Romney vs. Obama

[mike114]

Ron Paul is the only candidate responsible and knowledgeable enough to start repairing some of the damage being done. It's sad that Americans don't take him seriously. Shame on us. We get what we deserve, and we'll be getting 4 more years of Obama.

And TxGoat, fyi...tax rates that have been in effect for 10 years can no longer be called the Bush tax cuts. They are now the current tax rate. What you are endorsing is RAISING taxes. That is not a solution. Cutting spending is.

 

[saptech]

Am I the only one completely and totally disillusioned by the system? It's so unbelievably broken and corrupt.

To be honest, the system has been broken since the Nixons, Reagans, & Bushes.. Throw Clinton in it also. Greed is playing a big part in it also.

America has fallen and she can't get up!

 

[saptech]

Ron Paul is the only candidate responsible and knowledgeable enough to start repairing some of the damage being done. It's sad that Americans don't take him seriously. Shame on us. We get what we deserve, and we'll be getting 4 more years of Obama.

And TxGoat, fyi...tax rates that have been in effect for 10 years can no longer be called the Bush tax cuts. They are now the current tax rate. What you are endorsing is RAISING taxes. That is not a solution. Cutting spending is.

I think alot of Americans really don't know enough about RP or what is his agenda. Besides being too old. He's not convincing enough people to get the votes.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Really? Here's the S&P report where they detail the downgrade:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/spratingreport_080611.pdf
In other words, the US has a lot of debt and it only shows signs of increasing.

Also,
So, if the slope of the debt increase is higher than they are currently projecting, they'll downgrade us more.

Yes, the political bickering was a cause as well, but it was not the only cause.

And indeed, reading it, you will see that the current debt burden is not whats worrying them - its the political inwillingless to act, leading to a far, far higher debt burden. The U.S. can borrow at such low rates, it can pay off its debts fairly easily, so you're talking 200% of GDP debt levels before you start having a critical economy threathening issue there. The thing is, politicians wont raise taxes or cut spending, so the federal debt is heading there.

And TxGoat, fyi...tax rates that have been in effect for 10 years can no longer be called the Bush tax cuts. They are now the current tax rate. What you are endorsing is RAISING taxes. That is not a solution. Cutting spending is.

So if you cut taxes, you can never raise them again? Reminds me of the economic policy that screwed my state over. Woo cyclical policies.

 

[ylexot]

And indeed, reading it, you will see that the current debt burden is not whats worrying them

I posted two quotes from the report saying that it was. Not sure how to make it any clearer.

Edit: thought of something that might help clarify...if the US had no debt, would S&P care if Congress can't get anything done?

 

[ylexot]

Ron Paul is the only candidate responsible and knowledgeable enough to start repairing some of the damage being done.

Gary Johnson.

 

[TxGoat]

I'm curious to see how Romney attacks Obamacare while trying to defend Romneycare. It's going to be interesting. I'm sure he'll try the "state mandate vs federal government mandate". I don't see if that's the only difference, how that's a difference. That's like saying, "We're not going to build a super-Walmart in your affluent neighborhood, we're going to build a regular sized Walmart in your affluent neighborhood".


As far as the tax cuts, it most likely wouldn't have had such an impact on our debt if we hadn't gone to war in 2 countries as well. You can't increase your expenditures at the same time you're reducing your revenues. I don't see how some people can't see how the 2 aren't related. As I've stated before, buy 2 new cars and ask for a pay cut at work and you'll see how Bush helped tank our economy. I'm not defending Obama, but I guess I might as well be since when you attack GOP policies, most red-koolaid drinkers will automatically assume you to be a long haired weed smoking hippie.....

 

[A.Nonymous]

To be honest, the system has been broken since the Nixons, Reagans, & Bushes.. Throw Clinton in it also. Greed is playing a big part in it also.

America has fallen and she can't get up!

Sadly, I don't disagree with you. I'd love to disagree with you on all of that, but I can't. Politics in America is all about greed and power. Maybe not even in that order.

Ron Paul is the only candidate responsible and knowledgeable enough to start repairing some of the damage being done. It's sad that Americans don't take him seriously. Shame on us. We get what we deserve, and we'll be getting 4 more years of Obama.

Ron Paul, much as I like him, would be a horrible President. He doesn't play the political game. His party dislikes him. The Democrats hate him. He would get absolutely nothing at all done because he wouldn't work with Congress and they wouldn't work with him. Paul is the guy in your office who insists on doing everything HIS way. Everyone hates that guy. His way might be right, but it doesn't matter. He doesn't play well with others and is convinced his way is right so everyone hates him. That's Ron Paul.

 

[TxGoat]

Sadly, I don't disagree with you. I'd love to disagree with you on all of that, but I can't. Politics in America is all about greed and power. Maybe not even in that order.



Ron Paul, much as I like him, would be a horrible President. He doesn't play the political game. His party dislikes him. The Democrats hate him. He would get absolutely nothing at all done because he wouldn't work with Congress and they wouldn't work with him. Paul is the guy in your office who insists on doing everything HIS way. Everyone hates that guy. His way might be right, but it doesn't matter. He doesn't play well with others and is convinced his way is right so everyone hates him. That's Ron Paul.

I don't think any candidate is going to bring America out of its coma until we get some massive campaign contribution reform and a much more transparent system in place. You have large corporations that are contributing to BOTH parties and gain access regardless of which candidate wins. IMO that should be outlawed but then again, that's what happens when the wealth is so disproportionately distributed, you get these large entities that can place their risk across the board and win regardless of who wins.

 

[ylexot]

Ron Paul, much as I like him, would be a horrible President. He doesn't play the political game. His party dislikes him. The Democrats hate him. He would get absolutely nothing at all done because he wouldn't work with Congress and they wouldn't work with him. Paul is the guy in your office who insists on doing everything HIS way. Everyone hates that guy. His way might be right, but it doesn't matter. He doesn't play well with others and is convinced his way is right so everyone hates him. That's Ron Paul.

I don't know...if he can get the people on his side, Congress won't stand in his way.

 

[A.Nonymous]

I don't know...if he can get the people on his side, Congress won't stand in his way.

Right 'cuz Congress never stands in the way of the people.

 

[ylexot]

I don't think any candidate is going to bring America out of its coma until we get some massive campaign contribution reform and a much more transparent system in place. You have large corporations that are contributing to BOTH parties and gain access regardless of which candidate wins. IMO that should be outlawed but then again, that's what happens when the wealth is so disproportionately distributed, you get these large entities that can place their risk across the board and win regardless of who wins.

I hate to say it (because I don't like public funds going to...well just about anything), but I think the fairest system would be for campaigns to be publicly funded. Presidential candidates get $X, Senate candidates get $Y, and House candidates get $Z. No other funds (personal or donations) could be spent on the campaign.

Some problems would be do we fund the crackpot candidates? Every time, there are candidates that we know (and usually they know) that they have no chance at all. For example, Google Vermin Supreme (he's actually pretty funny).

What about the infamous 527 groups? We can't really limit the free speech of individuals or groups of individuals. So, you'd probably end up with massive shadow campaigns with unlimited funds.

 

[ylexot]

Right 'cuz Congress never stands in the way of the people.

Not really. Obamacare is probably the most unpopular legislation that has been put out by Congress (that I know of) and it's only ~52% against it and ~42% for it.

 

[A.Nonymous]

I hate to say it (because I don't like public funds going to...well just about anything), but I think the fairest system would be for campaigns to be publicly funded. Presidential candidates get $X, Senate candidates get $Y, and House candidates get $Z. No other funds (personal or donations) could be spent on the campaign.

Some problems would be do we fund the crackpot candidates? Every time, there are candidates that we know (and usually they know) that they have no chance at all. For example, Google Vermin Supreme (he's actually pretty funny).

What about the infamous 527 groups? We can't really limit the free speech of individuals or groups of individuals. So, you'd probably end up with massive shadow campaigns with unlimited funds.

People would step around it anyway. They'd form a group called "People for Romney" and go campaign for Romney. They would put disclaimers on the bottom of all their ads (not affiliated with the Romney for President campaign) and would take massive funding from any private source. You'd have the same problem you have now sadly.

 

[TxGoat]

I hate to say it (because I don't like public funds going to...well just about anything), but I think the fairest system would be for campaigns to be publicly funded. Presidential candidates get $X, Senate candidates get $Y, and House candidates get $Z. No other funds (personal or donations) could be spent on the campaign.

Some problems would be do we fund the crackpot candidates? Every time, there are candidates that we know (and usually they know) that they have no chance at all. For example, Google Vermin Supreme (he's actually pretty funny).

What about the infamous 527 groups? We can't really limit the free speech of individuals or groups of individuals. So, you'd probably end up with massive shadow campaigns with unlimited funds.

My idea would be to set limits on the campaigning across the board. Not money limits, but how many commercials one can have, how much they can spend on advertising etc. Or, you can make no ceiling and let each candidate shoot themselves in the foot by spending insane amounts of money, which would give the public an idea of how well or poorly they'd help balance the budget.

Or...

We do like MOST EVERY OTHER position on the planet, and let each candidate interview for the position, or have them voted off via an American Idol/Miss USA pageant (sans the swimsuit competition of course) and then we have elections with the top 2 candidates. This would probably only work for electing a President btw, other offices, let them just figure it out via a Wii Boxing tournament or something...

 

[A.Nonymous]

My idea would be to set limits on the campaigning across the board. Not money limits, but how many commercials one can have, how much they can spend on advertising etc. Or, you can make no ceiling and let each candidate shoot themselves in the foot by spending insane amounts of money, which would give the public an idea of how well or poorly they'd help balance the budget.

Or...

We do like MOST EVERY OTHER position on the planet, and let each candidate interview for the position, or have them voted off via an American Idol/Miss USA pageant (sans the swimsuit competition of course) and then we have elections with the top 2 candidates. This would probably only work for electing a President btw, other offices, let them just figure it out via a Wii Boxing tournament or something...

My suggestion - Barbed Wire Steel Cage Death Match

 

[TxGoat]

My suggestion - Barbed Wire Steel Cage Death Match

That would ensure that at least for every candidate elected, a few politicians would be killed, but I don't know if i like the idea of the strongest person winning. The strongest person is rarely the smartest person. Just look at who our future president could be....

 

[OutofDate1980]

People would step around it anyway. They'd form a group called "People for Romney" and go campaign for Romney. They would put disclaimers on the bottom of all their ads (not affiliated with the Romney for President campaign) and would take massive funding from any private source. You'd have the same problem you have now sadly.

Maybe a proposal from Colorado, donor transparency would be a step in the right direction.

http://www.coloradoan.com/article/2...SCLOSE-Act-first-step-campaign-finance-reform

 

[mike114]

So if you cut taxes, you can never raise them again? Reminds me of the economic policy that screwed my state over. Woo cyclical policies.

Is that what I said?? I simply stated that the Bush tax cuts have been in place for 10 years. Isn't it about time we stopped calling it that and just simply stating that it's now the current tax rate? Or is it because telling the American public that on top of a $16 trillion debt and zero spending cuts, we are now going to raise your taxes.

And do you have any expectations that raising taxes will somehow pay off this debt? If you do, how much should taxes be raised to accomplish this? I could save you time by telling you that simply raising taxes will do nothing to reduce the debt we owe.

 

[mike114]

Ron Paul, much as I like him, would be a horrible President. He doesn't play the political game. His party dislikes him. The Democrats hate him. He would get absolutely nothing at all done because he wouldn't work with Congress and they wouldn't work with him. Paul is the guy in your office who insists on doing everything HIS way. Everyone hates that guy. His way might be right, but it doesn't matter. He doesn't play well with others and is convinced his way is right so everyone hates him. That's Ron Paul.

We can disagree on this. I think the last thing we need is a president who gets along with congress. That's why we are in the mess we are in. One party compromises to allow increased spending on one side, and then the other side returns the favor and the president goes along with this.

Ron Paul can do things immediately without the approval of congress. He would cut at least 5 cabinet positions and he would start bringing troops home from all over the globe. He would probably start issuing executive orders undoing much damage that previous orders account for as well. This alone would account for a $1 trillion savings in his first year.

What we need is a president BOTH parties hate, but the people embrace. BTW, Rasmussen just put out a poll where Ron Paul, not Romney, could win against Obama.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Is that what I said?? I simply stated that the Bush tax cuts have been in place for 10 years. Isn't it about time we stopped calling it that and just simply stating that it's now the current tax rate?

They are the current tax rate, but that does not negate how, why or when they were cut.

Or is it because telling the American public that on top of a $16 trillion debt and zero spending cuts, we are now going to raise your taxes.

Zero spending cuts? heh, in that case theres been zero tax hikes.
Tell state and local governments not cut spending or increase taxes, oh wait they already have. You got a deficit of 10% of GDP, gotta get it to 3%. You tax and cut expenditure to do so, based on the economies situation. The time to cut spending is at the worst part of the recession, the time to tax is after the recovery has gotten momentum. Also as the US has very low tax/GDP in the first place, there's far more wiggle room.

And do you have any expectations that raising taxes will somehow pay off this debt? If you do, how much should taxes be raised to accomplish this? I could save you time by telling you that simply raising taxes will do nothing to reduce the debt we owe.

Tax is how you get money, so uhm, yes? Taxing alone will only slow the rate of debt increase, spending has to be cut by a few hundred billion too.

 

[A.Nonymous]

That would ensure that at least for every candidate elected, a few politicians would be killed, but I don't know if i like the idea of the strongest person winning. The strongest person is rarely the smartest person. Just look at who our future president could be....

What if it was an Electrified Barbed Wire Steel Cage Death Match? Would that make a difference?

 

[mike114]

They are the current tax rate, but that does not negate how, why or when they were cut.

Who cares? It's been 10 years. The rates are the rates. Just tell the American people that we need to raise their taxes. Let's see how popular that is.

Zero spending cuts? heh, in that case theres been zero tax hikes.
Tell state and local governments not cut spending or increase taxes, oh wait they already have. You got a deficit of 10% of GDP, gotta get it to 3%. You tax and cut expenditure to do so, based on the economies situation. The time to cut spending is at the worst part of the recession, the time to tax is after the recovery has gotten momentum. Also as the US has very low tax/GDP in the first place, there's far more wiggle room.

Great, more failed Keynesian policies. Let's keep spending more money we don't have since the $765 billion stimulus worked so well. How about we keep printing more money too? Oh wait....

Tax is how you get money, so uhm, yes? Taxing alone will only slow the rate of debt increase, spending has to be cut by a few hundred billion too.

So uhm, how much more are we expected to pay? We all have so much extra cash after exploding gas and food prices, right. Again, how do you think Americans will respond to a politician who wants to raise their taxes??

And maybe you haven't noticed, the debt is $16 TRILLION and growing and you advocate cutting a FEW hundred billion. What a great plan for my children. I'm sure they'll appreciate our crappy efforts.

 

[copestag]

well to be fair....... a few hundred billion in CUTS is the answer

but we have...... unlike the previous poster wants to believe....... seen ZERO offered in cuts

what we have seen is reduced increases called cuts

this is like your wife telling you she just saved $50 because she had a coupon for $50 off a new set of truck tires........ only problem is you dont own a truck and probably didnt need tires even if you did.... but by only spending $750 instead of $800 shes doing you a favor and saving you some money

if instead of INCREASING the budget by $1.2 trillion dollars I agree to only INCREASE it by $1.1 trillion dollars did I just produce a $100 billion tax cut? NO........ yet this is the game you play and want us to believe there are cuts

you cannot have a higher budget this year than you did last year and call it a decrease..... not possible

and again to be fair the same holds true on the other side of the coin....... a very similar word game is played with tax cuts

its all semantics and the stupid American people who believe the words they hear without thinking about the meaning of them

I always love to use my favorite example of this exact ideology:

I will be glad to sell you dogcrap in a bag for $1

this is a heck of a bargain........ its in its own bag... and its only $1

dont worry that its dogcrap........ its only $1 and it has its own bag

WHAT?

you dont want to pay a dollar for a bag of dogcrap?

in that case .... just for you...... one time offer... tax cut/spending cut..... I will give you an additional bag with your purchase......... THATS RIGHT........ you get 2 bags of dogcrap for $1

welcome to politics...... and we just love to hang on every contrived word they say

 

[A.Nonymous]

We can disagree on this. I think the last thing we need is a president who gets along with congress. That's why we are in the mess we are in. One party compromises to allow increased spending on one side, and then the other side returns the favor and the president goes along with this.

Ron Paul can do things immediately without the approval of congress. He would cut at least 5 cabinet positions and he would start bringing troops home from all over the globe. He would probably start issuing executive orders undoing much damage that previous orders account for as well. This alone would account for a $1 trillion savings in his first year.

What we need is a president BOTH parties hate, but the people embrace. BTW, Rasmussen just put out a poll where Ron Paul, not Romney, could win against Obama.

So what you're saying is the guy who routinely criticizes the President for doing things by executive order and without Congressional approval is going to do the same thing? So much for change.