Obama Supporters

the 47% was referring to being on assistance ... not only they are not paying income tax which is about to change...(good luck) but they are also getting refunds because of children.... its a double dip on the govt. the debate is NOT who created it... the debate was that 4 years ago someone said they could fix it... (he had/has never balanced a budget???) once he got in place he said "wow" this is hard!!! LOL, and to think raising tax on people who make 250K is crazy talk! and of which he will be delivering the message that he is going to have to raise taxes on EVERYONE...(200K) but that wont work either...

it is an unfortunate truth that this idiot won... but he lied and twice now that he could fix our economy.... he spends way too much and EVERYONE is going to have to pay...

its like he is from the hood.... borrowing more than he can pay....and somehow 50% of the country thinks its okay.

there are companies such as Fedex ; several regional airline companies which now is delta ; communication companies like ITT all of which came from the economic disaster from the 70's when carter did the exact same thing obama is doing... the car bail out should have not happened. european companies would have easily purchased these companies or investors... look at what FIAT did...

Thanks for posting Las Vegas.

So...what you saying is that 47% of people receive financial assistance from the federal government. That is factually untrue. 47% of people pay no income tax because of deductions on children and the home mortgage deduction. Moreover, these households can be full-time wokring class families whom contribute in every meaningful way to society. In fact, one can be a private in the military and make less than 50k.

What you are referring to via the "Double-Dip Credit" is the Earned Income Tax Credit which only applies to people making less than ~21k per year. This program DOES provide income assistance to people who work, but make little money. It was the cornerstone of welfare reform in the 90's. It is the program that Romney/Ryan (falsely) accused Obama of attempting to weaken. REPUBLICANs even believe it pays to pay people to earn thier own income because it encourages the poor to move up the income ladder. And I agree with them -- I was/am proud of the Clinton Administration's stance on this issue.

As for your other points -- I agree. The president has not been able to balance the budget and I further agree that taxes are going to go up for everyone. I question whether the Republicans really have the stomach for belt-tightening -- they are already complaining about modest cuts in the defense budget...

However, given the choice between having everyone's taxes go up and having everyone's taxes increase EXCEPT the wealthy -- I choose shared sacrifice. Rich, Middle and Poor are all going to need to pay more in taxes aat some point. I voted against the Republican party because the cornerstone of their "brand" as described by Grover Norquist is that marginal tax rates will NEVER increase.

So, the real difference between us is that you believe the Dems will screw you over more than the Republicans...fair enough. I believe that Republican politicians are beholden to their wealthy donors whom demand that marginal taxes never increase. I think that congressmen will vote for the person literally paying for their campaigns -- and not me.

But hey, maybe you are right -- Romney might not have completely screwed me. Ryan on the other hand was clearly seeking to screw me via cuts to medicare for people under 50. I am under 50 and I have been paying into Medicare my entire life. To have that benefit taken away from me in spite of my life-long payment into it is too much to ask of anyone. This was a rational vote on my part to vote against this man and I make no excuse for this.

So really, we just have a difference of opinion on whom is going to screw us over more.

BTW, it was Carter whom deregulated the airline industry, the transportation industry and the energy industry. FYI.

barnybus, I disagree that the Republicans are the ones who do not have the stomach for belt tightening. Democrats have yet to offer any real cost cutting other than they think we will save by withdrawing our troops from Afghanistan (which I doubt will occur any time soon). All I keep hearing from Democrats is how they are going to spend.

Democrats have/are blocking any attempts by Republicans to cut costs. They even had false campaign signs around town saying "stock the Repuclican assault on education". Democrats on the other hand think it is OK to forgive student loans and just let the money disappear.

SATexasguy, thanks for psoting:

Fair enough. I agree that Dems are unlikely to cut spending significantly. Recall that even the Tea Party Congressmen voted against raising the debt limit, but still asked for earmarks. This was my main complaint of Ron Paul.

In any case, I suppose the upcoming "fiscal cliff" negotiations will settle this argument.

My prediction: Bush Tax cuts expire for the wealthy in exchange for no fiscal sequestration. The debt will grow, but at a lower rate.

Let me know where you live and I'll be right over to bitch slap your dumb ass Originally Posted by Rossboss

If you were trying to be humorous, you need to work on that.

We generally do not classify such threads of violence as humor.

i agree w/ we will agree to disagree... i think that mitt would have been able to work with the hill to get things done...

we would be in the same place; 50% would have not liked mitt winning. but he would have the hill to work with.

obama has already proven his track record that he can not balance a budget

and lastly what i was referring to is that in the 70's many companies were born from a down economy and other larger companies going out of business... i was too vague with my post. but, i think mitt was correct in saying that the auto industry should not have been saved. it would have sparked a huge fire sale and many companies would have been born... it was proven in the 70's. additionally more recently look at what happen to MCI??? 40% of the govt network was residing on it , they said it was too large to fail... it was split up and sold and the remaining bulk of the company was purchased by verizon... they became the 2nd largest provider from being an regional company.

RB,

1) As I stated, 47% pay payroll taxes and whatnot. 47% pay no income tax due to the Bush Tax cuts. Again -- one can make 40k-50k per year and not pay income tax. Moreover, Payroll taxes, which the 47% do pay, fund half the government. Therefore, the term "thief" is inappropriate. If your suggestion is that we should raise taxes on people making less than 40k per year -- then say so.

2) No -- Romney proposed making a "revenue-neutral" tax adjustment. Romney proposed lowering the top marginal rates and closing the loop-holes for deductions in the upper tax brackets. So -- aside from the mathematical impossibility of his plan (the proposed cut in top rates could NOT be offset by the elimination of deductions) -- this represents a huge tax increase for some people; mostly, those executives whom "work" for a living versus those whom "invest" for a living.

#3 -- California has the largest economy in the nation. The only reason they can't balance their budget is that it takes 51% of the population to vote for spending increases, but 67% of the population to vote for increased taxation. That 16% in the middle is what screws them!

As for #4 -- Romney proposed letting GM and Chrysler go bankrupt completely and let private investors find the money to take the companies through liquidation. Unfortunately, during the time of the financial crisis, even reputable companies couldn't find credit. Without the intervention of the government as a lender of last resort, those companies would have failed. Furthermore, Ford, by itself, could not manage the entire auto industry because the U.S. auto industry is not vertically integrated. In other words, GM, Ford and Chrysler all use the same suppliers and those suppliers would have gone bankrupt too. When the government intervened, they were trying to save those jobs as well.

Now, a question for you RB: would you have bailed out Wall Street or not? Originally Posted by barnybus

You do know GM is closing factories anyway? As soon as they got the money they started closing up shop and shipped out to china! But nobody can believe that. you know the one company that is thriving right now is the only one who did not take the bail out money is FORD! Guess who headed their financial plan? ROMNEY! The same plan he mentioned was the same one he used and ford is stinger now than ever! GM is getting ready for bankrupcy again. All Obama does is spend and spend like a fool. But most Obama supporters can't even defend their vote all they do is blame and dodge questions just like him. Their is so much more this weak president of ours has done to make our nation weak as a whole I just don't care to share anymore! I give up on the American people, the policies he is trying to push are down right scary! He is tearing down our constitution piece by piece but the people are to blind to see it. Just cause he won does not mean we still can't for e his ass out! He has committed over 50 impeachable crimes! People say AMERICA has spoke. It's bull this election was fixed sooooo man people did not get to vote even our troops! Our troops alone woulda put Romney at the top. DON'T TRUST THE GOV, DON'T RELY ON THE GOV, PET THEM KNOW WE DONT NEED THEM!

Ford pulled a wiley (sp) move. And smart. (not saying that because i'm a Ford guy.)
But as I understand it, when all the stuff was coming down, they went to their creditors and said we'll buy back our shares at this reduced price. And the creditors took the offer because it was better to get some money than deal with a company that was in bankrupcy.
Took advantage of a situation beautifully.

Fear motivates people.

I hijacked this from another email but, I believe it to be true. The people have spoken and that is how this country works so.......... no sour grapes, no rants, just hold on for the ride!!!!


Folks, the problem is not the candidate, nor the Republican Party. Romney was a great choice and he would have been a great president. The problem is not the Republican platform or the Tea Party to the right. The problem is that the Republicans are selling products, values, beliefs, that too many of the present day electorate ain’t buying. The Republicans/Conservatives are selling what the people don’t want…..accountability, self-sufficiency, competition, success, hard work, honesty, respect, family values, God, Pro-Life, American Exceptionalism, traditional marriage, border control and legal immigration, sanctity of life, Constitutional Rights and freedoms, smaller government, less dependence on government, less taxes, fiscal responsibility, freedom to get rich, freedom to own firearms, freedom of religion, free speech, etc.

America has changed!!

I know what we have to do. We should all move to California, Ohio, Illinois, Florida, , New York.

That way the Republican vote will weigh more. Why should a few states have so much weight on the electorate.

This system of winner takes all sucks.

I hijacked this from another email but, I believe it to be true. The people have spoken and that is how this country works so.......... no sour grapes, no rants, just hold on for the ride!!!!



...
The Republicans/Conservatives are selling what the people don’t want…..accountability..... etc.

America has changed!! Originally Posted by dennisrn

Oh, I would be so behind them 1,000% if they'd put the people responsible in business (and we'll get to the others afterwards) for the subprime and derivative scandal.

We need to do away with the electoral college. In this day and age we can easily (with the exception of Florida) count votes and pass on the results.

Thanks for the earnest dialogue. I appreciate the constructive exchange of ideas.

Now, a few points to consider:

Again, people are breaking down this election in terms of "makers" and "takers". Clinging to this metaphor is not factually correct. 6 out of 10 dollar spent by the federal government goes to benefits paid to those over 65 years old. There is a term for these people - senior citizens. 2 out of 10 goes to defense. The remaining 2 goes to everything else. So our system benefits two populations: senior citizens and defense contractors. Both these groups vote republican.
so can we please stop with this aggreavement mentality about spending?

As for the debt/decifit issue. No republican administration has reduced the size of government since the Hoover administration. Not one. The last republican president to even try to balance the budget was George H W Bush, and he was excoriated by your base.

So why is your message failing to resonate with voters?

I'd offer three suggestions:
1) stop alienating voters with demagoguery. How many months was Sandra Fluke in the news? I don't care what you think about that issue, republicans lost women by 11 points. Someome in your party needs to muzzle Rush Limbaugh and his ilk if you intend to win national office.

2) try to offer at least some specific policy proposals that directly benefit the middle class. Trinkle down economics has been an utter failure. Time to come up with a new idea. Cutting top marginal rates has never created jobs. Get over it and come up with plan that works for the middle instead of the 1%.

3) finally, learn to accept that facts are non-ideological. Fighting science just makes you look foolish because reality trumps politics. In Louisiana some public schools are using the Loch Ness Monster as proof against Evolution. The Loch Ness Monster? Really?

Guys, what I am saying is that your party caters to old white dudes and that is just not the current or f future electorate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-OnyuJTm7s

I hijacked this from another email but, I believe it to be true. The people have spoken and that is how this country works so.......... no sour grapes, no rants, just hold on for the ride!!!!


Folks, the problem is not the candidate, nor the Republican Party. Romney was a great choice and he would have been a great president. The problem is not the Republican platform or the Tea Party to the right. The problem is that the Republicans are selling products, values, beliefs, that too many of the present day electorate ain’t buying. The Republicans/Conservatives are selling what the people don’t want…..accountability, self-sufficiency, competition, success, hard work, honesty, respect, family values, God, Pro-Life, American Exceptionalism, traditional marriage, border control and legal immigration, sanctity of life, Constitutional Rights and freedoms, smaller government, less dependence on government, less taxes, fiscal responsibility, freedom to get rich, freedom to own firearms, freedom of religion, free speech, etc.

America has changed!! Originally Posted by dennisrn

The problem is not that the republicans are selling those things the problem is they are not selling why those things are in their best interest. The answer seems obvious to many of us but clearly it is not obvious to enough people. We need to focus on how those things help the people. The republicans need to also back off of the religious and social issues. It is ok to lead by example and support those values but it is not good to dictate them.

The democrats sells job is superior and easier. They say they are going to help you and let someone else pay for it. What they don't say, and people don't realize since we have a crappy public education system, is that those costs will eventually come back to the lower income people. It will just be hidden in a way they do not realize it.

As for Romney he failed to do an adequate job of pointing out how Obama's policies are a disaster and how his policies were better. He learned the hard way that you have to give people a vision to vote for not just someone to vote against. He let Obama get away with many lies but unfortunately he was not perfectly clean either.