2012 Presidential Race

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

11th November 2012, 08:42
F1boat

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

Women's issues, abortion, immigration, education, any other issue you want to bring up doesn't mean a damn

No. Human rights are fundamental and for me even more important than the economy. For this matters to not mean "a damn" the GOP should abandon it's loonie religious positions.
11th November 2012, 15:31
Tazio

Quote:

Originally Posted by beachgirl

Has anyone seen Danicafan lately? Who was the last one responsible for suicide watch?

That would be me. :o During my watch he asked me to euthanize him, so I honored his request and dispatched him. :eek:
With my auditory capacity slightly diminished, and upon further consideration, I'm starting to have doubts as to what he exactly requested, and now believe it's possible his actual request may have been "exorcize me" :confused:
Sorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry :devil:
RIP
11th November 2012, 16:06
Starter

Quote:

Originally Posted by F1boat

No. Human rights are fundamental and for me even more important than the economy. For this matters to not mean "a damn" the GOP should abandon it's loonie religious positions.

In a bad economy, human rights get run over in the quest to survive. In a good economy, there is the luxury to share the "wealth" across the spectrum. So, IMO, the economy trumps all. I'll buy your "abandon loonie religious positions" though!
11th November 2012, 16:40
Roamy

I am good with the election as I mentioned I think the republican is in great need of a overhaul. It appears that one needs to take religion and abortion out of the equation.
Women are not going to vote for someone wanting to control their body. Those days are quite over IMO. I am also afraid the capitalism will need to be at least monitored in the future. A pig get fatter and a hog gets slaughtered is really what is happening. We you screw around with the middle class in this country you are asking for it. Class warfare is in play right now and the gov needs to pay close attention. Hopefully we will get a strong 3rd party that will be for the middle class. the congress needs a major gutting and I think only a 3rd party can do that.
11th November 2012, 16:54
Tazio

Quote:

Originally Posted by F1boat

These guys are very scary and really similar to the jihadists. But aren't they usually old guys?

Mostly yes, but they indoctrinate their offspring

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto...95790260_n.jpg
12th November 2012, 08:59
F1boat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Giacomo Rappaccini

Mostly yes, but they indoctrinate their offspring

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto...95790260_n.jpg

I know. Another wanted to execute naughty children to set an example for the others. I would not vote for such man even if he is the best economist, Starter. I believe that you wouldn't too.
12th November 2012, 11:40
Rollo

I cut this in two:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior

To the complete contrary, there most certainly is a debate about that. In fact, that is precisely what the debate is about. Actual non-partisan economists generally suggest spending cuts and revenue increases. Only partisans are yammering for either/or solutions. The Simpson-Bowles commission suggested tax reform measures that would increase revenues, even though overall rates would be lowered.

Tick :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollo

Basically it's a mathematical impossibility to close the either the deficit or cut the debt by spending cuts alone. Both spending cuts and tax increases are inevitable in any realistic scenario.

Then this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior

The Simpson-Bowles commission suggested tax reform measures that would increase revenues, even though overall rates would be lowered.

Capital, like water and electricity, flows according to the path of least resistance and greatest benefit. If you choose to tax wages, people will choose to take their incomes out of companies out as dividends. If you choose to tax dividends, people will choose to take their incomes out of companies out as wages (replace options with the greatest net taxation benefit).

Also, there is a tendancy over the past 70 years (since about WW2), irrespective of whatever taxation policy is employed, for taxation revenues to cycle around a midpoint of about 19.5% of GDP.

Over the past six decades, tax revenues as a percentage of GDP have averaged just under 19% regardless of the top marginal personal income tax rate. The top marginal rate has been as high as 92% (1952-53) and as low as 28% (1988-90). This observation was first reported in an op-ed I wrote for this newspaper in March 1993. A wit later dubbed this "Hauser's Law."
- William Hauser, Wall Street Journal, 26 Nov 2010.
W. Kurt Hauser: There's No Escaping Hauser's Law - WSJ.com

If this is statistically true, then the question isn't so much how you raise revenues or even if you do but how you remove taxation loopholes and to be honest, neither the Republicrats or Democrans (hooray-boo - keep yelling at each other, there's no actual difference between the two parties) are prepared to do anything about it because the people who own them, won't let them.

US Taxation Policy is needlessly complicated, mostly because the components of the DJIA demand it.
12th November 2012, 13:14
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gregor-y

I'm not going to quote the full text because your case lies on this point.

This is your opinion and not a fact. Spending isn't an issue if you have revenue, and revenue isn't an issue if you're not spending too much. We're always going to be spending and raising revenue. The posturing as you call it is simply politics, which is a compromise on the best balance of the two. The problem Republicans have had lately is their inability to make any kind of agreement based on an absolutist opinion similar to your own rather than trying to identify areas for compromise. That along with the political intent of denying Obama a second term. One Republican position down, one to go.

No. It is a fact that the US government has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

That is unless you have a magical way to raise $1,200,000,000,000 in new taxes.
12th November 2012, 13:16
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShiftingGears

You are assuming people did not vote for Obama on an economic basis. Romney didn't exactly do a great job to convince people that he would do better. His proposed policy was vacuous and devoid of detail, which stopped at "I know how to create jobs", while at the same time wanting to increase military spending by $2 trillion and giving the impression of being very enthusiastic about a war in Iran. I think it is apparent why some people would be less than convinced.

I will agree with you that Romney wasn't the best candidate ever. That being said, after 4 years of stagnant at best economics, why vote for the status quo? I suppose that's why the President got way less votes this time around.
12th November 2012, 13:21
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

How were Romneys economic plans any better?

Because his plan would grow the economy. It wouldn't be a cure all, but better than this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

Cut taxes for the rich,

Which grows the economy, even if only slowly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

squeeze more tax from the middle classes

How's that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

and pray for economic growth?

Every time we have cut taxes in the past it has spurred economic growth. Why would it be different this time?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

To balance the books with his tax cuts he would need to drastically cut spending or hope for GDP growth on a level not far from China's (6%+).

Agreed we need to drastically cut spending.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

The current situation in the UK is a fine example of how cutting spending is the best way to stagnate your economy.

I don't know enough about the UK situation, but I would suggest they have not cut spending nearly enough, nor cut enough tax burden to really spur the economy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

The US ecomomy seems to be on the road to recovery thanks to Obama's sensible approach. If growth continues you will have the money to pay for the this stuff and invest in further growth.

If 8% unemployment and 1.x% economic growth with looming inflation is your idea of recovery .....

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page