Romney or Obama

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by JLI2infinity

Picking and choosing which polls support your view is not an accurate way to look at the situation. Like I said there is no "vast majority" agreement on the issue. Gallop polls have fluctuated having those who want to repeal the PPACA away from numbers like in the mid to high 70's to numbers like 54%. I already stated that a majority agrees it should be repealed as a whole but it's not as clear cut as you made it appear.

Why would you listen to Clinton on economic prosperity? Jeez I don't know maybe because America enjoyed surplus and steady growth during his term, kind of gives him a bit more credibility.

Ok like I said before looking at one number only tells part of the story. Spending didn't increase under Obama, but he can only control that to a certain degree. To stimulate spending the government's job is to lower interest rates and taxes, Obama has done both. And while spending may not have increased the Consumer Confidence Index is up 86% and the job story tells a different tale then the numbers you just mentioned. Obama's stimulus tapered off job loss at around 2010, a bit later than expected because as previously mentioned the recession cut deeper than most foresaw.

In addition to preventing job loss it led to steady job growth towards the end of Obama's term with his commonly quoted 5 million jobs added to the private sector (that number is a projection and adds in jobs predicted to be added by the end of the fiscal quarter, the real number is around 4.75 million) and manufacturing jobs on the rise.

As for Romney's tax plan, yes I was using the bloated, mainstream "$5 trillion" figure when I introduced it which is pretty biased and not an accurate representation of the plan so I apologize, but my point still stands that the plan will disproportionately benefit the wealthy giving them a net of about $250,000 more. The point is when people accuse Romney of trickle down economics, they are absolutely right. Romney's plan isn't mathematically impossible overall, I'm not suggesting that, it's just mathematically impossible in the way he presented it to the public trying to say that he's not going to increase tax rates for anyone.

Romney estimates 1-2% economic growth from his policies but the largest contributor to that growth would be the decrease in corporate tax rates, something Obama himself is suggesting. The only thing they disagree on is whether or not it should be 27% (Obama) or 25% (Romney) when the Treasury Department acknowledged 28% as a feasible number under Bush.

Moreover, Obama wants to lower the individual rate which would help small business, and while Romney wants to do the same thing, his definition of "small" is way too big (in my opinion) which eliminates possible revenue from individuals who can contribute it. This is another reason I support Obama's plan over his.

Actually Romney's spending increase for the military was calculated based on the increase that would occur when compared to the president's current plan which (while it does make a few cuts) generally keeps defense spending steady. The number came from estimates made by looking at the defense plan advocated by the Romney campaign which gradually increases the Pentagon's budget over the next 10 years. He's looking to dedicate 4% of the nation's GDP to the Pentagon budget. And yes they didn't ask for it. Our current military leaders support Obama's spending plan with regards to defense.

Last point, ummm yeah the public view of the United States has improved considerably in many countries, every European country surveyed supported Obama's reelection and increased in viewing the United States favorably. Egypt and Pakistan are where America lost ground (and most likely Libya very soon).


GOD THIS TOOK A LONG TIME. Wooster you make a lot of blanket statements which require a long time to respond to. Please give detailed explanations as well as providing your statistics in context, when you debate because most of this wasn't me introducing my own points but dispelling yours.

Ramus. has polled this question for years. It is consistent and most reliable. YOU can cherry pick, but this has never polled well. And given that Obama never talks about Obamacare, this tells you all you need to know about the support for it. But you admitted you agree I am right, so moving on.

Clinton did nothing to create that economy. Besides massive defense cuts and riding of the dotcom bubble, the economy was crap until the Republicans took over congress and he veered sharply to the center. That defense cut left the country greatly unprepared for the rise of violent Islamist groups during the "end of history". But we all know what happened there

You are wrong. Spending under Obama went to nearly 24% of GDP during GWB it averaged a little over 21% Obama didn't lower interest rates that was the Fed. Obama lowered payroll taxes i,e part of stimulus and that did nothing just like GWB early stimulus did nothing. And the manufacturer index has dipped below 50 recently, consumer confidence means nothing unless it is tied to growth.
You will have to explain how I have been wrong about jobs because I said they have not recovered under Obama and there has yet as many employed under Obama as the lowest under Bush. Let's look at a graph.

Spoiler:

See that? Almost no change in employment after the crash. In other words, Obama has done nothing, but more likely hurt. You can go through any of the recessions since the Great Depression and after this much time, this is the only one where employment is still less. GDP growth is also the lowest.
That is the old canard that "if only we spent more stimulus" Given the fact that some didn't work at all, doesn't matter that the recession was "deeper."

Not true. However, it does depend on how you define the wealthy. Over 250,000 compared to 70,000(or some number about that) to 250,000, maybe. But be honest, they are all rich, so who really cares. The middle class and poor wouldn't pay more. Frankly, Romney won't get his 20% reduction anyway, although it will create growth. Lower tax rates and expanding the net (i.e fewer deductions) is a great way to do it without change the overall revenue picture. In any case, no one's rate would increase, although you may pay more taxes if you take many deductions, but the only ones eliminated would be for the wealthy anyway. I for one will not cry over GE paying their fair share.

And why is that? Because the corporate tax rate is way out of whack. Also, the personal tax rate adjustments Romney proposes are really reform not cuts, while the corporate tax rate is real cut and rebalanced to the rest of the world; thus, the major growth from that. However, Obama has talked about cutting the tax rate, but never done it. No reason to assume he will just because he says he will. Not to mention he will tax foreign profits, which no other OECD country does. That will limit growth and is a bad idea. Romney will have corporate tax one pays be in the country of business. If that company then chooses to bring in back to the States no further taxes will accrue( currently that does happen).

Obama is not lowering any rate. Extending the Bush tax cuts does not count. Romney's reduction is based on the Bush rates. The bigger business have more employees and move the economy. Raising taxes on any of them is a bad idea, especially if you like stimulus
But more importantly, permanent tax cuts do improve the economy, rebates do nothing i.e. multiplier of 1.

Obama made massive cuts as I already pointed out comparing 2010 to 2014. 4% of GDP is the post war average. It is what the spending was under the first Bush. The only time it was as low as 3%, which what Obama proposes, is at the end of Clinton's term when he slashed spending.
If Romney got spending up to 4% it would cost more, but 1 trillion is the cuts Obama made and the sequestration , which Obama claims he wants to end. Those would be the Bush baseline. That is the likely change. Romney can attempt to get it up to 4% of GDP, but I don't see that happening even if it would be a very good thing to do .
The military doesn't ask for money. They tell the president what they need to do the mission he gives them. Obama just wants a massively small navy, Romney wants a pretty damn small navy too, but his is at least around 320-350 ships, which barely enough.

Again that is a non sequitor. The approval of the United State has not improved.Try to show a poll of that.

Not my fault they take a long time to respond to, you have not refuted a single point, but only added secondary information, which does not change the point. Look at all the time I had to waste telling you why I was exactly right in the first place
As you didn't, I shan't either. It is not my responsibility to inform you. If you have anything to refute what I said, post it. But at least I posted a purdy graph.

Good things come to those who wait

[Miss Kitty]

[WuTang]

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Romney's tax plan is a little naive. Romney claims he can lower taxes for everyone (including the middle class) without slashing government programs or military spending.
Eventually someone is going to get screwed over by this. Ideally, the upper class will get screwed over since even with increased taxes, they still have a substantial sum of money. Unfortunately for Romney, Obama has already claimed this plan and doing so would make campaign contributors and fellow Republicans rather unhappy. He could raise taxes on the middle class, but that would hurt the economy in the long run and likely not get him reelected as he would go back on his campaign promises. Raising taxes on the lower class is completely out of the question, but with less money to work with, Romney could cut welfare programs which would exacerbate an already suffering working class and make unemployment even more of an inescapable hole. Lastly, Romney could try and make everyone happy, but that would lead to deficit spending that would cause the debt to skyrocket.

Obama on the other hand has already proposed raising taxes on the upper class (which I believe is the best option as long as he targets individuals as opposed to businesses and corporations). Also, I think his track record as president is impressive. He inherited a mess and some of his decisions I disagreed with (such as bank and auto bailouts) ended up working in the long run and I was forced to eat my words. I also think Obama's domestic policy is a strong point. The way he handled Iran was beautiful, placing economic pressure on them as opposed to military pressure. Although, I often cringe when Obama seems to abuse the "we got Bin Laden" line, there is some truth to what he says. He is a competent commander-in-chief and his strategies for turning public opinion against al-Qaeda and ruining their organization were far superior to those used during the Bush administration.

I don't hate Romney, though. Far from it. I think he would be a good leader and he isn't as right-wing as a lot of people seem to think he is. He has had some good ideas too, such as delegating some federal responsibilities, particularly those concerning welfare, to the state governments. He isn't as pigheaded as a lot of Republicans are either and he's proven during his tenure as governor of Massachusetts that he is willing to cooperate with people who don't share his views.

Unfortunately, I just can't justify taking Obama out of office. Sorry, Mr. Romney. Obama 2012.

[Miss Kitty]

[WuTang]

^Okay, I deserved that. Just been on my mind for a while. Had to find an outlet.

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by WuTang

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Romney's tax plan is a little naive. Romney claims he can lower taxes for everyone (including the middle class) without slashing government programs or military spending.
Eventually someone is going to get screwed over by this. Ideally, the upper class will get screwed over since even with increased taxes, they still have a substantial sum of money. Unfortunately for Romney, Obama has already claimed this plan and doing so would make campaign contributors and fellow Republicans rather unhappy. He could raise taxes on the middle class, but that would hurt the economy in the long run and likely not get him reelected as he would go back on his campaign promises. Raising taxes on the lower class is completely out of the question, but with less money to work with, Romney could cut welfare programs which would exacerbate an already suffering working class and make unemployment even more of an inescapable hole. Lastly, Romney could try and make everyone happy, but that would lead to deficit spending that would cause the debt to skyrocket.

Obama on the other hand has already proposed raising taxes on the upper class (which I believe is the best option as long as he targets individuals as opposed to businesses and corporations). Also, I think his track record as president is impressive. He inherited a mess and some of his decisions I disagreed with (such as bank and auto bailouts) ended up working in the long run and I was forced to eat my words. I also think Obama's domestic policy is a strong point. The way he handled Iran was beautiful, placing economic pressure on them as opposed to military pressure. Although, I often cringe when Obama seems to abuse the "we got Bin Laden" line, there is some truth to what he says. He is a competent commander-in-chief and his strategies for turning public opinion against al-Qaeda and ruining their organization were far superior to those used during the Bush administration.

I don't hate Romney, though. Far from it. I think he would be a good leader and he isn't as right-wing as a lot of people seem to think he is. He has had some good ideas too, such as delegating some federal responsibilities, particularly those concerning welfare, to the state governments. He isn't as pigheaded as a lot of Republicans are either and he's proven during his tenure as governor of Massachusetts that he is willing to cooperate with people who don't share his views.

Unfortunately, I just can't justify taking Obama out of office. Sorry, Mr. Romney. Obama 2012.

Lowering tax rates, not the same thing as lowering taxes.

Public opinion of al Qaeda had already bottomed out during Bush's term. Killing other Muslims tends to do that.

*too tired to write another wall of text*

Originally Posted by Miss Kitty

Reagan could give me the whole load any day P:

Edit: Found the GDP growth one. Not the smaller the recession generally the smaller the growth after(less to make up) However, under Obama..

Spoiler:

Woot and here is the job growth

Spoiler:

And they said Bush had a jobless recovery

[JLI2infinity]

Originally Posted by Wooster

Ramus. has polled this question for years. It is consistent and most reliable. YOU can cherry pick, but this has never polled well. And given that Obama never talks about Obamacare, this tells you all you need to know about the support for it. But you admitted you agree I am right, so moving on.

Obama just mentioned Obamacare in a stump speech literally two days ago He's not ashamed of it, as a matter of fact during the debate he looked Mitt Romney straight in the eye and said he liked the term. I didn't cherrypick anything all the numbers in your link fell in the range of what I said, so moving on.

Clinton did nothing to create that economy. Besides massive defense cuts and riding of the dotcom bubble, the economy was crap until the Republicans took over congress and he veered sharply to the center. That defense cut left the country greatly unprepared for the rise of violent Islamist groups during the "end of history". But we all know what happened there

Wow, if I've ever heard an oversimplification of a president's economic policies this would be it. Clinton had several fiscally conservative policies that helped job creation along with several liberal ones, he wasn't "playing to the center," those Democratic and Republican ideas were already a part of his initial economic strategy, they just happened to align with both parties. Off the top of my head, he removed numerous restrictions on free trade, kept the post-war inflation rate lower than it had been under any Republican president in history, lowered interest rates, raised tax rates on the wealthiest Americans, and cut federal spending. A combination of those policies took us from a 4.7% deficit to a 2.4% surplus. And gave the USA one of the lowest unemployment rates of all time. You're saying a president who served two consecutive terms did nothing to the economy, that has to be a joke.

You are wrong. Spending under Obama went to nearly 24% of GDP during GWB it averaged a little over 21% Obama didn't lower interest rates that was the Fed. Obama lowered payroll taxes i,e part of stimulus and that did nothing just like GWB early stimulus did nothing. And the manufacturer index has dipped below 50 recently, consumer confidence means nothing unless it is tied to growth.

I was referring to public spending, as in the consumer buying products in the market which stimulates the economy while simultaneously creating revenue. If is the Fed's job to lower interest rates to increase public spending my point was that Obama's administration encouraged it and did not interfere.

"The most recent index of manufacturing activity, issued by the Institute for Supply Management, stood at 51.5 in September. Anything over 50 indicates expansion. The index stood at a dismal 34.9 when Obama took office. The number is 48 percent higher now than it was then."

So you're wrong there. Moreover, a large component of calculating Consumer Confidence is the consumer's FUTURE expectations of the economy. The fact that it has increased means quite a lot actually, it demonstrates that people are becoming more willing to spend. Consumer Confidence rising is a sign of growth to come.

You will have to explain how I have been wrong about jobs because I said they have not recovered under Obama and there has yet as many employed under Obama as the lowest under Bush. Let's look at a graph.

Spoiler:

See that? Almost no change in employment after the crash. In other words, Obama has done nothing, but more likely hurt. You can go through any of the recessions since the Great Depression and after this much time, this is the only one where employment is still less. GDP growth is also the lowest.
That is the old canard that "if only we spent more stimulus" Given the fact that some didn't work at all, doesn't matter that the recession was "deeper."

I was very clear about this before. The point was to stabilize job loss which would lead to job growth. Job loss plummeted from the effects of Bush's term during the first two years of Obama's presidency. After the unemployment rate reached it's peak in 2010 (only a year after Obama started enacted legislation) it started to decline. It's not a matter of "if only we spent more," it's a matter of the recession was severe and our timetable got shifted forward.

Not true. However, it does depend on how you define the wealthy. Over 250,000 compared to 70,000(or some number about that) to 250,000, maybe. But be honest, they are all rich, so who really cares. The middle class and poor wouldn't pay more. Frankly, Romney won't get his 20% reduction anyway, although it will create growth. Lower tax rates and expanding the net (i.e fewer deductions) is a great way to do it without change the overall revenue picture. In any case, no one's rate would increase, although you may pay more taxes if you take many deductions, but the only ones eliminated would be for the wealthy anyway. I for one will not cry over GE paying their fair share.

I'm defining wealth by not just the current tax code of $250,000+, or Census data which indicates $74,000 or more is solidly above average in this country but by the top 3% which contains millionaires. Anyways, how would the middle and lower class not pay more with his plan. Please explain to me what you see that economists can't. I've read four separate articles detailing that the tax cut could happen but one group is going to have to carry the weight.

And why is that? Because the corporate tax rate is way out of whack. Also, the personal tax rate adjustments Romney proposes are really reform not cuts, while the corporate tax rate is real cut and rebalanced to the rest of the world; thus, the major growth from that. However, Obama has talked about cutting the tax rate, but never done it. No reason to assume he will just because he says he will. Not to mention he will tax foreign profits, which no other OECD country does. That will limit growth and is a bad idea. Romney will have corporate tax one pays be in the country of business. If that company then chooses to bring in back to the States no further taxes will accrue( currently that does happen).

Obama is not lowering any rate. Extending the Bush tax cuts does not count. Romney's reduction is based on the Bush rates. The bigger business have more employees and move the economy. Raising taxes on any of them is a bad idea, especially if you like stimulus
But more importantly, permanent tax cuts do improve the economy, rebates do nothing i.e. multiplier of 1.

*TRICKLE DOWN ALERT* *TRICKLE DOWN ALERT*
Warning complaints about too much government regulation of big business stifling the economy may follow!!!

Give me a break. I understand lowering the corporate tax rate below 28% is a product of the Treasury Dept.'s estimate on what will create jobs and so both estimates are using it's recommendation, but cry me a river here. Corporate profits are higher than ever before. As a matter of fact they reached an all time high this year. Nothing is "out of whack."

Spoiler:

[JLI2infinity]

Obama's not lowering rates for small businesses huh....

"We have provided at least 16 tax cuts to small businesses who have needed a lot of help and have been struggling -- including, for example, saying zero capital gains taxes on startups -- because our attitude is we want to encourage new companies, young entrepreneurs, to get out there, start their business, without feeling like if they’re successful in the first couple of years that somehow they have to pay taxes, as opposed to putting that money back into their business." --Barack Obama 07/06/11

Obama made massive cuts as I already pointed out comparing 2010 to 2014. 4% of GDP is the post war average. It is what the spending was under the first Bush. The only time it was as low as 3%, which what Obama proposes, is at the end of Clinton's term when he slashed spending.
If Romney got spending up to 4% it would cost more, but 1 trillion is the cuts Obama made and the sequestration , which Obama claims he wants to end. Those would be the Bush baseline. That is the likely change. Romney can attempt to get it up to 4% of GDP, but I don't see that happening even if it would be a very good thing to do .
The military doesn't ask for money. They tell the president what they need to do the mission he gives them. Obama just wants a massively small navy, Romney wants a pretty damn small navy too, but his is at least around 320-350 ships, which barely enough.

Oh I saved this one for last, because defense spending is my favorite subject to debate people on. And must I say what a web of you have weaved my friend. First you blamed Clinton's spending cuts for our situation with the Middle East, good lord that's laughable, easily the weakest point you have made in this entire debate. Our problems with the Middle East come with how we dealt with foreign policy. If anything living in an interventionist police state puts a bigger bulls-eye on our chests.

I do agree with your point about Obama trying to shift the blame off himself when it comes to sequestration, I share your criticism.

And oh you brought up the Navy. That's great because it was my favorite point of the debate. Do you have any clue how powerful the American Navy is? Do you? Take a wild guess? How about this, let's compare our Navy to second place there shouldn't be that big of a gap. Well our battle fleet has a carrying capacity greater than the 13 largest navies on Earth combined. Have you ever taken a look at shows like "Future Weapons" or read about military technology. Do you have any idea how much power there is in 320-350 ships.

"The U.S. Navy was one of the first to install nuclear reactors aboard naval vessels;today, nuclear energy powers all of U.S. active aircraft carriers and submarines. In the case of the Nimitz-class carrier, two naval reactors give the ship almost unlimited range and provide enough electrical energy to power a city of 100,000 people"

320 ships is more than were active during World War I. Have you considered how the capability of ships has improved? Our Navy Secretary Ray Mabus stated that he thinks we will be able to be effective with just 300 by 2019. And when asked about the ship number when compared by Mitt Romney to the low point in 1917 Mabus pointed out the tremendous difference in what the ships can do in the early 2000's compared to the early 1900's.

“It’s like comparing the telegraph to the smartphone. They’re just not comparable.”

And that's just the Navy I haven't even gotten to address how I find Mitt Romney's point about the US "projecting weakness" to be utterly ridiculous. For people who don't even want to credit the bin Laden capture with the Obama administration (despite him bearing the title of Commander in Chief and giving the operation the "go" signal as well as having to shoulder responsibility if it failed) drone strikes in Pakistan are higher than they have ever been before.

I'm not Libertarian but I'm a pretty firm believer in non-interventionism at this point and trust me the USA is still far from it.

Again that is a non sequitor. The approval of the United State has not improved.Try to show a poll of that.

No problem buddy,

Spoiler:

Where we HAVE declined is people's view of us as the world's leading economic power...

Spoiler:

Not my fault they take a long time to respond to, you have not refuted a single point, but only added secondary information, which does not change the point. Look at all the time I had to waste telling you why I was exactly right in the first place
As you didn't, I shan't either. It is not my responsibility to inform you. If you have anything to refute what I said, post it. But at least I posted a purdy graph.

Good things come to those who wait

Well I hope this helps And I'm more of an instant gratification kinda guy

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by JLI2infinity

Obama just mentioned Obamacare in a stump speech literally two days ago He's not ashamed of it, as a matter of fact during the debate he looked Mitt Romney straight in the eye and said he liked the term. I didn't cherrypick anything all the numbers in your link fell in the range of what I said, so moving on.




Wow, if I've ever heard an oversimplification of a president's economic policies this would be it. Clinton had several fiscally conservative policies that helped job creation along with several liberal ones, he wasn't "playing to the center," those Democratic and Republican ideas were already a part of his initial economic strategy, they just happened to align with both parties. Off the top of my head, he removed numerous restrictions on free trade, kept the post-war inflation rate lower than it had been under any Republican president in history, lowered interest rates, raised tax rates on the wealthiest Americans, and cut federal spending. A combination of those policies took us from a 4.7% deficit to a 2.4% surplus. And gave the USA one of the lowest unemployment rates of all time. You're saying a president who served two consecutive terms did nothing to the economy, that has to be a joke.




I was referring to public spending, as in the consumer buying products in the market which stimulates the economy while simultaneously creating revenue. If is the Fed's job to lower interest rates to increase public spending my point was that Obama's administration encouraged it and did not interfere.

"The most recent index of manufacturing activity, issued by the Institute for Supply Management, stood at 51.5 in September. Anything over 50 indicates expansion. The index stood at a dismal 34.9 when Obama took office. The number is 48 percent higher now than it was then."

So you're wrong there. Moreover, a large component of calculating Consumer Confidence is the consumer's FUTURE expectations of the economy. The fact that it has increased means quite a lot actually, it demonstrates that people are becoming more willing to spend. Consumer Confidence rising is a sign of growth to come.




I was very clear about this before. The point was to stabilize job loss which would lead to job growth. Job loss plummeted from the effects of Bush's term during the first two years of Obama's presidency. After the unemployment rate reached it's peak in 2010 (only a year after Obama started enacted legislation) it started to decline. It's not a matter of "if only we spent more," it's a matter of the recession was severe and our timetable got shifted forward.



I'm defining wealth by not just the current tax code of $250,000+, or Census data which indicates $74,000 or more is solidly above average in this country but by the top 3% which contains millionaires. Anyways, how would the middle and lower class not pay more with his plan. Please explain to me what you see that economists can't. I've read four separate articles detailing that the tax cut could happen but one group is going to have to carry the weight.



*TRICKLE DOWN ALERT* *TRICKLE DOWN ALERT*
Warning complaints about too much government regulation of big business stifling the economy may follow!!!

Give me a break. I understand lowering the corporate tax rate below 28% is a product of the Treasury Dept.'s estimate on what will create jobs and so both estimates are using it's recommendation, but cry me a river here. Corporate profits are higher than ever before. As a matter of fact they reached an all time high this year. Nothing is "out of whack."

Spoiler:

UUh-huh, right to his lefty kooks at a campaign rally. HIs TV ads tell a different story. The polls agrees with what I said double digit leads for repeal. If you said what I said, why are you arguing?

Welfare reform and capital gains taxes were NOT a part of his original reforms. Healthcare was and that flopped, hard. Free trade was again something he was forced into. He campaigned agaisnt NAFTA, inflation was Greenspan and that was bad. Guess what those low interest rates got us? That's right, the housing bubble. Most presidents can't do anything about the economy unless you look long term, the 25-years of expansion with near zero recession was the massive change in tax policy Reagan introduced. Bush, Clinton, and Bush 43 essentially rode that. This is not to say Clinton didn't pass some good policies, but to say he understands what causes an economy to tick is what is laughable. Clinton is an opportunist, fortunately for the 90's he was forced into go policy, but that doesn't mean he understands what good policy is. So back to original point, why would I listen to what Clinton said? He is a political hack and always has been. History says the recession Reagan was dealt was worse, end of story.

51 is very slow increase, and the manufacturer's index was once again below 50 during the summer; it has only grown for two months.. CC is only at the level it was during Feb. 2008. You know when we were already in a recession, just a perspective of how minimally good it is. All this goes with a likely GDP increase of only 1.7%, less than last year.

But both of these numbers have resulted zilch so far, so you your basing the economy on hopes, which could just as well be fairy dust. In any case, my point was these other numbers bounce all over the palce. You have admited by your silence that job growth and GDP are crap, so let's move on.

The point is to increase jobs, and you just admitted that never happen.
That always happens after recessions, as I have pointed out. Also notice the rate of jobless was completely unaffect when the stimulus should have been doing the most. Also the fun fact that job losses didn't really pick up until Obama was elected. I wonder why?

And I have read multiple articles on how it would work. Oh no, an impasse!

But wait, I already explained it, 70,000+. Essentilly removing their mortage deduction and state tax exemptions and the like. Also, it is 200,000+ for single filers. In any case, the tax code should be made such that it taxes consumption not income(ask any economist). A first step to that is lowering tax rates. Deductions destort the economy. Now, nearly removing the lower class from income taxes is fine. Romney is wrong that it it being a problem that 47% don't pay income taxes(anyway that is only the curious coincident that Democratic presidents get at minimum 47% of the vote), it really doesn't matter. Calvin Coolidge massively cut taxes keeping only those for the most wealthy. The important part is to keep the top rates low. Getting the top rate back to the Reagan 28% is no bad thing. Canning all the deductions is good, too. Finally, the result of the cuts in rates will increase the economy and, thus, INCREASE revenue. This happened under Bush's 2003 cuts(not the crap 2001 stimulus tax cuts by the way), Clinton's capital gains tax cuts, multiple Reagan tax cuts, Kennedy's tax cuts, and CC's tax cuts. Leftist analysis, of course, always ignores this.

You just admitted that cutting the corporate tax would cause growth. I was telling you why it would matter more than the individual tax rate changes. Also, I don't beleive I said anything about regulation at this juncture, just taxes. Please sir, read what I wrote.

But since you need a simple lesson, I shall inform you. The US corporate tax rate is the HIGHEST of the OECD countries. Even Japan is lower. The US corporate tax rate is 50% higher than the OECD average. Sorry, you are dead wrong. Completely. And none of that corporate profit results in more employment. I wonder why? Anyway, this is why even Obama proposes to cut it, not that he will.

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by JLI2infinity

Obama's not lowering rates for small businesses huh....

You have confused past tense with the future. I know all about the tax rebates and deductions that were part of Obama's misplaced stimulus. Such as the lovely Making Work Pay, saw that on my tax form. Sadly, what Obama could have done is permanently extended the Bush tax cuts helping the economy, but he chose not to. Obama is not proposing any new tax cuts, just extending the Bush tax cuts to those below 200,000/250,000.

How not? I will place blame where it is due. What about the bombing of the USS Cole? The Khobar Towers? The Kenya and Tanzania Embassy bombings? The first bombing on the World Trade center? Clinton did nothing here, but twidle his thumbs and toss out a few missiles. It was a "law enforcement" matter. The Islamist saw the weak response and acted accordingly. There certainly was not massive US intervention in the world during Bush 41 and the Clinton years. Maybe defending Kuwait from Iraq's aggression? Bosnia? Kosovo? How were those bad? How did those piss off the Islamists?

Even worse, as Clinton gutted the military, Bush not only had to go to war but build up the military at the same time. Maybe for once we can not slash the military and instead have it ready in case there is a need for war. And the happy coincidence is that have a strong military will limit the need to go to war in the first place. Not wasting our time in Libya or trying to build a country in a backwater like Afghanistan would be other good ideas.


Good, I am glad you agree.


And what does the US navy do? Do you realize how many defense agreements the US has around the world? Besides, Britain and France, or military essentially protects Europe, the same can be said of Japan, Korea, Phillipines, Tawain and let's not forget the world shipping lanes. What would be the consequence of the US navy removing itself from the world? Other countries building up their own militaries, resulting in conflict. Increasing piracy, resulting reduced trade, less world GDP, and increased world poverty. As you said, no oher nation comes close, so only the US can be the world police.

Why are you compating to WW I? Let's use the 90's, the size of the navy then was over 600 ships. THe US sent six(SIX!) aircraft carriers to the Middle East alone. Obama's path is to barely more than 200 ships. Romney is a bare minimum compromise of 320-350 ships.
Given that Obama wants to pivot to Asia, how is he going to increase the US naval forces there while still maintaining a prescence in the Strait of Hormuz, the gulf of Aden, the Mediterranean?

We are not talking about ancient battleships here, but attack subs and other modern naval ships decreasing. Each aircraft carrier has a complement of at least ten ships with it. And this ignores the fact we are talking about the future, not the present. China has increased military spending by four-fold and economy will pass the US in 15-20 years.
Suffice to say, keeping the military spending at a postwar average of 4% is a decent idea, but at least Obama cuts should be stopped as they are untenable. That doesn't even go into the need to update 20, 30, 40-year equipment. We don't want the military to be using telegraphs when iPads are around, right?

Besides Spain, France, and Germany the 2008 to today's approval rating of the US is nearly the same, which I believe is what I said. Unless you want to argue 5% is significant in these polls. Given that those other countries had virulent anti-US leaders during Bush term that have now been canned, we can give them a pass. And you can't seriously suggest there was a problem with Europe during Bush term; it was in Middle East, which has not improved.

[Jakropha]

Frankly I want neither of the goons in office.

I know they both just goof off... but I have to blame the media for encouraging the Demorepublic that has been set up in the later years.

[PrinceofPeace]

Originally Posted by PrinceofPeace

@Romney

-So I love how he wants to support Planned Parenthoo !

BUT IN THE DEBATE HE SAYS HE WILL NOT SUPPORT IT!!!!!!

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Just so eveyon knows 3% of Planned Parenthood is aboration!!!!! And when you take in rape and child/parent health that is a VERY low number

Parent Parenthood spreads awareness for STD's and gives out info about sex and absteince! Honestly it does more good than harm
----------------------------------
Yep , I brought it back

ANy ROmeny ppl want to explain that^

Politics just annoy me IMO it feels like everyone is treating Obama differently
-------------------------------------------------------------------
IMO (and I think we can all agree)

Romeny was more threating and intimaditing... just overall Agreesive in the first debate

Then in the 2nd debate when Obama wants to counter and when he gets threating and intimaditing as well he gets called out for it like he is the bad guy!!! This is totally unfair!

Romeny's son even stated that he wanted to punch Obama for the way that Obama was treating his father... REALLY?

IMO- that was totally unfair and un called for! In politics you gotta be agrressive.... and neither of them were really that bad
---------------------------------------------------------------------
@People who did not like either

-TOO BAD PICK THE ONE WHO SUCK'S THE LEAST!!!

HOnestly, we need a leader and saying they both suck does not help

[Wooster]

I can do that.

Yes. Planned Parenthood hands out fliers and condoms, so only 3% of there "business" is abortion; however, over 50% of their revenue is abortion.
Also, Planned Parenthood does not do mammograms.

Given that lots of people and groups actually do mammograms and hand out condoms and birth control pills, there is no reason for the federal government to give money to these death merchants.

[PrinceofPeace]

Originally Posted by Wooster

I can do that.

Yes. Planned Parenthood hands out fliers and condoms, so only 3% of there "business" is abortion; however, over 50% of their revenue is abortion.
Also, Planned Parenthood does not do mammograms.

Given that lots of people and groups actually do mammograms and hand out condoms and birth control pills, there is no reason for the federal government to give money to these death merchants.

You are right about one thing, Planned Parenthood does not offer mammograms at any of their affiliate health centers BUT!!! will refer clients to other local providers who do.

Planned Parenthood does not stop at filers and condoms! So what if most of their business gains profit from abortion. THey do not get much income from many ways. And taxes do not always cover it.
Like I said before PP is MUCH more than filers and condoms

38% of planned parenthood is the testing and TREATMENTS for STD's and STI
In 2010, Planned Parenthood provided a total of 4,179, 053 services which encompassed:

• STI tests for women and men -3,552,955
• Genital warts (HPV) treatments - 51, 197
• HIV tests for women and men - 574,901

14.5% - Cancer screening and prevention
In 2010, Planned Parenthood provided a total of 1,596,741 services which encompassed:

• Pap tests -769,769
• Breast Exams and Breast Care - 747,607
• Colposcopy procedures (for diagnosis of abnormal growth cells in the cervix) - 41,549
• LOOP/LEEP procedures (treatment for abnormal growths) - 2,432
• Cryotherapy procedures (treatment for abnormal growths - 1,254

33.5% - Contraception (including reversible and permanent)
In 2010, Planned Parenthood provided a total of 3,685,437 services which encompassed:

• Reversible contraception for women** - 2,219,726
• Emergency contraception kits - 1,461,816
• Vasectomy patients - 3, 290
• Female sterilization procedures - 605

10.4% - Other women's health services
In 2010, Planned Parenthood provided a total of 1,144,558 services which encompassed:

• Pregnancy tests -1,113,460
• Prenatal services - 31,098

0.6% - Other health services
In 2010, Planned Parenthood provided a total of 68,132 services which encompassed:

• Family practice services for women and men - 35, 062
• Adoption referrals to other agencies - 841
• Other procedures for women and men (which include WIC services -- a federally funded nutrition program for low-income women, infants, and children up to the age of five -- as well as pediatric care and immunizations) - 32,229

---------------------------------------------------------
I was going to put the statistics in spoilers but THE PEOPLE NEED TO SEE! Planned Parenthood takes care and helps thousands of lives! Cutting ti would hurt millions of people!

[Wooster]

Money is fungible. No reason for the federal government to pay for abortion when it is suppose to be paying for mammograms, which PP can't do. All those services can be provided by others, so Planed Parenthood can pay for their own crap.

[Yellow Flash]

By all means lets just write it off as crap, because that's the exact state of mind that we need the people who run our country to have, especially when it comes to our well-being and health benefits.

[Wooster]

Yes, I will write the death merchants off as crap

[Yellow Flash]

Yeah, because let's not give women the choice of abortion when they've just been raped.

[Wooster]

What choice? We are talking about giving federal money for non-abortion services to Planned Parenthood. They perform 300,00 abortions a year, I imagine some of them might be for rape.

But anyone that makes a general statement about abortion and rape is of low intellect. It is a difficult issue and not something that can be summed up in a blanket statement as you are trying to do. For shame.

[Yellow Flash]

I don't see the point in a debate with you when all you try to do is flame-bait me.