Discussion Forums > Politics
2012 US Presidential Election
Burkingam:
Ah so you are against social engineering are you?
Monkeyfinger:
I'm against anything with the word "social" in it.
AceHigh:
--- Quote from: Burkingam on November 11, 2012, 01:53:44 AM ---Ah so you are against social engineering are you?
--- End quote ---
Who isn't? "Social engineering" has such a negative connotation to it, that only the most retarded people would support it... and I mean retarded as in down syndrome, those who literally can't feed themselves less the want to poke their own eyes out with a fork. The rest of us see social engineering as a revolting kindergarten power play by the politicians in order to cure symptoms of the problems instead of it's root.
zherok:
--- Quote from: Monkeyfinger on November 11, 2012, 01:36:26 AM ---edit - ok maybe I don't entirely support the status quo, America's corporate tax rate is way too high, and there are way too many loopholes and deductions. Tackling this was actually one of Romney's few strengths and I think he could have been successful. Zherok, if you support Obama, then you support taxing the shit out of businesses, because there is no way in hell Obama or the democrat senate will successfully lower the taxes American businesses pay. All the plans he's put forth come with too many strings attached.
--- End quote ---
We don't really know what he would have done, since his only specifics were a broad and arbitrary tax cut across the board.
You talk about strings attached but Romney is sort of the embodiment of that. It's not even disguised here; the foremost concern was to cut personal income taxes, which overwhelmingly benefit the rich over the middle class and poor. As if it's impossible to help Walmart workers without first giving a massive return for the Waltons. If they weren't going to spend their money now they aren't going to after a 20% tax cut either. And again, it's the only thing we even really know about what Romney wanted to do. I think we have an idea what his priorities were when "adding 12 million jobs to the economy" is just something he'd magically conjure out of the ether rather than something attached to an actual policy.
It's all recycled trickle down nonsense. I've quoted it before, but here's the facts, the economy does better under Democrats than it does Republicans.
I don't agree with Obama on everything. But for the last election I didn't have to. Romney was an exceptionally shitty candidate. The baggage was severe. And I don't really think he was all that worried about the small businessman so much as the prestige of the office and helping people like himself. Add that on top of the regressive social policies and overly aggressive posturing and I can't say I have any regrets. I'd settle for Obama managing to get little to nothing done over letting Romney have the chance to pick a couple supreme court nominees.
Burkingam:
--- Quote from: AceHigh on November 11, 2012, 03:16:41 AM ---
--- Quote from: Burkingam on November 11, 2012, 01:53:44 AM ---Ah so you are against social engineering are you?
--- End quote ---
Who isn't? "Social engineering" has such a negative connotation to it, that only the most retarded people would support it... and I mean retarded as in down syndrome, those who literally can't feed themselves less the want to poke their own eyes out with a fork. The rest of us see social engineering as a revolting kindergarten power play by the politicians in order to cure symptoms of the problems instead of it's root.
--- End quote ---
Are you an anarchist, AceHigh? And if not, can you name me one thing, any thing, that the government could do that you would support and that isn't social engineering or doesn't require social engineering? Remember if you can't that would make you retarded by your own criteria.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version