Scratch

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.

Yeah there is
I hate to break it to you but the system, like all systems, is flawed. It's a feudalism with the very small chance of making it big
Some people just aren't smart, they don't fit in. Job after job after job they're turned down and they hear Romney say that it's their fault, they're moochers
And how dare you say homeless shelters are an adequate replacement for a house, how dare you. Homeless shelters are small building that can have excess of twenty people competing for space. how dare you say that because they can find jobs everything's fine. Who will hire a homeless person? they'll assume they're homless because they were kicked out of their last job for stealing or misbehaving, not born into it or made redundant or kicked out due to bills because they couldn't keep up
I ask again how dare you? Would you tell a homeless person that they should be grateful because at least they have access to a basic civil right which the UN demands?
You sound like an arrogant rich kid and while we can't pick our privilege we can pick our ignorance.

backspace_ wrote:

Bush's decision on the war is hit or miss. ON one hand, extremely expensive, not very successful. On the other hand, they kind of blew up a national icon and killed thousands of people, so it was retaliation and we managed to remove several leaders and supporters of the Al Qaeda.

The unemployment chart, unless I'm reading incorrectly, does place Obama at 7.8 roughly by the time he takes office (I was reading Jan. 2008 at first :p) but I mean the rate fluctuated (goes up to 10 [which is 100%!!! the number it was 2 years ago] before going back down to 7.8) So Obama has kind of made the jobs worse, and it took him a couple of years to right his ship.

The whole thing about arguing bad economy being invalid is not true because http://images.google.com/imgres?q=us+de … 0,s:0,i:68 here is a chart showing debt from 1971 to the near present. Note debt spikes beginning to get larger as Obama's term begins.

My point was that the debt and deficit are not direct indicators of the strength/health of the economy.  Unemployment, GDP growth, and stock market growth are direct indicators, and by those indicators, the economy has made a significant recovery since the depths of the recession.  Your argument that the tremendous debt we've accumulated is bad is true, but not very applicable to an argument about the economy.

BTW, Keynesian economics advocates running deficits in bad economic times to spur growth/recovery and saving in good economic times.  This is the theory that Obama has, for the most part, been (trying) to follow.  America, though, has historically been pretty bad at the "saving during good economic times" part xD

Last edited by MoreGamesNow (2012-10-26 12:41:04)

yousmiledatme wrote:

Claude_Monet wrote:

jvvg wrote:

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.

Yeah there is
I hate to break it to you but the system, like all systems, is flawed. It's a feudalism with the very small chance of making it big
Some people just aren't smart, they don't fit in. Job after job after job they're turned down and they hear Romney say that it's their fault, they're moochers
And how dare you say homeless shelters are an adequate replacement for a house, how dare you. Homeless shelters are small building that can have excess of twenty people competing for space. how dare you say that because they can find jobs everything's fine. Who will hire a homeless person? they'll assume they're homless because they were kicked out of their last job for stealing or misbehaving, not born into it or made redundant or kicked out due to bills because they couldn't keep up
I ask again how dare you? Would you tell a homeless person that they should be grateful because at least they have access to a basic civil right which the UN demands?
You sound like an arrogant rich kid and while we can't pick our privilege we can pick our ignorance.

And this is where democrats and republicans are fundamentally different.

jvvg wrote:

schusteralex2 wrote:

yousmiledatme wrote:

Yeah there is
I hate to break it to you but the system, like all systems, is flawed. It's a feudalism with the very small chance of making it big
Some people just aren't smart, they don't fit in. Job after job after job they're turned down and they hear Romney say that it's their fault, they're moochers
And how dare you say homeless shelters are an adequate replacement for a house, how dare you. Homeless shelters are small building that can have excess of twenty people competing for space. how dare you say that because they can find jobs everything's fine. Who will hire a homeless person? they'll assume they're homless because they were kicked out of their last job for stealing or misbehaving, not born into it or made redundant or kicked out due to bills because they couldn't keep up
I ask again how dare you? Would you tell a homeless person that they should be grateful because at least they have access to a basic civil right which the UN demands?
You sound like an arrogant rich kid and while we can't pick our privilege we can pick our ignorance.

And this is where democrats and republicans are fundamentally different.

What?
How Democrats think that people who need help should be helped and Republicans think that people who need help should just be left to die? It often does seem that way.
@yousmiledatme: well said.

I got a bit ranty in the end but thanks

OverPowered wrote:

Can anyone supporting the voter identification laws tell me why these are worthwhile legislature and not just discrimination against persons without identification, mostly the poor and minorities (ie, Democrats)?

I've heard about them, and they are pretty clearly trying to prevent Democrats from winning the election.

Mokat wrote:

OrcaCat wrote:

luiysia wrote:

Are you serious? You would base your vote on a poor decision he made years ago? What effect does that have on his ability to be President? Does it significantly reflect on his character? At most, it maybe shows that he was pretty dumb back then. Also, there are more Republicans than dogs in the US.

Nice job. I hate it that the Obama supporters are so desperate, they put "Obama 2012" in their signatures. No offense, Obama.

"No offense" doesn't excuse you nor does it make what you just said any less of an insult

Sorry, I didn't mean it. Obama isn't desperate.

Last edited by OrcaCat (2012-10-26 19:21:20)

Solution to America: to close loopholes, everyone pays a SET percent of property value, income, etc. P.S. Here's proof that tax cuts will INCREASE government revenue: CLICK THIS
Seriously. I've heard Obama supporters are say (in person), "Bush makes us raise taxes so we can fix the economy," but we actually might LOSE money by raising taxes, XD

Last edited by OrcaCat (2012-10-26 19:23:33)

Animeboy975 wrote:

We're doing something really cool in Social Studies

Basically, the Home Ec. teacher is finding Michelle Obama and Ann Romney's best cookie recipe. Than we bring them to the Social studies room and eat them and choose which one is better.

Also, we're doing a presidential debate at school where we can vote Romney or Obama. Than we see which one is chosen more.

Well, who are you going to vote for? xD

alldaykade28471 wrote:

Obama is just making the taxes higher because of ObamaCare which doesn't help anyone that much.

With that being said, if I could vote, I would proudfully vote for Romney.

You're being kind of selfish there. There are people much less well off than you who can't get healthcare, and you are saying that they shouldn't get the healthcare that they need. Think about it, by removing the law, you are causing people to die because they can't get health insurance.

jvvg wrote:

alldaykade28471 wrote:

Obama is just making the taxes higher because of ObamaCare which doesn't help anyone that much.

With that being said, if I could vote, I would proudfully vote for Romney.

You're being kind of selfish there. There are people much less well off than you who can't get healthcare, and you are saying that they shouldn't get the healthcare that they need. Think about it, by removing the law, you are causing people to die because they can't get health insurance.

Wait, why couldn't they get regular healthcare? It's not like they HAVE to get ObamaCare or they will die...

What do you think ObamaCare does? (Just Wondering)

alldaykade28471 wrote:

dvd4 wrote:

jvvg wrote:

You're being kind of selfish there. There are people much less well off than you who can't get healthcare, and you are saying that they shouldn't get the healthcare that they need. Think about it, by removing the law, you are causing people to die because they can't get health insurance.

And not to mention not having healthcare is actually more expensive than having health care.

And why is that?

Edit: Because of taxes?

Because when you don't have health insurance, you have to pay for everything out of pocket, which ends up costing a huge amount more. It's a lot cheaper to pay for health stuff through an insurer than it is to pay directly.

jvvg wrote:

alldaykade28471 wrote:

dvd4 wrote:

And not to mention not having healthcare is actually more expensive than having health care.

And why is that?

Edit: Because of taxes?

Because when you don't have health insurance, you have to pay for everything out of pocket, which ends up costing a huge amount more. It's a lot cheaper to pay for health stuff through an insurer than it is to pay directly.

Why can't people just go to a regular heath insurance company? Why does it have to be ObamaCare?

CN12 wrote:

The area around my hometown is pretty in favor of Romney. I've only seen 1 sign that says "Forward"(For Obama). 

Woot!