The American People Seem to Be Realizing that Republicans Aren’t on Their Side

[ThoughtExperiment]

Wow, VA. You said yourself that

I don't understand why this always have to be such a bi-partisan dick tugging contest.

so why all the extreme talk...

I thought you said yourself one time that presidents don't directly create jobs, or directly control the economy, or something to that effect. Right? So now why are all these things Bush's fault?

Anyway, how do democratic policies create jobs? Please explain how higher taxes and bigger govermnent creates jobs. Unless of course you mean public sector jobs.

And saying that Bush's tax cuts caused deficits to explode is crazy. Our deficits are caused by spending and debt, not inadequate tax rates.

Also, people sometimes cite Clinton's period. Well, Clinton was far to the right of Obama. Forget the political labels, I don't care if a guy is a Dem in name if his policies are right. And Clinton did some things like NAFTA that were very right-ist.

As far as your school comments, you have to be being extreme there. IMO education has very little to do with funding. It has to do with having standards and demanding more of kids instead of the extreme PC stuff we see. In a lot of ways I got a better education than kids today and I know my parents got a better education than I did, because it was okay then to demand more of kids. And their education budgets were less than today and less than mine. Please, the extreme stuff like "Republicans don't care about kids being educated" is so out there it doesn't help anyone's argument.

Same for the stuff about medicare. Whatever we do, that system has to be reformed sometime because we're on a path to being Greece or Spain. Someone is going to have to be the bad guy, but it's going to have to happen. But no one wants to throw sick seniors into the street. Come on.

Meh. If people want to vote Dem for social reasons, like for abortion or gay rights or they don't want religion intruding, I get it. Economically, though, it's not even close. Thinking that more regulation and higher taxes actually help the economy is just crazy.

 

[Midswat]

The sad reality is neither candidate is going to solve any of our problems.

I'm probably going to sit this election out. I've lost all faith in the two party system and voting for one candidate because he sucks slightly less than the other candidate isn't all that appealing to me.

 

[ThoughtExperiment]

Very true, Mid. Neither guy can change too much just because of the way our system is set up. (Which is a good thing, because we obviously don't want too much power in the hands of one man.) Anyone who takes over is inheriting an almost impossible debt situation and a huge bureaucratic mess.

But at the margin it does make a difference.

 

[dbair1967]

I can't answer for him, but I will say that Romney's policies have been tried before and they failed. The Bush Tax Cuts did not work. He had one of the lowest top tax rates in history, and all it did was lead to the worst job creation record of any president in modern times. He also managed to turn a surplus into a deficit in just one year. Romney wants to go right back to this irresponsible policy.

Democrats on the whole have created substantially more jobs over the last 50 years than republicans. It's not even close.

To top it off, Romney's plan is to put the nation in $5 trillion MORE debt and then hope that he can dig us back out. Does that sound reasonable at all? Hell no.

Romney has also made it clear that he's going to gut medicare and replace it with some shoddy voucher program. Do middle class or poor senior citizen republicans ever get sick? I sure as fuck hope not for your sake.

Do any of you have children in public schools? Romney is perfectly ok with having class sizes of 50+ and completely cutting funding for things like supplies, books, field trips, and other stuff generally required to learn. Bright teachers do want any part of that. They'll find other professions, and then you'll be left with an NFL replacement ref teaching little Timmy 7th grade science. America already has a shitty education system compared to other countries, and it will only get worse this way. Do republican kids go to school or is that just a democrat thing?

I don't understand why this always have to be such a bi-partisan dick tugging contest. Romney is great if you're rich as fuck and don't need to rely on public stuff like: transportation, schools, roadways, oxygen, policemen and firefighters, etc. He admits this himself in that "47% of America" speech.

In fact, Romney is the Jason Garrett of presidential candidates:

1) Has no fucking clue
2) somehow stumbled into a prominent situation
3) Will waste 4 years of your life and make no progress
4) completely out of touch
5) if he disappeared tomorrow, no one would really miss him

By the way dude, liberals would be proud of your lack of presenting any facts whatsoever to defend their regime.

 

[Midswat]

Actually, I changed my mind. I'm going to vote just to piss superpunk off.

 

[superpunk]

The sad reality is neither candidate is going to solve any of our problems.

I'm probably going to sit this election out. I've lost all faith in the two party system and voting for one candidate because he sucks slightly less than the other candidate isn't all that appealing to me.

I'd rather have herpes than AIDS.

 

[NoDak]

I'd rather have herpes than AIDS.

I don't think anybody in here has ever claimed that Romney is a good candidate.

But it is refreshing to see you liken Obama to herpes.

Baby steps.

 

[superpunk]

Well the whole thing kind of sucks. I'm not oblivious I know both candidates are shilling for people who don't have my best interests or America's best interests in mind - but to me it's obvious one is way worse for us than the other, and if the polling numbers are correct a majority of Americans are finally realizing the same thing.

 

[UVAwahoos]

Wow, VA. You said yourself that



so why all the extreme talk...

I thought you said yourself one time that presidents don't directly create jobs, or directly control the economy, or something to that effect. Right? So now why are all these things Bush's fault?

Anyway, how do democratic policies create jobs? Please explain how higher taxes and bigger govermnent creates jobs. Unless of course you mean public sector jobs.

And saying that Bush's tax cuts caused deficits to explode is crazy. Our deficits are caused by spending and debt, not inadequate tax rates.

Also, people sometimes cite Clinton's period. Well, Clinton was far to the right of Obama. Forget the political labels, I don't care if a guy is a Dem in name if his policies are right. And Clinton did some things like NAFTA that were very right-ist.

As far as your school comments, you have to be being extreme there. IMO education has very little to do with funding. It has to do with having standards and demanding more of kids instead of the extreme PC stuff we see. In a lot of ways I got a better education than kids today and I know my parents got a better education than I did, because it was okay then to demand more of kids. And their education budgets were less than today and less than mine. Please, the extreme stuff like "Republicans don't care about kids being educated" is so out there it doesn't help anyone's argument.

Same for the stuff about medicare. Whatever we do, that system has to be reformed sometime because we're on a path to being Greece or Spain. Someone is going to have to be the bad guy, but it's going to have to happen. But no one wants to throw sick seniors into the street. Come on.

Meh. If people want to vote Dem for social reasons, like for abortion or gay rights or they don't want religion intruding, I get it. Economically, though, it's not even close. Thinking that more regulation and higher taxes actually help the economy is just crazy.

The president has no control over the economy, but his policies surely have a direct impact on the debt. Just read any prominent economist's analysis of Romney's proposed tax plan. The numbers do not add up, and it's def. no way to balance the budget. If these are issues that Romney wants to fix (as he has stated numerous times) then he's going about it the wrong way.

I have no problem voting for either party so long as the policies make sense. Romney is the candidate that the GOP settled on because they had no other choice, and he really hasn't done a great job outlining his plans and goals. He has become a political yes-man for his party. He was pro-abortion until someone told him that it would hurt his presidency chances. I'd much rather have the Mass. Governor version of him because a lot of his policies there made sense. He's trying too hard to fit some stale political platform now.

In regards to education and medicare, you definitely sound very ill-informed. Gutting medicare and replacing it with a more efficient program would be great, but Romney's plan would cost seniors thousands more and it would raise overall health care costs in the next decade by 30-50%. This is all data straight from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office's assessment.

And yes, it's not too far-fetched to say that an extremely wealthy republican who was educated through private schooling and sent his kids through the same system is likely completely out of touch with the public education system's issues. Cutting funding and creating class sizes of 40-50+ will not lead to some magical improvement. The Chicago Teacher's Union just ended a strike that dealt with all of the issues that come with limiting education funding and resources. It's problem across most major school districts.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I said I wouldn't do this again, but I guess I will...

How do some of you think Obama is helping the middle class but Romney's policies wouldn't? Forget Rommey as a person, I admit he's a lousy candidate. But that's because he comes off as a wuss, not because of his policies.

Like this

What does this even mean? Please explain, or try to.

It's simple really. Cutting the 1% tax breaks, in which that figure most likely employs a lot of people, will "hopefully" induce them to expand their area of interests which will thus create more jobs. This is what I would like to believe the mindset behind these moves being as opposed to the rich-only glee club where all they do is just sit back together counting each other's stacks.

Workers only win when there is profit to be made. But the part that sucks is that if the rich are getting tax breaks, where is all the money going to come from to reduce the deficit?

So again, I get the idea behind it all, but like superpunk has factually stated previously, the hoped for "trickle-down" effect never happens and un-wealthy people such as dbair, whether he chooses to realize it or not, are going to be forced to suffer in the interim. Yes there might be more jobs, but people are going to have to work more and more hours to pay for health insurance, etc.

And with no medicaid, folks will have to work until they're 90 in order to afford their medications.

 

[ThoughtExperiment]

I'll try to address some of these:

1. On balancing the budget: Pretty much a red herring. Are we under some illusion that Obama is going to balance the budget?
2. I think Romney is a terrible candidate, too, and I expect Obama to win because of it. This is more a philosophical discussion to me.
3. It's highly debatable whether the CBO is truly unbiased concerning health care, but even so they are wrong all the time. Like when Obamacare was originally supposed to cost 900-something billion and now it's up to two trillion.
4. I don't hold it against Romney that he was born rich, nor do I think it makes him incapable of understanding the problems with our educational system. Obama didn't exactly grow up in the hood -- does that make him incapable of helping people who did?

But again, my whole point is on the economy. Especially on small business, where most jobs are created. Generally, less government = good, more government = bad.

 

[ThoughtExperiment]

Oh, and Bob... No offense my man because I'm trying to discuss this rationally, but what you said doesn't make much sense.

The one percent you talk about is a class warfare tactic. The 1% is so small that taxing them doesn't make any substantial difference. It certainly isn't going to reduce the deficit by any meaningful amount. Please don't buy into that nonsense.

What I don't understand is why the class warfare even appeals to anyone. If I make 50k and my boss is a one-percenter, why do I care if he pays less in taxes as long as I and other middle class people like me benefit? Unless it's just sheer jealousy.

But your part about their being more jobs but having to work more didn't make sense. Please explain.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Oh, and Bob... No offense my man because I'm trying to discuss this rationally, but what you said doesn't make much sense.

The one percent you talk about is a class warfare tactic. The 1% is so small that taxing them doesn't make any substantial difference. It certainly isn't going to reduce the deficit by any meaningful amount. Please don't buy into that nonsense.

Naw, man, I'm not saying to tax the rich instead.

What I don't understand is why the class warfare even appeals to anyone. If I make 50k and my boss is a one-percenter, why do I care if he pays less in taxes as long as I and other middle class people like me benefit? Unless it's just sheer jealousy.

But your part about their being more jobs but having to work more didn't make sense. Please explain.

My point is basically that the age of retirement keeps growing steeper and steeper, and all these "budget" cuts are going to force people to have to work that much harder, and longer.

 

[Irving Cowboy]

 

[superpunk]

The one percent you talk about is a class warfare tactic. The 1% is so small that taxing them doesn't make any substantial difference. It certainly isn't going to reduce the deficit by any meaningful amount. Please don't buy into that nonsense.

Letting the Bush era tax cuts on people making over 250k expire, however....makes a big difference.

It may or may not be the right time for that though.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

That doesn't look like a Thomas Sowell.

 

[UVAwahoos]

I'll try to address some of these:

1. On balancing the budget: Pretty much a red herring. Are we under some illusion that Obama is going to balance the budget?
2. I think Romney is a terrible candidate, too, and I expect Obama to win because of it. This is more a philosophical discussion to me.
3. It's highly debatable whether the CBO is truly unbiased concerning health care, but even so they are wrong all the time. Like when Obamacare was originally supposed to cost 900-something billion and now it's up to two trillion.
4. I don't hold it against Romney that he was born rich, nor do I think it makes him incapable of understanding the problems with our educational system. Obama didn't exactly grow up in the hood -- does that make him incapable of helping people who did?

But again, my whole point is on the economy. Especially on small business, where most jobs are created. Generally, less government = good, more government = bad.

Obama is certainly no saint. There are plenty of things that a sane opponent should have been able to pound him on.

That being said, this "less government" utopia is just conservative rhetoric around election time.

Reagan expanded the federal government more than Carter and Clinton combined. He also taxed upper income social security recipients (because it made sense and was necessary), and he cut deals to raise taxes after he realized that his "trickle down" plan had caused the debt to skyrocket from billions to trillions.

And how about Romney spending over $1 billion in federal funds for the Utah Olympics? That goes completely against what he's saying on the campaign trail. He used the government to write checks when it was convenient for his own situation, but now he's criticizing others who do the same thing.

Mittens just isn't too great, but I think even the GOP is realizing this now. I've read that another week of similar polling will lead Super Pacs to pull money away from his failed campaign in order to start focusing on locking up house and senate seats.