Scratch

CN12 wrote:

Once again, jvvg, I didn't ask you. If I want you to respond I will specifically say jvvg.

Ehm... It's pretty much that unless you specifically ask only soupoftomato to respond, it's an open question... 

And obviously you are so desperate for Obama to win that you have to respond for Soupoftomato.

And that's disrespectful... 

-Saving the auto industry-Yes, but no. He forced them into bankruptcy instead of letting them go through a traditional bankruptcy.

Romney talks about jobs. A "traditional bankruptcy" means that the company could never come back, and thus those jobs would be lost.
In addition, the industry is now profitable AND the government gained money by taking control of the company and then reprivatising it, which isn't something to sneeze at.

-Preventing the economy from totally collapsing-It is collapsed right now.

Have you read the entire thread? This argument is invalid.
Four million more people have jobs and unemployment is on the way down, the stock market is back up and safer, the housing market is back up, the auto industry is profitable again.
In addition, the United States is oh so much better off than, say, the European Union or the Middle East, or most of the developed world.
To sum it up... Where is this "collapse"?

-Killing Osama Bin Laden and several other leaders of Al Quaeda-He didn't actually kill OBL. The Seal team did. He just told them to kill him.

President Obama lead the United States on a path towards being able to kill Osama bin Laden, more than President Bush did with twice the time and no domestic problems.

-Expanding healthcare to a lot more Americans-I'm not very familiar with that.
-Reduce unemployment-He said in 2008 that at the end of his first term unemployment would be 5.5% or under. It's 7.9% right now.

Yes. This is true, and disappointing. 
But Governor Romney also promises to create 23mil jobs, lower taxes by 20% (price tag: $5,000,000,000,000), and increase military spending by $2bil.
President Obama's promise is currently in action, as unemployment is going down.
Governor Romney's promise is fiscally impossible.
Thanks. 

Stop blank posting.

QUESTION:  How does Romney (1)decrease taxes [on what income group?], (2)increase military power, (3)and not have the economy crash?  My perspective:  Bush I raises debt, Clinton pushes it down, Bush II pushes it up farther, and Obama tries to push it down.
Romney can't handle money.  He was born into it, so he can't handle it.  He just spends what he needs to.  He thinks "middle-income" is $250K a year.  He doesn't know about low- to middle-income families.  What do you think he's going to do?  Tax poor people more, tax rich people less.  Not good, seeing as what happened during the Boston Tea Party.

@fire;

zubblewu wrote:

I think I've figured out Romney's secret history! He's a time traveller from after the French Revolution to make things right again! Combine church and state, no taxes for the clergy, low taxes on the wealthy, and everything else on the middle class and poor!  It's much safer now, since we won't use a guillotine on him 

Claude_Monet wrote:

How do you know it won't work? Do you have presidential experience?

No, he doesn't. Neither do you. 
But the economists and fact-checkers that have looked at this issue have found it to be fiscally impossible for Gov. Romney to bring off his economic plan.

jvvg wrote:

Claude_Monet wrote:

jvvg wrote:

It doesn't work out. He says it will, but it won't. Either the middle class will be taxed to death, or the debt will explode.

How do you know it won't work? Do you have presidential experience?

And he's not going to do it all at once.

No, I don't. But, if that's your question, why do any of our arguments about any of this stuff matter?

Still, even if he does it slowly, it doesn't add up, so he will either smash the middle class slowly or greatly increase the deficit slowly.

Exactly.

OverPowered wrote:

Claude_Monet wrote:

How do you know it won't work? Do you have presidential experience?

No, he doesn't. Neither do you. 
But the economists and fact-checkers that have looked at this issue have found it to be fiscally impossible for Gov. Romney to bring off his economic plan.

The "experts" said that is was impossible to have a 30 foot long jump. Point is, they aren't always right.

Last edited by Mazdafreak (2012-10-25 21:59:47)

Mazdafreak wrote:

OverPowered wrote:

Claude_Monet wrote:

How do you know it won't work? Do you have presidential experience?

No, he doesn't. Neither do you. 
But the economists and fact-checkers that have looked at this issue have found it to be fiscally impossible for Gov. Romney to bring off his economic plan.

The "experts" said that is was impossible to have a 30 foot long jump. Point is, they aren't always right.

Can I get a source for these "experts," please? 

Claude_Monet wrote:

You didn't read what I said earlier. Mr. Romney will not do this all at the same time. He'll lower it so the economy gets better and then raises them a bit more and does the millitary stuff. This plan isn't perfect but it's better than raising taxes on rich so much the are forced to end their cooperations and giving that tax money to the guys wedged under bypasses.

Uh... If a very wealthy person pays a little more taxes, they don't imemdiately liquidate their corporation and fire people. No. They make do with less spendable money.
That money does NOT go to an unemployed person under an overpass. Food stamps are already in effect and wouldn't magically become more costly, so there's no real reason that jobless persons should get more money.
Instead, that money would go to reducing the defecit, along with spending cuts, as Mr. Obama has highlighted.

And I noticed the "over time". It would lessen the harm of his program, but the harm is still there. 

Claude_Monet wrote:

jvvg wrote:

Claude_Monet wrote:

You didn't read what I said earlier. Mr. Romney will not do this all at the same time. He'll lower it so the economy gets better and then raises them a bit more and does the millitary stuff. This plan isn't perfect but it's better than raising taxes on rich so much the are forced to end their cooperations and giving that tax money to the guys wedged under bypasses.

Raising taxes on the rich won't do much. They currently just sit on their money and don't do much with it, so the money will go to better use. The rich also have a lot more money than the middle class, so I think you should raise taxes on the people lighting cigars with hundred dollar bills, not the ones who make about enough money to get by in today's world.
As we said in the past, top-down economics simply don't work. Rather than give more money to the rich who don't need it, let the poor, who actually do need it, have it.
The people that are "wedged under bypasses", as you say, are probably there because they got laid off and couldn't afford rent, and have nowhere else to go. They need money in order to get food so they can go get a job. Would you hire someone who looks really scrawny or unhealthy or one who looks a decent weight?

Still, what will happen to the money? Well, if Obama is re-elected, it will bail out big companies who will pay rich people, meaning, as you said, it's not a good plan.

And we have homeless shelters to help people find work for free. No need for socialism.

Since the economy is a lot better, the bailouts are no longer necessary, so the money will go to help pay for those in need (through programs such as food stamps, unemployment benefits, medicaid, etc.).
Also, charities aren't reliable. You seem to think that if you're homeless, you can just go to a shelter for a little while and it magically gets better. Well, guess what? You're wrong. Often, a shelter doesn't have enough room for all the people that need it. So, what then? Really too bad for the person who got laid off. They now have no hope, unless someone steps in, and the homeless shelter is now out of the question. The government must be there to help people. Charities aren't reliable enough!

OverPowered wrote:

jvvg wrote:

Often, a shelter doesn't have enough room for all the people that need it. So, what then?

Well, obviously the person steals an iPhone, ( ) gets a job as a waiter, ( ) waits until the opportune moment, ( ) and then records Governor Romney giving a speech about what a moocher the previously unemployed person was. ( )

Nice. 

backspace_ wrote:

MoreGamesNow wrote:

backspace_ wrote:

wall of text and responses

I personally don't feel I am knowledgeable enough about the auto-industry bail out to argue its effectiveness, but I thought it was widely considered to have saved the industry.

The size of the deficit and debt aren't measures of the economy.  Their a measure of the fiscal responsibility of the government.  The statement "the economy is totally collapsing, thank you Obama" is an attack on the economy, the status of which can be measured via GDP, unemployment, stock price, and other indicators, not directly by debt or deficit.

backspace_ wrote:

So then Obama put forth an extreme amount of money to catch someone posing no apparent threat, and so this should not be on a list of positives

Personally, I'm not sure if it should either.  But the statement "Obama didn't really do anything" and that it was "kind of a no-brainer, George Bush would have done it" is incorrect.  Additionally, it is worth noting that it was Bush who went to war with Iraq and Afghanistan, so if your issue is cost, I don't think you can blame Obama for seeing through the conflicts begun by Bush through (whether you agree with those conflicts or not).

backspace_ wrote:

on the Affordable Care Act
so if the overall effect is not that good, this should be taken off a list of positives

if the overall effect is not good, you are correct.  I wasn't aware that the stance that "the Affordable Care Act is bad" was a widely argued position.  Romney himself supports universal healthcare, only enacted at the state level.

backspace_ wrote:

i see that at Bush's era unemployment stayed around 5.0 but upon 2008 it increased steadily, then went down a little to 7.8, a 50% increase from 4 years ago (50%!)

Original Link

First of all: unemployment is the same now as when Obama took office.  This is really indisputable.

Bush's policies caused (or intensified) the recession that began while he was in office (the drop from 5 to 7.8) and continued into Obama's term.  I personally don't think it is fair to assign to Obama the blame for the rise in unemployment from the first 6 months to a year after he took office, not only because the recession that was, to a great extent, Bush's fault, was still occurring, but also because Obama's policies a) weren't implemented immediately and b) didn't have much time to take effect on the overall unemployment rate.  If you look at unemployment from the Summer of 2009 to present, unemployment actually decreases; if you give Obama a year, instead of just six months, the decrease is very substantial.

Last edited by MoreGamesNow (2012-10-25 22:43:40)

16Skittles wrote:

while Romney will not follow his own father's advice.

Heaven forbid.

CN12 wrote:

jvvg wrote:

CN12 wrote:

Which is?...

Let's see...
-Ending one of the wars (Iraq)
-Saving the auto industry
-Preventing the economy from totally collapsing
-Killing Osama Bin Laden and several other leaders of Al Quaeda
-Expanding healthcare to a lot more Americans
-Reduce unemployment
...and a lot more but I'm too lazy to list the rest of it

Once again, jvvg, I didn't ask you. If I want you to respond I will specifically say jvvg. And obviously you are so desperate for Obama to win that you have to respond for Soupoftomato.
-Ending one of the wars (Iraq)-Okay
-Saving the auto industry-Yes, but no. He forced them into bankruptcy instead of letting them go through a traditional bankruptcy.
-Preventing the economy from totally collapsing-It is collapsed right now.
-Killing Osama Bin Laden and several other leaders of Al Quaeda-He didn't actually kill OBL. The Seal team did. He just told them to kill him.
-Expanding healthcare to a lot more Americans-I'm not very familiar with that.
-Reduce unemployment-He said in 2008 that at the end of his first term unemployment would be 5.5% or under. It's 7.9% right now.
...and a lot more but I'm too lazy to list the rest of it

I'd like to remind everyone that one of the main reasons why this thread is still open in the forum is under the condition that the talk remains civil. There's no need to attack other users based on who they support in the US election.