Originally Posted by C230K
Still waiting on my ban powers. You are first on the list though.
Still waiting on my ban powers. You are first on the list though.
I though you would of gotten that power by now, but oh well, go ahead and ban me. Im not on here as much as I used to anyway, you would be doing me a favor
AFA HOLLYWOOD PREMIER LEAGUE EST. 1998
I feel like every media outlet wants Obama to win because it gives them 4 more years of drama and attention. "traditional" presidents are boring. Obama, good or bad.... is always news worthy.
I dunno I think if Romney wins there will be far more to cover than with Obama.
explain.
Everything said in this thread can also, and probably more so be applied to "Romney voters". The people who vote based on facts will vote accordingly.Funny, I tried to say the same thing about something Obama said.
Some people will vote for Romney simply because they dont want a black president.
Some people will vote for Obama simply because they do want a black president.
Around 50% of white people will vote for a black president when given the option.
Around 95% of black people will vote for a black president when given the option.
You can excuse this comment by saying " Romney has people who will vote for him no matter what too ", but you know youre ignoring the truth. The problem with the 1% is that theyre only 1%. There's way more "baby daddies" living in project housing, collecting food stamps and welfare than there are successful well off businessmen in america. Obama wants to stick his bill to the successful businessmen in america when he should be creating a path for everyone to become successful. Obama's policies are contradictory, he claims to be a great job creator and that he can save the economy, but the entire premise of his support his based around safety net programs. His message caters to the weak, the lazy and the unintelligent. When Romney says "i can create you a job", Obama says "if you cant find a job, i'll take care of you with the people who have job's money"
If a teenager asks his/her parents for a new pair of shoes and the mother says "cut the grass and earn money for a new pair of shoes" and the father says "here's my credit card, go get some shoes", that teenager would vote for his/her father even though what his/her father did is not the best thing for him/her. That is what is happening in this election. Obama continues to hand over the creditcard to win votes.
You say, "the people who look at the facts will vote accordingly", the facts show that Obama is the worst economic president in the history of our country, yet people still support him in a time when the economy is biggest issue threatening our livelihood. I agree with Obama on a lot of things. I support gay rights. I support a woman having the choice to carry a child or not. But more importantly than either, people need to be able to take care of themselves and have a future. A future with Obama is 4 more years of the last 4 years. This president is awful.
If you had to take an IQ test prior to voting, Romney would win with 75-80% of the vote.
Not at all. You, and every dem pundit in the country, changed what he said. On top of that, what he actually said falls right in line with many other things he has said about redistribution of wealth.
Hmm. So which sounds more logical....
At the $50,000/plate dinner/fundraiser, Romney actually meant he doesnt care about poor people and he'll screw anyone and everyone over and distort any and every fact and number to get more money and power
OR
Both this AND(not or) Obamas "You didnt build that" statement QUITE POSSIBLY could be taken out of context by someone who didnt read/watch the rest of the speech?
Where did he say this? I remember the one about not caring about poor people because there are enough programs already in place. I believe he also said he wasnt worried about the rich because they have the means to take care of themselves.
please link to both of the statements. You will see they are VASTLY different. I'm paraphrasing because I dont rememebr the exact quote but Romney said the olympic athletes were there on their own. There were there because of their coaches and familys who helped them.
The is much different than you didnt build that, SOMEONE DID IT FOR YOU. It wasnt really the you didnt build that that makes his remarks so telling to me, it was the next line. It was the "someone did it for you".
Ive never seen any facts that support this, ever. I've seen a lot of opinions, but no facts.
I'm about to board a plane, but I'm sure I've seen actual data supporting the exact opposite. And I'm sure I've seen data saying people higher "IQ" lean traditionally left. IQ is not necessarily an accurate measure of political intelligence or actual intelligence. I'll show you all the data when I get home.If you had to take an IQ test prior to voting, Romney would win with 75-80% of the vote.
Intelligent people lean left on social issues. Intelligent people tend to lean away from religion and the right is clearly the religious side. Romney vs Obama, not republican vs democrat. There is no explanation for an intelligent person believing that Obama is a good president. Honestly, i respect you and think you are intelligent person............ it absolutely baffles me that you're an Obama supporter. I cant explain it.
Please........ honest request..... convince me to vote for Obama without blaming anything on George Bush.
On the facts supporting Obama's failure, what more do you need? Highest spending ever, highest debt ever, only credit downgrade ever, high unemployment, high gas prices, healthcare cost rising with no end in sight............ what "fact" would convince you Obama was doing a bad job?
The facts are all over the place, but they are based on what a person thinks a president is supposed to do. What do you think his job is? Im sure its easy to tell you how he has done very poorly. This has been the most scandalous presidential term I can remember and the most blatantly dishonest.
"Their [the new atheists] treatment of the religious viewpoint is pathetic to the point of non-being. Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion would fail any introductory philosophy or religion course. Proudly he criticizes that whereof he knows nothing... I am indignant at the poor quality of the argumentation in Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and all of the others in that group."
~Michael Ruse, atheist & author and philosopher of biology at Florida State University
full article
Im not necessarily an "Obama Supporter"
I need a fact that shows the president is 100% directly responsible for any and all of those. All I hear is "Gas prices are sky high. Obamas fault", "Healthcare costs rising, Obamas fault", "Highest spending ever, Obamas fault (despite actual numbers saying otherwise)" "UE high, Obamas fault (despite the fact that its been slowing falling for the past 3.5 years)" Do the supermajors, big pharma, CEOs, congress, lobbyists now have zero responsibility for any of this? I think people give the office of the presidency entirely too much credit and too much blame, and I think the office of the presidency carries with it a much deeper job description than just an economic, or a superficial one.Please........ honest request..... convince me to vote for Obama without blaming anything on George Bush.
On the facts supporting Obama's failure, what more do you need? Highest spending ever, highest debt ever, only credit downgrade ever, high unemployment, high gas prices, healthcare cost rising with no end in sight............ what "fact" would convince you Obama was doing a bad job?
Can you cite one indisputable fact that Obama is the worst president in history? All I want is one. If anyone can give me concrete proof that Obama is the worst president in US history, I'll vote R across the board in November
Last edited by .blank cd; 09-24-2012 at 12:50 AM.
You've already stated that you do not accept the facts that most people usually judge presidents on. Seems like you acknowledge that things are bad and this president has done nothing to fix it, yet you refuse to place any of the blame on him. We blamed Bush for the last 4 years, lets try something new for the next 4.
If you dont blame Obama for healthcare cost rising, then you wont blame him for anything.
So you believe he is 100% responsible for rising healthcare costs?
Nobody is 100% responsible for anything. If a football coach calls a triple option reverse flea flicker hook and ladder tight end throw back on a 4th down and 26, technically.......................... he's not 100% responsible for that failure, the players had a chance to execute that play. What you could say is that it's the coach's fault for not calling a play that was more likely to be executed properly.
Obama is not 100% responsible for everything because nobody is, but he's the one setting everyone else up for failure.
I like this thread. It's fun to read...lol. Since I have been in school, I have come to the realization that unless you have peer reviewed information or actual fully quoted information it is bullshit. When I see a video that says ".....I believe in redistribution....." I often wonder what came before and after that statement. Could words possibly be taken out of context in that example? (SN: I didn't even watch the vid.) Why talk about politics when the numbers are so skewed that they don't convey the truth. When you come from different places in life you tend to view the world based on how and where you grew up. You can't ignore these facts of life. Just think if you were raised in an area where you had the best of everything until you were out of high school would that make a difference on how you view the world? What about the other end of the spectrum? If you grew up without the best of things until you were out of high school, would that make a difference on how you view the world? Don't forget the middle ground.....I'm sure many can picture this, neither good nor bad, a little of both til' the end high school. These factors eventually help to define who we are and what our station in life is. Now you can't say this without mentioning the outliers. There will be those who make there way up the ladder and those who fall to the bottom but they are just outliers compared to the majority of Americans, about 300million. (SN: I did not quote my sources properly, but my information can be found in "American Democracy Now," Harrison, Harris, Tolchin & "The Study of Society," I had a book written by a professor from Yale U. but I can't find it.)
Time for opinion. Most people are so out of touch with people from other walks of life that they make generalized statements based on ideas that they grew up with. These ideas tend to be so skewed left or right that the information tends [to be] biased one way or another. When it comes to politics neither side is right. You can only hope that what these people, who want to become leaders, say is even half of the truth or what is in their heart. If Americans really felt how much other countries really envied and hated us, [We are under threat every single day. Their are people out there that would love to see America demolished] we would really be up in arms fighting together to make ourselves better rather than trying to point fingers at a single person [or group of people]. The people who voted for Obama have their reasons and those who vote for Romney have there's. Which side is right, only time tells who is right and wrong cause the truth always comes to light in politics, eventually. You say one thing to get elected, but do you come through, even when its hard?
~fin~
Last edited by Slow Motion; 09-24-2012 at 07:22 PM. Reason: Diction
Shits real out here. You betta keep a strap and learn somethin'.
The passage you're referring to was "If you have a business, you..you didn't build that. Someone along the line...gave you some help" (direct quote). He never said "Someone did it for you" through that whole hour long speech.
classy as fuck
I dont know i just dont think its that inflammatory when both instances are writing off a section of the voting population they know they will never win. I mean its not rocket science.
Romney doesnt care about Poor people.......ok.........so?
Obama doesnt care about Rich people........ok......so?
they are both filthy rich politicians, do you believe anything they say?
If you actually look at the whole video of Obama claiming he believes in redistribution, he says something along the lines of "building a coalition of " welfare recipients. He basically backs up exactly what Romney said. There are people dependent on govt that Obama will get their votes , AND PROBABLY ANY DEMOCRAT RUNNING FOR OFFICE.
I mean can we agree
Democrats buy "poor people" votes
GOP buy "rich people" votes
Blank?
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Guess I cant really disagree with you here.
We agree! High five LOL :P
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Ok, not confirming or denying the above statement, just repeating......
so Romney wants to help rich people, Obama wants to help poor people.
From which of these would everyone benefit the most? If we lower taxes on poor people, are they going to start hiring people and rebuilding america? If we lower taxes on poor people, are they going to start investing and stimulating the economy?
trying to understand this. correct me if i'm wrong, but one method seems like it has a chance of working and the other seems aimed at manipulating a group of voters.
Poor people are the job creators. When middle class people have money, they buy things, they pay utilities. This creates demand for things. When people buy things, you need more people to make more things. This is economics 099. Rich people can create all the jobs they want, but if middle class and poor people don't have money to buy things, then they're dead in the water. This is why Regans supply-side economics model is a collossal one-sided failure. When rich people get more money, they save it and/or hide it off shore, or they invest it in companies that people aren't buying from. Sitting money does nothing. When you give rich people more money in the form of tax breaks, it gets saved.
Let's say you took TARP and let's say half of funds spent on hostilities and just gave it to everyone who pays fed taxes(maybe 150m people). Lets call it $2T. That works out to roughly $10-15k What would you do with it? Buy groceries? Car parts? Clothes? Pay bills? If a million more people are buying these things, you think another grocery store or car parts store or clothing store would have to pop up, full of employees?
But that doesn't mean that 'Poor People are creating the jobs'. It means that they are a high percentage of the people creating the demand. Someone still has to put up the capital to create the supply for the demand. This is where the job creation comes from. Not the consumer...
I'm just that guy that spends all his time printing.... T-shirts, banners, vinyl, etc.
"Speed has never killed anyone, suddenly becoming stationary.... that's what gets you"
Median Family income increased every year, until IIRC last year of bush and 1st year of Obama. That, by definition, means trickle down works. Its not perfect and could always use improvement, but the fact that society as a whole benefited from largely conservative economic principles via Reagan, Bush, Clinton , Bush proves that model is the best.
More people owned made more money, invested, went to school, bought cars, etc
Your scenario would not work, it would lead to massive inflation and price hikes. If everyone was just given $15,000, prices of good would double triple, etc to keep up with the inflation you just created.Let's say you took TARP and let's say half of funds spent on hostilities and just gave it to everyone who pays fed taxes(maybe 150m people). Lets call it $2T. That works out to roughly $10-15k What would you do with it? Buy groceries? Car parts? Clothes? Pay bills? If a million more people are buying these things, you think another grocery store or car parts store or clothing store would have to pop up, full of employees?
Its what happened in the
housing market - Give everyone loans regardless of if they can pay, Housing prices skyrocket
College tuition- give everyone college loans, tuition skyrockets
Traditionally you can give small amount back in rebates or something and it has little to no effect. But massive amounts like you are talking about isnt feasible. The money has to be created and generated from the private sector and transferred to the people or it cannot be created at all.
We are in agreement that TARP did little to nothing to the economy if not just make it worse
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Semantics. The current political debate incorrectly labels only rich people as job creators. Both rich and poor have an equal share in job creation but the current economic model favors rich people.
The current economic model favors both the rich and the poor. The rich being that they have the money to fall-back on and the ppor due to government assistance. The middle class is still the only class that seemingly get screwed either way. Luckily (for liberals) the middle class is dwindling...
I'm just that guy that spends all his time printing.... T-shirts, banners, vinyl, etc.
"Speed has never killed anyone, suddenly becoming stationary.... that's what gets you"
The economy is a circular flow of money.
-----> people get paid from jobs ----> people buy products from companies -----v
^------------companies hire people to make products <--------------------------
From that basic model, either giving money to consumers (demand side) or to businesses (supply side) could theoretically stimulate the economy. The biggest debate is what is the most efficient way to do that. On the demand side, you could give money directly to the consumers (eg., that check you got from Bush in 2008 or the lower payroll taxes you got from Obama as part of the stimulus). On the supply side, you could provide tax cuts for hiring and investing but that also requires their faith in the stability of the market environment (ie., no huge tax changes in the near future). There is not universal agreement on which is better (although I believe more economists are Keynsians) so a combination of both is probably the most agreeable course of action.
Since poor people spend almost all of any additional income they receive, giving them a check would probably be the most effective way to stimulate the economy but obviously that is not a politically viable option.
Hmmm. Don't know about all that...
Got that right. I can't wait to live in a society where you're either filthy rich or dirt poor.Luckily (for liberals) the middle class is dwindling...
I suggest everyone read: HowStuffWorks "Is it true that only 53 percent of Americans pay income tax?"
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Hmmm... I still believe my statement to be true.
Shits real out here. You betta keep a strap and learn somethin'.
You think this might have a little to do with inflation/volatile housing market?
I would say it was the worst idea that probably had to happen. It might have made things worse, but not as bad as it could have been if it didn't happen.We are in agreement that TARP did little to nothing to the economy if not just make it worse
Inflation sure, housing market i dont know if that really effects median income unless you mean like the plethora of people who became real estate agents (and made tons of money).
Id like to see figures on true corporate middle income jobs and their salaries compared to 20-30 years ago. The data that DIck Morris published in a book (which was pulled from bipartisan sources) showed that the people in poverty in the 80s over a 20 year gap gained significant wealth. And the the entry level worker now, makes more than they did then. People in poverty NOW own far more than what they did in the 70-80s. Some of that is minimum wage being higher, some of that is better education, better jobs, etc.
How else do you measure standards to say trickle down doesnt work? Typically in any society the people with the most money as a percentage get wealthier, that doesnt mean a system doesnt work. It just means their gains are higher.
I think it gave us an artificial bump for 1-2 years that we are dealing with nowI would say it was the worst idea that probably had to happen. It might have made things worse, but not as bad as it could have been if it didn't happen.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Without reading the article, I can believe it. I mean, just look at all these people that don't pay FEDERAL income tax....
Bunch of freeloaders if you ask me
Without reading the article, I can believe it. I mean, just look at all these people that don't pay FEDERAL income tax....
Bunch of freeloaders if you ask me
You forgot these people
Notice how many are on cell phones? This is a line for home heating assistance in Michigan in '09. They can find the money for a cell phone, but not their own heat.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/oc...heat-o06.shtml
You are also wrong in most cases. Kids would pay federal income taxes if they had an income. Military does pay federal income taxes when their income reaches 90k (just senior officers are affected). Seniors do pay federal income taxes if they are still earning an income.
These are also not the people that Romney was talking about, but I wouldnt expect you to admit that. That would be way too non partisan of you and Obama would never agree with that.
You are right that those people are probably part of the 47% who don't pay income taxes but what percentage of the 47% do you think they are? What percentage are seniors, students, wealthy people who don't work, etc? How do you know the people in that line consider themselves victims?
That's exactly what the article talks about - and you would like it.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
