Politics

[yankeehater]

Wow, I'm sensing some pain. Don't worry guys, I'm sure the Romneys will hire a personality soon.

Don't know about you, but I will take no personality and less unemployment any day of the week.

 

[BobD]

Don't know about you, but I will take no personality and less unemployment any day of the week.

Where are you gonna get less unemployment? Are you moving to India to get one of those Romney jobs?

 

[Rhode Irish]

 

[irishbird]

Don't know about you, but I will take no personality and less unemployment any day of the week.

Why do people think Romney is going to create jobs?

 

[Rhode Irish]

Why do people think Romney is going to create jobs?

Because they watch too much TV.

 

[irishbird]

Because they watch too much TV.

When he 47 out of 50 in Mass. in jobs?

 

[Rizzophil]

Why do people think Romney is going to create jobs?

1) Mitt has a history of turning around companies and the Olympics that are deeply in debt.

2) President Obama has proven that he hasn't produced jobs.

25mil American's don't have work

 

[phgreek]

Why do people think Romney is going to create jobs?

...uhm, just by getting elected. He, himself, as President could kill EOs that impact economic growth. As well, simply by electing Romney, Obama's administration goes away. Simply by articulating a vision and executing it, businesses would understand the immediate and future four years, and could plan for growth themselves. Just think of it as his version of the fancifull "Hope and Change".

Romney would use that slogan except his crack team of pollsters have found out "Hope and Change" ellicits single finger applause from the masses...not helpfull really.

 

[RDU Irish]

Swap Romney in the Obama photo above and we cover 80% of the electorate. Haters gonna hate is correct.

Met another blue-dog dem this weekend that has a hard time pulling the lever for Obama. Mostly a social issue voter but the economy is too big to ignore. Only rabid Obama lovers doubt Romney has the upper hand on economic issues.

Hard line on defense spending is more harmful to Romney than his establishment strategists will ever admit. That is an issue for his base, most independents feel we can get the job done spending less than the next 8 largest countries combined.

I have yet to meet a McCain voter who is turning to Obama this round. The question to me is whether or not 1 in 20 voters make the switch and does Obama's base turn out. Romney's base will turn out in strong opposition to Obama regardless. I wouldn't be surprised if for every vote flipping to Romney from Obama, 2 or 3 Obama voters from 2008 stay home as they just can't bring themselves to vote for Mitt.

 

[RDU Irish]

Conversely - I see Obama's path to reelection-

#1 - Confuse the crap out of the independents and blue-dogs and get more of them to tune out and stay home than switch to Mitt. This is why negative campaigning from Obama will be off the charts. I don't know the numbers but say it went 70/30 in his favor last time around and represents about 20% of voters. If he loses 25% to swing to 45/55 I think he loses decisively. If he shrinks the turnout to represent 10 - 15% of voters, it needs to swing a lot further and becomes harder to lose.

Distant second - If he can keep his base and erode Mitt's he can make up for the lost votes (again, I have not seen a single person say they switching from McCain to Obama or stayed home last time to definitely voting Obama this time). Conservatives do not have their lead guy in Mitt, Obama my be able to benefit from kooky fringe baptists staying home b/c they think Mormons are weird and untrustworthy, almost as bad as Catholics like Ryan. If the religious right stays home, it hurts Mitt substantially. To them, his waffling on abortion issues is toxic and may be the demographic more single issue than any. Getting them to stay home may be tough as I don't think they ever stay home.

Military spending and Iran may be an issue Obama can win votes in the middle. Convince people that anyone serious about spending has to have the military on the table. Weak on Iran may play OK since we are a war fatigued nation. Let them sabre rattle and point out we get our oil from Canada and South America. China has an Iran problem not us.

Acknowledge defeat on the economic issues by deflecting and avoiding that fight. Obama can't win this one. His positions only resonate with his base and they are frankly wrong on improving the economy. Average people want work and pay raises. Environmental issues are a luxury we cannot afford.

Youth vote - I dunno. Unemployed living with Mom and Dad kind of sucks. Working Starbucks with your college degree, kind of sucks. All those old people keeping you from even getting a job at Starbucks, kind of sucks. 6.8% student loan interest rate (versus 2.5% pre 2008), kind of sucks. 6.8% interest in a 0% interest world feels like someone gave you a roofie and a rough ride. Obama is attacking this issue wrong talking about Pell Grants and not getting lower interest rates. Then again, he might have to admit Bush did SOMETHING "right".

 

[GoIrish41]

1) Mitt has a history of turning around companies and the Olympics that are deeply in debt.

2) President Obama has proven that he hasn't produced jobs.

25mil American's don't have work

1. Do you seriously think the Olympics would not have happened without Romney's involvement?

2. The economy has produced 4 million jobs under Obama. Romney's record doesn't even come close to that ... unless you count the ones he shipped overseas.

3. Why don't the "job creators" create some f***ing jobs then and put those absurd tax cuts they've been receiving for the past decade to good use? This is where the GOP argument falls apart. They have received these tax breaks and still the economy is weak. That is the premise of their whole plan, and while they say they will double down on it they blame the president for the jobs not materializing under the current tax code. He happens to have left the Bush tax cuts in place and it hasn't worked. Now, if he would have gotten rid of the tax breaks to "job creators" and the economy got worse, you might be onto something. But, that is not what happened, is it? He let the republicans have their way on tax policy and it has not produced jobs at an acceptable rate and they have the balls to blame him for that failing. Still, last I checked the economy has improved in the past four years. When Obama took office, we were on the verge of economic collapse, and today we are making steady, albeit slow, progress despite unprecidented obstruction from the GOP. I didn't see any comment from you about the GOP blocking the president's jobs bill.

 

[Ndaccountant]

1. Do you seriously think the Olympics would not have happened without Romney's involvement?

2. The economy has produced 4 million jobs under Obama. Romney's record doesn't even come close to that ... unless you count the ones he shipped overseas.

3. Why don't the "job creators" create some f***ing jobs then and put those absurd tax cuts they've been receiving for the past decade to good use? This is where the GOP argument falls apart. They have received these tax breaks and still the economy is weak. That is the premise of their whole plan, and while they say they will double down on it they blame the president for the jobs not materializing under the current tax code. He happens to have left the Bush tax cuts in place and it hasn't worked. Now, if he would have gotten rid of the tax breaks to "job creators" and the economy got worse, you might be onto something. But, that is not what happened, is it? He let the republicans have their way on tax policy and it has not produced jobs at an acceptable rate and they have the balls to blame him for that failing. Still, last I checked the economy has improved in the past four years. When Obama took office, we were on the verge of economic collapse, and today we are making steady, albeit slow, progress despite unprecidented obstruction from the GOP. I didn't see any comment from you about the GOP blocking the president's jobs bill.

#3 is precisely the reason why tax increases or decreases will not change much in this country. We need to change the tax system. Lower the rate, broaden the base. No more special tax deductions (all companies use them) for corporations, no special tax breaks for individuals, just a simple calculation. You would be amazed what simplicity would do.

By the way, we had one of the worst recessions in history and one of the wors recoveries on record. Saying the economy has improved from 2009 isn't saying much. Plus, the economy is slowing.....quickly.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Everyone agrees on the general idea of lowering marginal rates and broadening the base. That in and of itself is not a solution, though.

It is kind of strange for a Romney supporter to admit that lowering the top marginal rates will not jumpstart the economy, since that is literally the entire reason that he is running for President. Every other issue that is discussed in the campaign is filler; Romney is running in order to pursue lower tax rates for himself and his fellow millionaires. Thats it. That is the whole agenda. The effects of doing so are not even on his radar. He literally does not care at all. Anything he says with regard to fixing the economy or whatever is just him saying whatever he thinks will help him get into office so he can give himself a tax break.

 

[GoIrish41]

#3 is precisely the reason why tax increases or decreases will not change much in this country. We need to change the tax system. Lower the rate, broaden the base. No more special tax deductions (all companies use them) for corporations, no special tax breaks for individuals, just a simple calculation. You would be amazed what simplicity would do.
By the way, we had one of the worst recessions in history and one of the wors recoveries on record. Saying the economy has improved from 2009 isn't saying much. Plus, the economy is slowing.....quickly.

I agree with this. but I do not agree with lowering the rate. We need more revenue coming in and while simplifying might bring some revenue, lowering the rate would slow progress. If anything, I think those that can pay more should be asked to do so. Obviously, there are some who cannot pay more -- you can't get blood from a stone. I'm not rich, but I feel it is part of my duty as a citizen to pay a little more to get the country out of the mess that it is in and I think it is immoral to abandon those who need help to survive. It isn't all about raising taxes on the rich though (although this is a no-brainer). All of us should be willing to do a little more. It is the patriotic thing to do.

 

[RDU Irish]

Wow, you really think Romney only cares about millionaires and money. You aren't even trying to know anything about the guy. Even if I subscribe to your thesis - how do you not apply it to every single politician, including Obama? Politics MADE Obama rich. Romney was rich before he got there.

Besides, Romney is apparently stupid since he wants to lose all deductions and pay 28% instead of using deductions like he does to pay 14%. What a selfish, greedy pig!

 

[Rhode Irish]

Wow, you really think Romney only cares about millionaires and money. You aren't even trying to know anything about the guy. Even if I subscribe to your thesis - how do you not apply it to every single politician, including Obama? Politics MADE Obama rich. Romney was rich before he got there.

Besides, Romney is apparently stupid since he wants to lose all deductions and pay 28% instead of using deductions like he does to pay 14%. What a selfish, greedy pig!

Slightly tongue in cheek. Its very difficult for me to convince myself that this is a good venue for a serious conversation about these issues. Nobody is trying to hear what the other side is saying.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Everyone agrees on the general idea of lowering marginal rates and broadening the base. That in and of itself is not a solution, though.

It is kind of strange for a Romney supporter to admit that lowering the top marginal rates will not jumpstart the economy, since that is literally the entire reason that he is running for President. Every other issue that is discussed in the campaign is filler; Romney is running in order to pursue lower tax rates for himself and his fellow millionaires. Thats it. That is the whole agenda. The effects of doing so are not even on his radar. He literally does not care at all. Anything he says with regard to fixing the economy or whatever is just him saying whatever he thinks will help him get into office so he can give himself a tax break.

First, I am neither a Romney nor Obama supporter. I will be voting for Gary Johnson. He and I agree on nearly everything.

Next, I support drastically reducing corporate taxes. Everyone in this country talks about small business. Well, big business is what is needed to cure small business ills.

I loathe double taxation, especially estate taxes. I would tolerate dividend tax rates being equal to income IF the rates were drastically lower.

I think anyone that actually thinks Romeny or Obama will follow thru on their campaign platforms are on LSD.

Could care less about social issues, though I do believe abortion is an incredibly gray area and I have hard time with abortions after heart beats are seen. I still believe that my personal views are my own and I should not force others to accept my views.

Hopefully this clears up where I stand. I think our country is in really big trouble and we need to completely re-think how we tax and regulate our economy. It isn't working.

 

[RDU Irish]

I agree with this. but I do not agree with lowering the rate. We need more revenue coming in and while simplifying might bring some revenue, lowering the rate would slow progress. If anything, I think those that can pay more should be asked to do so. Obviously, there are some who cannot pay more -- you can't get blood from a stone. I'm not rich, but I feel it is part of my duty as a citizen to pay a little more to get the country out of the mess that it is in and I think it is immoral to abandon those who need help to survive. It isn't all about raising taxes on the rich though (although this is a no-brainer). All of us should be willing to do a little more. It is the patriotic thing to do.

I think you are confusing the goal of raising revenue with the effect of raising rates and losing deductions. Consider for a moment, raising rates reduces private sector growth, lowering rates increases private sector growth. The take it to the extreme, 100% taxes equals no-one works and revenue equals zero, 0% tax rate is maximum work and no revenue. There is an unknown point at which revenue is maximized TODAY and a different point at which revenue is maximized going forward as faster growth compounds to make the smaller piece of the bigger pie larger than the bigger piece from the smaller pie.

Yeah, gets pretty complicated pretty fast with no definitive answers. The only constant is lower tax rate equals more growth in the private sector, not sure how you dispute that variable?

Economic bang for the buck, corporate tax rates pay off way better than individual tax rates. Republicans haven't helped there and don't seem as vehement about it as I would like to see if they were serious about really using tax code to kick start the economy.

 

[Rhode Irish]

First, I am neither a Romney nor Obama supporter. I will be voting for Gary Johnson. He and I agree on nearly everything.

Next, I support drastically reducing corporate taxes. Everyone in this country talks about small business. Well, big business is what is needed to cure small business ills.

I loathe double taxation, especially estate taxes. I would tolerate dividend tax rates being equal to income IF the rates were drastically lower.

I think anyone that actually thinks Romeny or Obama will follow thru on their campaign platforms are on LSD.

Could care less about social issues, though I do believe abortion is an incredibly gray area and I have hard time with abortions after heart beats are seen. I still believe that my personal views are my own and I should not force others to accept my views.

Hopefully this clears up where I stand. I think our country is in really big trouble and we need to completely re-think how we tax and regulate our economy. It isn't working.

Fair enough. I would be in favor of eliminating the corporate level tax and raising the cap gains rate. I would be in favor lowering rates and eliminating tax expenditures provided that the result would be no worse than revenue neutral, and preferably it would result in more revenue.

I do care about some social issues, and as a result I vote my values more than my wallet, although I do also side with the left on many economic issues (I would gladly pay a higher rate of tax so that the poorest of our brothers and sisters can afford to eat, receive an education and have access to healthcare). I think choices regarding who you can marry and what you do with your body are so fundamental that the government should not be permitted to regulate them to any degree. I believe basic health care is a fundamental right, as is a quality education.

 

[RDU Irish]

Slightly tongue in cheek. Its very difficult for me to convince myself that this is a good venue for a serious conversation about these issues. Nobody is trying to hear what the other side is saying.

So you compound the problem by trolling. Nice

I don't have the sources but I do remember Obama saying in the past good sounding things on tax reform, in particular making our corporate tax code more globally competitive. I think he could win some votes if he drove that issue home hard, problem is I don't think his heart is in it since he did nothing the last 3 years on it.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Fair enough. I would be in favor of eliminating the corporate level tax and raising the cap gains rate. I would be in favor lowering rates and eliminating tax expenditures provided that the result would be no worse than revenue neutral, and preferably it would result in more revenue.

I do care about some social issues, and as a result I vote my values more than my wallet, although I do also side with the left on many economic issues. I think choices regarding who you can marry and what you do with your body are so fundamental that the government should not be permitted to regulate them to any degree. I believe basic health care is a fundamental right, as is a quality education.

You and I can agree on this as well. I think the gov't has no right to dictate those terms. I agree on health care, I just think we need a serious discussion as to what basic care is. Where do we draw the line and how do we pay for it without hurting growth? Education is also important, but I doubt we agree on how we get it.

Hence, why I am voting for Gary. Besides, my state is not one that is a toss up and I strongly believe that third party is much needed in this country.

 

[RDU Irish]

How do you define "basic healthcare"? What is in and what is out? My biggest gripe with socialized medicine is nobody ever says "no" and price and quanitity quickly become no object. EVERYTHING becomes included, costs skyrocket and outcomes suffer. Republicans are off base with the "death panel" complaint. Somebody has to make decisions or else the answer is always "yes" - which is unsustainable.

 

[RDU Irish]

If my state was not in question, I would vote for Gary too.

 

[connor_in]

Everyone agrees on the general idea of lowering marginal rates and broadening the base. That in and of itself is not a solution, though.

It is kind of strange for a Romney supporter to admit that lowering the top marginal rates will not jumpstart the economy, since that is literally the entire reason that he is running for President. Every other issue that is discussed in the campaign is filler; Romney is running in order to pursue lower tax rates for himself and his fellow millionaires. Thats it. That is the whole agenda. The effects of doing so are not even on his radar. He literally does not care at all. Anything he says with regard to fixing the economy or whatever is just him saying whatever he thinks will help him get into office so he can give himself a tax break.

Politically we disagree and that is just fine...it is part of what America is all about. I have seen you write eloquently about certain items in this thread and other political ones as well. However, this post above doesn't even sound like you. Were you just tired or frustrated or maybe even hacked? Do you honestly believe that is the only foundation for his entire presidential run...lowering the top marginal rate a few points? Will you next be like the NBC guys who tell us pretty much any word spoken by an R is a racist code word? (see Michelle Malkin » The Condensed Liberal Handbook of Racial Code Words

I know you are better than that and a far deeper thinker...I look forward to seeing you back on your game.

 

[Rhode Irish]

How do you define "basic healthcare"? What is in and what is out? My biggest gripe with socialized medicine is nobody ever says "no" and price and quanitity quickly become no object. EVERYTHING becomes included, costs skyrocket and outcomes suffer. Republicans are off base with the "death panel" complaint. Somebody has to make decisions or else the answer is always "yes" - which is unsustainable.

Without question, there are tough questions that require tough answers with regard to what type of services people are entitled to (I know "entitled" is a dirty word). But when private enterprise is left to make those decisions people are left without access to care, because the number one priority for private enterprise is to protect the bottom line.

 

[connor_in]

Wow, I'm sensing some pain. Don't worry guys, I'm sure the Romneys will hire a personality soon.

OK, so you vote for personality only apparently...well, I suppose that is one way to go. If that is your touchstone then let me guess your presidential voting history
Obama '08
Bush '04
Bush '00
Clinton '96
Clinton '92
Bush '88
Reagan '84
Reagan '80
Did not vote '76 (Carter v. Ford...no one had a personality)

 

[phgreek]

Politically we disagree and that is just fine...it is part of what America is all about. I have seen you write eloquently about certain items in this thread and other political ones as well. However, this post above doesn't even sound like you. Were you just tired or frustrated or maybe even hacked? Do you honestly believe that is the only foundation for his entire presidential run...lowering the top marginal rate a few points? Will you next be like the NBC guys who tell us pretty much any word spoken by an R is a racist code word? (see Michelle Malkin » The Condensed Liberal Handbook of Racial Code Words

I know you are better than that and a far deeper thinker...I look forward to seeing you back on your game.

Agree with all of this...great way of putting it...my response would have caused additional anger and frustration...best chalk it up to a Mulligan.

 

[BobD]

OK, so you vote for personality only apparently...well, I suppose that is one way to go. If that is your touchstone then let me guess your presidential voting history
Obama '08
Bush '04
Bush '00
Clinton '96
Clinton '92
Bush '88
Reagan '84
Reagan '80
Did not vote '76 (Carter v. Ford...no one had a personality)

1. Don't quit your day job.

2. I was referring to the speech, not an overall decision to vote.

3. Your response is a great example of Republican strategy......"he's right, our people come across as out of touch cardboard cut-outs. Let's insult his comments instead of fixing the problem"

 

[Rhode Irish]

Politically we disagree and that is just fine...it is part of what America is all about. I have seen you write eloquently about certain items in this thread and other political ones as well. However, this post above doesn't even sound like you. Were you just tired or frustrated or maybe even hacked? Do you honestly believe that is the only foundation for his entire presidential run...lowering the top marginal rate a few points? Will you next be like the NBC guys who tell us pretty much any word spoken by an R is a racist code word? (see Michelle Malkin » The Condensed Liberal Handbook of Racial Code Words

I know you are better than that and a far deeper thinker...I look forward to seeing you back on your game.

Didn't see this before. Yeah, I wasn't hacked. I did already say that this post was tongue in cheek and born out of a sense of frustration about the conversation here. I guess I would even cop to it being almost a mini-troll on my part.

 

[connor_in]

1. Don't quit your day job.

2. I was referring to the speech, not an overall decision to vote.

3. Your response is a great example of Republican strategy......"he's right, our people come across as out of touch cardboard cut-outs. Let's insult his comments instead of fixing the problem"

Wait a sec...you quote the bolded above...link please?

How did I "insult" your comment? YOU injected personality into the discussion, I took it to mean that personality is important in your choice and go back and review personalities in previous elections (mainly as a function to show that both sides have guys with charisma and both have guys without...and to make the Ford/Carter joke)...plus considering my post was a response to yours...what exact problem am I supposed to be fixing (which apparently you fixed in yours or else you would have accused me of doing something you yourself didn't do...si?)