Post: #51

(10-18-2012 12:29 AM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

(10-17-2012 10:31 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  Does anyone think that at least 5-10% of America isn't redneck? I'm not saying that's ALL it is, but when you're talking about a razor thin contest like this, it makes a difference.

Honestly, I'd triple those numbers to get a bare minimum.

Shit yeah, at least a quarter of America is redneck. I would know, I fit in almost everywhere.

Post: #52

nvm

Post: #53

Obama was a big time stoner in his youth

“As a member of the Choom Gang,” Maraniss writes, “Barry Obama was known for starting a few pot-smoking trends.”

Obama innovation: “Roof Hits.”

“When they were chooming in a car all the windows had to be rolled up so no smoke blew out and went to waste; when the pot was gone, they tilted their heads back and sucked in the last bit of smoke from the ceiling.”

Maraniss also says Obama was known for his “Interceptions”: “When a joint was making the rounds, he often elbowed his way in, out of turn, shouted ‘Intercepted!,’ and took an extra hit.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/201...hoom-gang/

Post: #54

(10-18-2012 10:27 AM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(10-18-2012 08:49 AM)ManAbout Wrote:  

(10-18-2012 06:18 AM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  So it seems people resonate with Obama more (not hard to see why) but believe he may not be the right candidate when it comes to things like the economy.

How is Romney the right candidate for the economy? Romney is a Wall St. insider. The crash of 2008 was caused by these very people. It's like putting the fox in charge of the hen house.

Second, no doubt Romney has a lot of business experience. However as Romney famously stated "Corporations are people". And people do what is in their own best interest. What is best for a corporation may not be the best for the economy. Corporations maximize returns to their shareholders. They don't care about the economy. In fact, their actions very often end up killing the economy.

It's very simple. If company ships jobs to China in order to cut costs, it leaves hundreds or thousands unemployed at home in it's wake. These unemployed people it leaves behind resort to lower paying jobs or government handouts, they don't have money to buy expensive products, so to cut costs and make cheaper products, the next company moves to China, leaving in it's wake even more unemployed, and the circle continues, till so many jobs move out that economy collapses.

Mitt Romney says that the government doesn't create jobs. Fine. Then the government doesn't take away jobs either. So, why blame the job losses on Obama? It is the same businesses that he claims create job are the ones that are taking them away.

You will have to ask that question to the people that were polled.

I am still waiting on hearing Obama's plan. Got a link to it?

The government influences businesses with their policy. One big one is taxation besides regulations. Romney is right, governments have no business trying to create jobs.

We are all selfish, not just corporations. Instead of blaming the companies for being greedy (like a woman wanting a free Obama phone), you should be wondering what incentives made them close shop here and open overseas. We are in a global market now and the US hasn't seen fit to adapt in order to be competitive.

Companies are already coming out with promises of layoffs and cutting of hours to minimize qualified candidates under the new health care.

Dividends being taxed more under the health care will more than likely shrink investments into companies and thus hurting expansions.

Many IT companies have billions of dollars sitting overseas because of lower taxes. That money isn't doing our economy any good.

I don't blame them and am thinking of taking my company overseas to do the same thing. I can hire Polish programmers and never spend a dime in the US again. I can pay myself a measly salary that is totally tax free because I don't live in the US.

You see, I made the decision to work 70 to 80 hours a week for the past 5 years. I decided to develop the skills needed to build my own company. There was times I was broke but never asked for a handout. I didn't think it was right since it was my choice to go down this road. I sacrificed and I am in the position where I could be creating jobs now. Either way, if I want to grow my business faster I would have to go overseas since I would be saving a ton of money.

I would rather stay in the US and hire American workers but the salaries are higher here and being taxed twice on the same income is less than desirable.

Maybe you can build a business and help some Americans out with jobs? Don't be greedy, do it for your country.

So, with all that said, I don't think Obama will fix that stuff. I believe he has made it less desirable to doing business here. I don't know if Romney will either but I leaning towards Romney right now. I haven't decided yet. This is the stuff that is important to ME so that is what I am focusing on.

Problem with your argument is unemployment was low during the Clinton years. So why didn't taxes strangle the economy then? Can anyone seriously argue that the Bush tax cuts(which haven't yet expired) created jobs?

Post: #55

The Clinton years were a product of the fact that the late 1990's saw the fastest improvement in total factor productivity of any period since the early 1970's. This improvement in productivity, which led to the fastest wage growth again since the early 1970's, is normally attributed to the integration of computers into the economy.

It was short-lived. By the Bush years, that productivity growth dropped back down again to its typical low post 70's level. The economy then churned on a housing rather than technology bubble. Was this a product of tax policy? I doubt it.

Tinkering with tax rates whether up or down is unlikely to alter the fundamentals of the American economy, which seem to be worse than any period within living memory. The U.S. is limping at sub 2% GDP growth years into the supposed recovery. I wish Obama and Romney would level with the American people and say - guess what? - we're going to see low growth like much of Europe and Japan for many years to come. Here's what we can do to restore vitality to the economy.

Post: #56

(10-18-2012 03:36 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  Problem with your argument is unemployment was low during the Clinton years. So why didn't taxes strangle the economy then? Can anyone seriously argue that the Bush tax cuts(which haven't yet expired) created jobs?

Speakeasy, are you trying to say the economy we have right now is the same as under Clinton?

I can say that employers are talking about layoffs and hourly deductions to reduce the obamacare expenses.
I can say that many tech companies have billions in overseas accounts because they don't want to pay the high corporate taxes.
I can say that higher dividend tax rates will result in less distributions which will effect people who rely on cashflow, like retirees.

Post: #57

(10-18-2012 04:00 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(10-18-2012 03:36 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  Problem with your argument is unemployment was low during the Clinton years. So why didn't taxes strangle the economy then? Can anyone seriously argue that the Bush tax cuts(which haven't yet expired) created jobs?

Speakeasy, are you trying to say the economy we have right now is the same as under Clinton?

Of course I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that Clinton's increase in the corporate tax rate did not strangle the economy or employment numbers. This mantra from the right that a tax increase automatically equals higher unemployment is specious.

Quote:I can say that employers are talking about layoffs and hourly deductions to reduce the obamacare expenses.

Did that happen in Massachusetts under Romneycare? Because the plan actually seems to be a success.

Quote:I can say that many tech companies have billions in overseas accounts because they don't want to pay the high corporate taxes.
I can say that higher dividend tax rates will result in less distributions which will effect people who rely on cashflow, like retirees.

Look man, nobody likes taxes, I don't either. But you know what, Americans elected Bush. Twice. His policies are what set us up for the high amount of debt we are in. So somebody has to pay them. People can vote for guys that run up the credit card, and then when the bill comes due they squeal like pigs. If it were up to me, I'd be raising EVERYBODY'S taxes, even the middle class. Not to waste on military adventures or more social programs, but to pay down the debt and try and salvage the value of the dollar. Somebody is going to have to pay for this mess and it can't be put off forever. The problem is, we have a population that wants it all, but is prepared to sacrifice nothing. My feeling about outsourcing jobs to cheaper countries is that if you want to use the labor of that country then go live in that country. If you want to hire Indian programmers, then you should be made to go live in India or pay a very high tax on that profit if you the owner resides in the U.S. That would put an end to outsourcing quick.

Post: #58

Post: #59

Post: #60

(10-19-2012 12:24 AM)houston Wrote:  

Post: #61

(10-18-2012 07:19 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(10-18-2012 04:00 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(10-18-2012 03:36 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  Problem with your argument is unemployment was low during the Clinton years. So why didn't taxes strangle the economy then? Can anyone seriously argue that the Bush tax cuts(which haven't yet expired) created jobs?

Speakeasy, are you trying to say the economy we have right now is the same as under Clinton?

Of course I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that Clinton's increase in the corporate tax rate did not strangle the economy or employment numbers. This mantra from the right that a tax increase automatically equals higher unemployment is specious.

Quote:I can say that employers are talking about layoffs and hourly deductions to reduce the obamacare expenses.

Did that happen in Massachusetts under Romneycare? Because the plan actually seems to be a success.

Quote:I can say that many tech companies have billions in overseas accounts because they don't want to pay the high corporate taxes.
I can say that higher dividend tax rates will result in less distributions which will effect people who rely on cashflow, like retirees.

Look man, nobody likes taxes, I don't either. But you know what, Americans elected Bush. Twice. His policies are what set us up for the high amount of debt we are in. So somebody has to pay them. People can vote for guys that run up the credit card, and then when the bill comes due they squeal like pigs. If it were up to me, I'd be raising EVERYBODY'S taxes, even the middle class. Not to waste on military adventures or more social programs, but to pay down the debt and try and salvage the value of the dollar. Somebody is going to have to pay for this mess and it can't be put off forever. The problem is, we have a population that wants it all, but is prepared to sacrifice nothing. My feeling about outsourcing jobs to cheaper countries is that if you want to use the labor of that country then go live in that country. If you want to hire Indian programmers, then you should be made to go live in India or pay a very high tax on that profit if you the owner resides in the U.S. That would put an end to outsourcing quick.

Speakeasy, you are trying to compare apples and oranges.

I don't know what happen in Mass when Romney got his health care passed. I do know what is happening now. Do you not see it or just turn a blind eye to it?

Clinton and Bush does not matter, we are in a different economy.

You can keep trying to compare what happened in the past or look at what is happening now. It seems you would rather not.

You're outlook on outsourcing is once of the reasons companies are going overseas. Kick them out if they don't want to employ Americans and pay the higher costs. Forget competition Speakeasy, why not get some laws pass to make companies hire Americans by force. That will teach them.

Trying to force companies will only make them leave. Making it more competitive and worthwhile to doing business here will bring them back.

American's elected Obama and now have to pay off his debt. I know, Clinton is God, Bush is the devil and nothing is Obama's fault. I swear, you and Brian are two sides of a coin.

Hell, Obama was talking about using the money from the wars to better our country. How the hell was he going to do that since it was borrowed money? I know, it isn't Obama's fault the wars were there before he started. Regardless, Obama isn't being truthful about that money that will be "saved" after the wars are ended. We have to pay that money back.

Look, I am not going to get into this silly debate about how Obama shouldn't be held accountable for his past 4 years because of Bush.

I laid out what I am looking at and why I will probably vote for Romney. Your comparisons of past economies are apples and oranges. We have a whole new set of problems. Maybe I would see it your way if I didn't start my own company from scratch and taxed twice and now three times with obamacare for the same income. I don't have a problem taking my business overseas while you and the rest can pay the higher taxes.

Post: #62

This is kind of funny. I guess some elementary school teacher asked Obama about equal pay for women the other night. Her twitter account info is out there now and she's the typical party slut.

http://freebeacon.com/party-girl-debate-...ch-sports/

Post: #63

I heard one voter say that this election isn't about Obama or Romney. For undecided voters, it's about voting for Romney or not voting. That's very true I think. I haven't ever voted, but I'm considering voting for Romney even though I disagree with his warmongering rhetoric.

Obama seized the moment to run for president when everyone thought it wasn't his time and then he defeated the entrenched Clinton political machine. No one can diminish his incredible rise to power. But now it's time for him to go.

Post: #64

I know the OP was meant in a semi-humorous manner, but it is interesting to notice that the last two presidents both kept serious fitness regimen. Also, all of the last few presidents have been over 6' tall (GWB was 5' 11-1/2").

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heights_of_...ted_States

Getting harder to picture an out of shape, short, or otherwise unattractive person being elected, even should they have the best credentials.

Post: #65

(10-19-2012 07:38 PM)Sabra Wrote:  I know the OP was meant in a semi-humorous manner, but it is interesting to notice that the last two presidents both kept serious fitness regimen. Also, all of the last few presidents have been over 6' tall (GWB was 5' 11-1/2").

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heights_of_...ted_States

Getting harder to picture an out of shape, short, or otherwise unattractive person being elected, even should they have the best credentials.

There have been some studies that suggest that tall people -- male and female -- should be taxed more because they have an inherent advantage, in that they generally become more successful and make more money.

Call it it the benefit of "height inequality."

Post: #66

I'm not into US politics nor could I say with a straight face that I actually care about the outcome of the presidential election (has almost no relevance to my personal goals), but it looks like Romney has the lead going into election day. Would be quite a comeback from where he had been in the polls not even a month ago if he were to win.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/...anges.html

Post: #67

(10-18-2012 03:36 PM)bacon Wrote:  Obama was a big time stoner in his youth

“As a member of the Choom Gang,” Maraniss writes, “Barry Obama was known for starting a few pot-smoking trends.”

Obama innovation: “Roof Hits.”

“When they were chooming in a car all the windows had to be rolled up so no smoke blew out and went to waste; when the pot was gone, they tilted their heads back and sucked in the last bit of smoke from the ceiling.”

Maraniss also says Obama was known for his “Interceptions”: “When a joint was making the rounds, he often elbowed his way in, out of turn, shouted ‘Intercepted!,’ and took an extra hit.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/201...hoom-gang/

If Obama is such a stoner, why hasn't he done a damn thing to promote Green interests since he's been in office?

Post: #68

(10-21-2012 07:25 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  I'm not into US politics nor could I say with a straight face that I actually care about the outcome of the presidential election (has almost no relevance to my personal goals), but it looks like Romney has the lead going into election day. Would be quite a comeback from where he had been in the polls not even a month ago if he were to win.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/...anges.html

He won't.

Romney's gains are more national than anything else. He has strengthened his stance in states he would already would have won anyway (see Southern States).

Regardless, his chances of winning the election are low.

Thanks to our electoral college I am calling this election for Obama.

New Mexico is now confirmed to be in Obama's pocket-it's full swing blue. Ohio isn't quite "full swing" for Obama, but considering the large lead he holds there (even after debate one) and the fact that 2/3 of early voters reported voting for Obama (money in the bank), that state is his for all intents and purposes.

Why does this matter? Because OH and NM are the most accurate states when it comes to choosing the winner of Presidential elections. Each state has only be wrong twice, and one of the NM's "incorrect" picks was Gore over Bush, so that might as well have a big " * " next to it anyways. Whoever these states pick ends up becoming President over 90% of the time, and both are pulling for Obama.

Let's take a look at this 270 to win map:

http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_pr...?mapid=GNB

I gave Romney EVERY swing state, even ones polling heavily for Obama right now (like Nevada)...and every possible swing state only gets Romney a TIE with Obama. That's right: Florida, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada, Virginia, N. Carolina, , all going for Romney, gives him only a tie. And that's ignoring the fact that NV and Iowa are almost certainly voting Obama.

Translation? Romney is toast.

The debates don't matter, and unless Obama says something like "I really AM a Marxist, Muslim Terrorist who plans to declare Friedrich Engels the secretary of treasury.", it's impossible for Obama to lose.

Of course, we'll all be interested in the polls and debates right up to the election because, well, who wouldn't be? But this election is just a mere formality.

Nate Silver, the guy who was one state off in his electoral prediction in 2008,gives Obama a 70-30 split. Many political scientist, journalist, policy wonks, etc, call his blog the poll of polls.

Sam Wang, who works at the Princeton Election commission, the only site that was more accurate than Nate's blog in 08, gives Obama a 91% chance of electoral victory.

Of course, anything could happen....but if I were a betting man I'd put my money on Obama.

Also, anyone who votes for someone because they can bicep curl forty pounds is a dumbbell (no pun intended).

Post: #69

(10-21-2012 07:25 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  I'm not into US politics nor could I say with a straight face that I actually care about the outcome of the presidential election (has almost no relevance to my personal goals), but it looks like Romney has the lead going into election day. Would be quite a comeback from where he had been in the polls not even a month ago if he were to win.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/...anges.html

It be worth Romney to win just to see the lefties crying like babies.

Post: #70

(10-21-2012 07:51 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(10-18-2012 03:36 PM)bacon Wrote:  Obama was a big time stoner in his youth

“As a member of the Choom Gang,” Maraniss writes, “Barry Obama was known for starting a few pot-smoking trends.”

Obama innovation: “Roof Hits.”

“When they were chooming in a car all the windows had to be rolled up so no smoke blew out and went to waste; when the pot was gone, they tilted their heads back and sucked in the last bit of smoke from the ceiling.”

Maraniss also says Obama was known for his “Interceptions”: “When a joint was making the rounds, he often elbowed his way in, out of turn, shouted ‘Intercepted!,’ and took an extra hit.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/201...hoom-gang/

If Obama is such a stoner, why hasn't he done a damn thing to promote Green interests since he's been in office?

well hes a joke/puppet same with romney pot will never be legal on a fed level. prisions would be empty if we let out people for pot charges. anyone who thinks politics isnt rigged look at the political cabinets they are all all from two small organizations; the council on foreign relations and the trilateral commision. no significant change is posible under the current political system just more of the same.

Post: #71

(10-21-2012 07:51 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(10-18-2012 03:36 PM)bacon Wrote:  Obama was a big time stoner in his youth

“As a member of the Choom Gang,” Maraniss writes, “Barry Obama was known for starting a few pot-smoking trends.”

Obama innovation: “Roof Hits.”

“When they were chooming in a car all the windows had to be rolled up so no smoke blew out and went to waste; when the pot was gone, they tilted their heads back and sucked in the last bit of smoke from the ceiling.”

Maraniss also says Obama was known for his “Interceptions”: “When a joint was making the rounds, he often elbowed his way in, out of turn, shouted ‘Intercepted!,’ and took an extra hit.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/201...hoom-gang/

If Obama is such a stoner, why hasn't he done a damn thing to promote Green interests since he's been in office?

Wall Street needs that Drug money.... Obama needs that Wall Street money.

Post: #72

(10-21-2012 08:13 PM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

(10-21-2012 07:25 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  I'm not into US politics nor could I say with a straight face that I actually care about the outcome of the presidential election (has almost no relevance to my personal goals), but it looks like Romney has the lead going into election day. Would be quite a comeback from where he had been in the polls not even a month ago if he were to win.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/...anges.html

It be worth Romney to win just to see the lefties crying like babies.

What I would like to see is for Obama to lose the popular vote but win the electoral. Just to piss off the right. This is quite a likely scenario too.

Even if Romney did win, the Republican party's victory would be short lived. In another ten or fifteen years the Republican party will be toast. The only thing keeping them on life support right now is the aging white baby boomers.

Post: #73

(10-21-2012 09:00 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(10-21-2012 08:13 PM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

(10-21-2012 07:25 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  I'm not into US politics nor could I say with a straight face that I actually care about the outcome of the presidential election (has almost no relevance to my personal goals), but it looks like Romney has the lead going into election day. Would be quite a comeback from where he had been in the polls not even a month ago if he were to win.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/...anges.html

It be worth Romney to win just to see the lefties crying like babies.

What I would like to see is for Obama to lose the popular vote but win the electoral. Just to piss off the right. This is quite a likely scenario too.

Even if Romney did win, the Republican party's victory would be short lived. In another ten or fifteen years the Republican party will be toast. The only thing keeping them on life support right now is the aging white baby boomers.

In another 10 - 15 years this country will be toast. We'll be in the same position that Greece or Spain is currently in: fiscally insolvent & on the verge of revolution.

At least Romney would delay the inevitable by a few more years.

Post: #74

Duplicate...

Post: #75

He sure follows some weird "religion".