94 percent of all working families and individuals received this tax cut. # Changes to the $1,000 per-child tax credit and the earned-income tax credit gave an average of $872 each to 12 million, mostly low-income working families with children. # Relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax for 2009 reduced taxes for 25 million mostly upper-income couples and individuals. # A new, partially refundable education credit was also enacted for 2009. One reason why the public may not realize that the President has cut their 2009 taxes is that the tax cut that affected the most people — the “Making Work Pay” credit — was dribbled out gradually in reduced tax withholding on wages. Obama Tax Cuts for Working Families and Individuals in Tax Year 2009 (returns filed in 2010) Income Group Average tax cut % with tax cut Lowest 20% $ –604 100% Second 20% –628 100% Middle 20% –590 100% Fourth 20% –822 100% Next 10% –1,856 96% Next 5% –3,232 96% Next 4% –4,925 97% Top 1% –1,171 29% ALL $ –1,158 98% ________________
MS,I just learned about the games being played in Ohio of early and late voting are reserved in the Republican districts where restrictive voting like 9 to 5 and no weekends apply to the Democratic districts. Hope it changes. It seems that the GOP by hook or crook are still trying to block not only Black voting but, all voters who prefer Obama. Romney has "plenty" of ideas? He will raise taxes for the middle and lower class and lower taxes for the rich like himself. Any conservative thinks his employees built the roads for him/her are out of their minds. The small business men who are in those Romney ads had their businesses funded partly by the Government. Loki and MS:JW has big blinders on his head.
That is one thing a lot of conservatives, specifically those who are die-hard libertarians often forget that many of the projects and buildings and what have you have always been through some level of government assistance since the Founding Fathers. But James is responding to the post as we speak. He's just shown to be a guest since his posts are generally long.
Just because you hold a certain viewpoint does not mean you're biased. Being biased is holding a certain viewpoint and not recognizing any other viewpoint. I have called out several ways Democrats have been effective in the past. I'm still waiting to see when you will call out ways Republicans have been effective. 1. Finding compromise is great when you have a foundation to work from. The Democratic majority has failed to submit a budget proposal in over 1000 days!! Yet they rip the budget proposal put forward by Paul Ryan. Republicans are trying to do something, but Obama is trying to avoid doing anything because he's scared about his re-election prospects. 2. That's backwards. The rich are typically the risk takers in this country. And remember, there is no wrong way to use the money. If people save money, it is great for our financial institutions. If they invest, people can build equity for the future and companies can hire more people. If they spend, the economy has more money in circulation and business expands. The worst thing is our current situation where nobody has any money to do any of those things. People are just getting by paycheck to paycheck. 3. I don't think you're getting my point. I realize that Portman isn't running for President. But the fact that he got elected and beat the Democrat incumbent by such a large margin signals political change within the state. Obama won in 2008 and Portman was elected Senator of Ohio in 2010. 4. Your candidate, Barack Obama, practically invented the word pandering. He jumps to a new group every day in hopes to garner new votes. You expect me to believe he just woke up one morning and decided to support "same sex marriage" without any political motivation. He didn't touch that issue in 2008. He was busy running around speaking at black churches back then, but now that he knows that he's got the black vote he's moved on. Look at the NAACP convention...Barack was nowhere to be found. 5. I'm referring to the presidential election, not state officials. In the presidential election I might as well stay home because everybody is going to vote Democrat. 6. Obama is hardly left-center in his beliefs. He left the Bush tax cuts because he knew it was the best thing to do. In order to rebound the economy you need reasonable tax cuts, simplify tax code, and fix entitlement spending. I read the link you posted about Obama's 12 point plan. He has some good ideas and some that are too narrow in scope to produce any real results. The two areas he should focus on are removing capital gains for small businesses and creating jobs through fair trade. But he is weak as a president and has not placed crippling sanctions on China for their unfair practices. So we'll wait and see if he "man's up" and sticks up for our American manufacturers. 7-8. The economy changes and so economic policies must change with it. Reagan' policies were incredibly effective for the time period he was president. Reagan cannot be held responsible for what happens under another presidents watch. The problem most Republicans have is that they cannot keep government spending down long enough . Inevitably, they get pressured to spend money on programs and that's where the problem happens. This happened in Bush's second term and ultimately was one of the reasons Rob Portman left as Director of OMB.
You obviously have never looked at Romney's plan. I love how I actually take the time to view Obama's plan, but you ramble on about Romney without even ever reading his plan. Romney will not raise taxes for the lower & middle class and lower taxes for himself...actually it is reverse. He plans to lower marginal tax rates by 20% for all income brackets. He also plans to remove capital gains tax for lower and middle class, but not for the rich. As far as Obama's "you didn't build that" comment, so because the government built roads Obama is basically saying he had a hand in their success. How narcissistic is that? If you run a bakery, you better thank Obama for building a road so people could drive there. lol!
Romney's plan? You mean the one with very few details? The Obama campaign ad said Romney would increase the deficit by trillions while Obama would cut the deficit by $4 trillion. Obama's deficit reduction plan is much more specific than Romney's, but for a sitting president, that's expected. Still, independent analysts say that Romney's plan is so vague that it's difficult to know how his plan will impact the federal budget. What are missing are the politically sensitive details on which programs he would cut and which tax breaks he would reduce. What we do know indicates his plan will drive up deficits, potentially a great deal. Those same analysts also say the ad exaggerates the deficit reductions that would come from the Obama plan.The savings could be less than $2 trillion over 10 years. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...omney-would-add-trillions-deficit-while-obam/
Aside from mentioning Clinton, I haven't from you as to how Democratic policies have been effective in general. Aside from that, you're really talking in a dark place covered in monkey turds. As for me, when I speak on policies that work, I'm basing it solely on bipartisanship means. In other words, I credit both parties for working together, which is the goal of Congress despite ideological differences. Practice vs. Principle or does that go over your head? 1. Paul Ryan's budget really benefits one group of people, which is the main problem and there were too many flaws in his plan. It'd be a different story had all Americans have to be effected to where people wind up saving (which is a double-edge sword) in the long run. 2. Again, you're speaking on theoretical expectations and the only risks those in the top bracket would be willing to take is just pouring money to other people they know who are in that same fiscal range. Not willing to put money into the country. So, they are more inclined to outsource since the currency exchange between countries like US and China are more beneficial for US businesses. 3. A large margin thanks to the Citizen's United case which greatly benefited the GOP, and you cannot deny that at all. Portman may have still won without it, but it would be by a slimmer difference in percentage points. And I do get your point. You're only walking on egg shells with your argument - Portman can help carry Ohio. But that's simply not true. 4. Practically a pathetic rebuttal on your part. He's running for re-election, which means he's not only going out campaigning in major swing states, he also has responsibilities as POTUS. And you're ignoring the fact that he actually addressed blacks in the National Urban League as of recent. So if you like to remind everyone of Obama's absence (never mind the fact that Biden spoke on his behalf), then you would have to ask Romney or any of his constituents on where exactly was the GOP to address the NUL? Hypocrite, you are. Furthermore, you would have to look into Obama's personal history regarding same-sex marriage. He's more of a pragmatist than anything else. During his time as state senator, he actually supported same-sex marriage. Came his time as senator, he actually championed gay rights by voting down the Federal Marriage Amendment. As president, he actually turned over DADT and also signed an executive order to allow same-sex couples to see one another for hospital visits. In essence, you could say he was "lying" about his position on being against it all this time, but it seems like everyone sort of knew that when he was talking about "evolving", all those actions he did must have triggered something. But sadly, hypocrites like you don't believe in life, liberty and pursuit of happiness because you uphold a bigoted position, contrary to the fact that homosexuality is natural and marriage is a civil right. 5. You're in a blue state solidly. And your voice could have been put to the test with Jerry Brown (super fiscal conservative) vs. Meg Whitman. Since you participated politically, you've already put in your vote. 6. Again, you're putting ideology over practicality and this is where you fall short. Obama has been effective as president and managed to get a lot of done, especially on foreign relations. And even Jon Huntsman would argue that trying to place sanctions on an economic partner like China would be problematic altogether. Honestly, fear plays hard on that nonsense you're espousing. Also, China's having its own problems in the debt and deficit sector and businesses have been coming back to America and there were some Democratic senators who proposed a bill to help bring jobs back to America. But jameswilson1 happens to ignore that and rely on selective reasoning. Hardly fair and balanced. 7. Actually sonny, the fear is that Bush 41 would have to raise taxes and actually, given that he was his VP, he wanted to retain the Reaganomics discipline and guess what? It went bust, hence it's a short term solution. And it didn't wield long term results. Sounds like you're backpeddling.
No, I mean the 52 point plan he laid out almost immediately after he announced he was running for president. http://www.mittromney.com/blogs/mit...ca-mitt-romneys-plan-jobs-and-economic-growth Obama has increased our national debt $5 trillion since he's been in office. He's had record $1 trillion deficits every year. Rob Portman's deficit during the Bush years was $161 billion, roughly 1/10th of Obama's deficit. Obama is worse than Paris Hilton on Rodeo Drive with her daddy's credit card.
Mitt Romney wrongly claimed deficits “multiplied … by a factor of four or five” under President Barack Obama. He also incorrectly stated that auto companies have repaid only a "small" share of the government bailout money. The deficit was already running at $1.2 trillion when Obama took office, and it grew to more than $1.4 trillion during his administration — an increase of far less than 400 percent to 500 percent. As for the auto bailout money, nearly 50 percent of the roughly $80 billion has been paid back. By any reasonable measure, half is not "a small share." http://www.factcheck.org/2011/06/romney-wrong-on-deficits-auto-bailout/ In an analysis of Romney’s plan, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center considered the impact of those changes based on current policy and found “about 11 percent of tax units would see their 2015 taxes go up an average of nearly $900 while 70 percent would get tax cuts averaging almost $4,300.” A TPC table shows that the average low-income taxpayer would see their taxes go up, because Romney would not extend Obama’s tax policies. “The tax increases reflect the expiration of three provisions enacted in 2009: the American Opportunity Tax Credit and the expansion of the earned income credit and the child credit,” the tax center says, noting, however, that Romney has said that the low- and middle-income groups will pay “no larger shares of federal taxes than they do now.” So, Romney’s plan could result in low-income taxpayers — those earning up to $19,342 in adjusted gross income — paying more. The TPC’s analysis is necessarily incomplete; it considers only the rate reductions Romney has made public and not the tax preferences that he has said he will eliminate but hasn’t yet identified. But just looking at the rate cuts, Romney’s plan could result in tax cuts for everybody else. Middle-income taxpayers — those earning between $39,862 and $69,074 — would see an average tax cut of $810. Of course, under Romney’s plan, the more money you make the more you could potentially see in tax cuts. The Tax Policy Center says that Romney’s plan, based on current policy, would result in a $149,997 average tax cut for the top 1 percent — which is where Priorities USA Action gets its figure of $150,000. But the center also notes that Romney’s plan would increase the tax base by making unspecified changes in “tax preferences,” such as tax credits and deductions. The center, however, could not determine what impact those revenue-raising changes would have on taxpayers, so none of the center’s figures takes that into consideration. http://www.factcheck.org/2012/04/what-priorities-usa-action-doesnt-tell-you/
1. Paul Ryan himself admitted that his plan is very aggressive with regard to tax cuts, but his plan does not favor one particular group of people. Unlike Obama's class warfare tactics. But that is what you have to do when you know the other side is going to ask for changes & compromises. You need to put forward a strong proposal. And if you read Ryan's plan for tax reform I think it's got great parts. He's saying the you eliminate the tax loopholes and deductions and make flat tax rates. But those who want to stay on the current plan can do so. And for social security, the elderly can continue receiving funds but those who are younger can move money to a retirement savings account so there money will actually be there when they get older. 2. Again, I'm not sure what you're talking about. People of all classes can only do three things with their money- save, spend, invest. It doesn't matter if you're low income or Bill Gates. But the people who will benefit the most are the low and middle income people who need a tax break to help them in their daily lives. Obama lowering tax rates would admit the Republicans are right. So in the meantime, all Americans suffer for his political stubbornness. 3. Again, you obviously do not anything about that election. Rob Portman beat Lee Fisher because of the state's massive job losses while he was the state's development director. They lost 400,000 jobs with Fisher as the head. 4. Why can't you just admit that Obama is pandering for the same-sex voters? Obama is a politician like everybody else. If it was a serious issue for him like you state it is, then he would have done something in his first 4 years. But he brings it up right as he's beginning a re-election campaign. Your liberal bias is showing now. 5. Jerry Brown is a fiscal conservative??? Is this the same Gov. Jerry Brown that asked voters for $7 billion in additional taxes, which prompted a trio of real fiscal conservatives to file a ballot initiative to cap state spending? Or is this the same Gov. Jerry Brown that is pushing a $100 billion high speed rail line that leads to the middle of nowhere? 6. What has Obama done with regard to foreign relations? He is seen around the world as a weak president who refuses to stand up for our allies because he's afraid to make our enemies mad. Hunstman thinks placing sanctions on China will be problematic because they underwrite our debt, but in the meantime American manufacturers are dying while every product in America has a "Made in China" sticker on it. So they get to play by their own rules while our president refuses to stand up for Americans 7. Like I said, the only way Reaganomics works is if you regulate spending. You have to be able to sustain low levels of spending, but Democrats freak out when you mention cuts. So that's why I said an ideal model would be Reagan taxes + Clinton spending
1. Listening to him and undermining the bigger factor that it only benefits a certain class of people. The action of class warfare isn't based on what people say, it's what actions they will propose and Ryan is no different. A flat tax would only cause greater harm on those making significantly less, which would stall the economy even further. Spur growth for those who definitely can afford it, but the rest who want to have it easy, but can't...they will suffer worse. And having a choice on the tax plan wouldn't be feasible at all. It would only further complicate the tax code system altogether and then there would be more loopholes which would favor a certain class of people. 2. Certainly. The people who really need the tax cuts/breaks would be those who are middle class and lower class people. They need a breather. But the wealthy? Not so much. They can afford to pay a little more. After all, this is a "we" situation and wealthy people can contribute a little more to spur the economy. And considering how partisan you are, you liken to place the blame on Obama, when it's really the far-right morons who like to stall the country. Why do you think Congress is at an all time low? Oh, somehow that's Obama's fault? Again, the TEA Party don't believe in compromise, so how in the hell can you tell me that Obama is being stubborn? 3. You're speaking of partisan talking points here. That's a bit of an exaggeration, despite it being half-true. But Fisher has also managed to save a lot of jobs during his time. http://www.politifact.com/ohio/stat...-touts-job-development-success-stories-acros/ http://www.politifact.com/ohio/stat...ican-governors-association-says-ohio-lost-40/ Don't expect another lie and if you'll make an assertion, be sure it's 100% true and not overblown. 4. How is it pandering when he's been a supporter for gay rights the whole time? It's not limited to marriage equality either, my simple-minded boy. Everything else I've mentioned is very much consistent with his personal feelings towards it. Plus, he always stated that it should be left up to the states. If that is pandering to you, then you have to admit that Romney is the bigger panderer giving his history and record on civil rights. Keyword: Pragmatism. 5. The same Jerry Brown that served as Governor before and managed to turn California into a major surplus: http://www.factcheck.org/2010/09/jerry-brown-and-california-taxes/...and the same Jerry Brown that oversaw a surplus using the same tactics now that he used back then and has made some proposals that even the GOP were on board with and the Democrats reluctantly supported? Yep...his record has been fiscally conservative. 6. You've been asleep the whole time when he basically did the following: - Shot Somali pirates. - Killed major leaders of Al-Qaeda, including bin Laden. - Currently building relations with Russia with the new START treaty, despite it being very cold. - Sanctions with Iran And let's not forget that while he's basically pandering to Israel like the rest of the world, he's being political smart on how to work with everybody. Plus he also positioned himself as somebody who want to make sure Palestine gets their due and favors the 1967 Lines. And yet, Israel still receives a lot of money from the US. And to me, that's the greatest pandering of all. Furthermore, China have their own rules, much like we have our own. No country really follow rules and know how to get around certain laws through loopholes as well. But hey, don't blame the politicians. Being hard on China would be a VERY poor move. Not only it would show the immaturity of hard-line nations, but it would weaken our country. So, to find a solution, Obama, and many Democrats and a few Republicans believe that bringing jobs back home would be the best thing to do. The approaches are somewhat similar, but the smaller details would be harder to make it pass. 7. Democrats don't mind tax cuts. Are you that moronic and selective in your thinking? They just hate they idea that the wealthy will be able to get over people like a fat rat. And yet, we cannot afford so many tax cuts anymore, especially in this day and age.
1. Flatter taxes would be much better. It would give low income earners more money right now and it would actually encourage people to move up and earn more money because they will keep more. The option will exist for only a 10 year period and then go away. It will dramatically simplify the code. http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pathtoprosperity2013.pdf 2. Of course lower and middle income people need a breather. But my point about increasing taxes on the wealthy is that it does absolutely nothing to help the economy. It funds government for 8 days...that's it!! It's nothing more than a talking point to get you liberals all riled up and sidetracked from the shitty job he's doing. But apparently its an effective strategy. 3. My point about Fisher was 100% true. Ohio lost 400,000 jobs with him as director and he lost his election to Portman 57% to 39%. Tell me which part wasn't true... 4. It's pandering because he's done absolutely nothing to support their cause since he's been in office, but he brings it up when his re-election campaign begins. He's only doing it because it helps him. When Romney goes to the NAACP convention it's not pandering because he knows that he won't get that vote. But he knows that if he's elected president, he needs to represent the interests of all people. Not just those who voted for him. i.e- Obama 5. If Jerry Brown had his way, the amount of projects he would do would cripple Californians. The rail project was pitched as $33 billion and would only take a few years. Now it's $100 billion and will be done in my kids lifetime. The only thing saving us are the proposition votes. 6. - The somali pirates opened fire on Navy ships and they killed them. Are you seriously giving Barack credit for that?? - Killed leaders of Al Qeada because he didn't withdraw troops and he kept open Guantanamo after he criticized Bush for having it open. It still blows my mind that he took credit in his address to the nation. He should have had George Bush at that announcement with him and you liberals know it. - The Iran sanctions are not doing anything because they don't respect him. Obama is saying "Please kids, play nice" while they are over there building nuclear weapons not listening to a word he's saying. That's why Israel is saying we are preparing ourselves for war because we need to protect our country if you're not going to help. 7. The wealthy will always be wealthy. No president will change that. And Romney is giving every break to the low and middle class, not the wealthy. And how can you say that we cannot afford tax cuts in this day and age. This day and age is especially the time you need tax cuts!! What do you think they're for? To help spur economic growth.
