Discussion Forums > Politics

2012 US Presidential Election

<< < (34/134) > >>

megido-rev.M:

--- Quote from: pantywraith on October 14, 2012, 11:21:12 PM ---He has refused to say what his plan is, how it balances the budget, or give any real detail other than it is not Obama's plan. In fact that seems to be the only thing he is running on, that he is not Obama!

--- End quote ---

All the while claiming his own plan would make a phantom 3M jobs. Plain ludicrous.

jaybug:
I always love your revisionist history lessons Nikk. Too bad you didn't live through the Carter years. Quick go put on another sweater. Between death taxes and the Democrats killing the old GI bill, I didn't have a chance at getting a college education when I graduated high school back in 1982.

The whole of the 70s sucked. Richard Nixon's ill advised "Price Freezes", Vietnam, two, count them Oil Shortages, where my parents had to wait for hours to buy gas on an odd numbered day, because that's how the numbers came up on their car's license plates.

It took Reagan to make it all better. And yes, trickle down works. It works better for Americans if you stop buying Made in China. Because if trickle down doesn't work, how did China get to be such an economic powerhouse?

Obama's plan has been to have a stimulus plan that would pump in billions of dollars into the economy, just in time for things to start looking up for the next elections. So how did that work for you in 2010? (Republican landslide in the House) I see lots of signs on roadways that indicate the money came from the stimulus plan, but as an example, highway 126 from Florence, Oregon to Eugene, Oregon used stimulus money, great, it needed it, but they cut corners with the paint. It was a dark and drizzly night Friday night, but the only way to tell where the painted lines were was that they were shiny black, instead of the matte black of the asphalt. (which is not Obama's fault, but if you are going to borrow and spend billions, do it right, not so that it leaves a dangerous road through mountains)

Also, Clinton's labor secretary Robert Reich, (of whom I am a fan, and he autographed his book for me, which I still have), said that back during Clinton's presidency, America needed 250,000 new jobs per month just to keep up with current growth. Assuming the growth rate is the same, we are a larger nation, so 250,000 will slowly cause the unemployment rate to increase. Has Obama done better than 180,000 new jobs in a month?

Why would anyone say what they will do, when congress has a say in any plan proposed by any president? Would Romney want to say something that will offend the GOP base now, so that they will stay home in droves and forget about the election? 

So far Obama has been better friends to the 1% than to Joe and Jane Citizen. The 5 biggest banks now account for something like 23% of GDP. TBTF. Say it loud and proud you lefties you. Too Big To Fail! Borrowed money goes to fund crappy banks at taxpayer expense, and a lousy bureaucracy, and does little to help the everyman.

zherok:

--- Quote from: jaybug on October 15, 2012, 02:12:35 AM ---Why would anyone say what they will do, when congress has a say in any plan proposed by any president? Would Romney want to say something that will offend the GOP base now, so that they will stay home in droves and forget about the election?

--- End quote ---
He's been running for almost eight years. He's spent his entire campaign this last four running as a zero-calorie alternative to Obama; absolutely no substance, but hey, he's not Obama! The numbers he throws out are often arbitrary (his tax rate cut, his deduction amount, the jobs he'll create merely by being President, the growth of the economy for likewise.) They're incredibly ambitious, and in many cases, mathematically impossible.

I don't really care how badly he wants to be President. No one doubts he really feels he's put in the time enough to get this feather in his cap. But that doesn't make you presidential material.

The issue is about what he intends to if he wins. And so far all he's offered is he'll be not Obama, but manage to keep everything positive about what Obama intends to do, while simultaneously slashing revenue across the board, saving medicare, increasing the military budget (just in case Russia collapses back into the USSR and we suddenly find ourselves in another Cold War), massively creating jobs merely by the aura of confidence radiating from his being, and doing something different than Obama would with Syria (as per the VP debate, this appears to be mostly the same thing but with more dick swinging.)

And what does he stand for? Contrast this guy with the one running now. Is he for immigration rights, or the guy who thought self-deportation was a great idea? These are things that matter, and I don't think his investment banker background suddenly gives him a pass on solidifying what he actually intends to do on social issues.

AceHigh:

--- Quote from: jaybug on October 15, 2012, 02:12:35 AM ---And yes, trickle down works. It works better for Americans if you stop buying Made in China. Because if trickle down doesn't work, how did China get to be such an economic powerhouse?

--- End quote ---

Because China did the right thing and has control over it's currency. The government, not private banks. With such control the can keep their currency artificially low making China always more competitive. Then you add some other factors like horrible working conditions and salary and you get the Chinese business model.

Trickle economy is a scam that will not work, because nothing trickles down, just ends up in Swiss bank accounts.

vicious796:
Ryan explained the economic plan better than Romney did - force Congress' hand, something the current administration has failed to do, repeatedly, even when their party had control of Congress. The general idea is to do pretty much what Reagan did in the 80s - say, flatly, we're dropping taxes by x, make up for it with cuts and the closure of loopholes. Everything is on the table except for military spending, apparently, which means there's a large pie to pick from.

Then again, the only place they're going to get any real money from is social security and medicare, but apparently they're kind've-sort've-off the table. The Republican ticket can't possibly revoke benefits to those already seeing them so, in essence, they can only remove benefits for people under 50-ish.

The "goal" with the tax cut is to promote small businesses who regularly make 250k or more in a year of profit. For fear of the massive corporate taxes in America, these people elect to claim it all as personal income, instead. The problem is that this plan doesn't actually address the problem - the corporate tax rates - and the only people who were talking about it before were Jon Huntsman, who was quickly neutered, and Rick Santorum, who was bat-shit crazy.

The tax cuts are really benefiting venture capitalists, which is good, and the extreme wealthy, which is not so good. You want venture capitalists to have more money to invest in more small businesses to make more money. You don't really want Paris Hilton to have more money, but it's a side effect of the drug. Whether or not the side effect is worse than the illness is up for debate. Personally, I'd rather most VCs have money and Paris buy a new bag than Paris buying that bag while the VCs buckle down.

Obama's plan has not, will not, and can not work in America. The federal government can not provide long-lasting jobs en masse. Most of his favorable job statistics come from temporary work, specifically in construction, that lasted less than 6 months. The whole notion that the fed can come in, buy up businesses, and put them back on their feet is a little off. The only American car manufacturer that is doing very well right now is Ford - and they didn't want the money in the first place. Remember, Ford was forced to take the loan.

GM is still not "out of the water" and though their sales have increased slightly, that's more to do with the plans they had before the bailout actually working now. The licensing of Fiat, the rerelease of the Camaro, bringing back the Challenger and the Dart, etc. All of these things are things that the car community has known about for years - the Camaro and Challenger, respectively, for at least a decade.

What about the other companies? More busts than not. Let's not even talk about the green jobs he was going to create with the fed that died out.

Basically, they're both wrong for different reasons and, IMHO, Obama is more wrong than Romney - just not by much. If you want jobs created, you have to let the people with the money to create them see profit in it. The only way the government can honestly promote permanent job growth is through tax cuts - they're just planning on cutting the wrong taxes.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page