Not good for Romney

whygohome

EdsonNascimento wrote:

The Republican obstuctionism - Have you stopped for a second and thought maybe THEY are correct? Isn't it possible Obama is wrong and our checks and balances are saving us from a worse fate?

Nobody is innocent in this. But, a good leader finds a way to get the job done. He is a poor leader. By insisting his way or no way, he is ultimately responsible for the results. He should try being a leader at some point and not a glorified 5 year old brat.

Yes. I have thought about that. And, after careful research and a lot of thinking on the issue, I feel that they are not correct. A good leader finds a way to get things done? With this Congress?

The President is a glorified 5 year old brat? Interesting. And you are smarter than him and could do a better job than him, too.

blackredyellow

EdsonNascimento wrote:

blackredyellow wrote:

You have some factual errors there...

Romney is campaigning on cutting taxes. He's proposing for a 20% reduction in tax rates across the board. Plus, cutting the corporate tax rate 25% and eliminating the death tax.

And no matter what version of revisionist history that you are reading, Bush's policies didn't work "fine" in the first 7 years. The deficit blew up each year, spending was through the roof and we get into a mess in Iraq. Does that sound "fine" to you?

And technically, Romney is a lawyer.

Spot on regarding the deficit. That was a HUGE problem. But, at least folks were working (until the last year or so). Now we have a BIGGER deficit and folks not working. I'm not trumpeting Bush's feats either, so good that you called me on that. But, the point was - Obama made it worse.

And we should eliminate the death tax. How stupid is that concept? You die, and the State takes money from your heirs? Wasn't that money already taxed?

I was talking about individual taxes. I don't recall him saying we should lower taxes another 20%. If I missed that, I'm sorry. But, I think you are talking about the CURRENT tax rates. Which Obama is planning on raising and Romney is planning on MAINTAINING.

The death tax is one area that I can not defend. It is a stupid concept.

EdsonNascimento

whygohome wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

The Republican obstuctionism - Have you stopped for a second and thought maybe THEY are correct? Isn't it possible Obama is wrong and our checks and balances are saving us from a worse fate?

Nobody is innocent in this. But, a good leader finds a way to get the job done. He is a poor leader. By insisting his way or no way, he is ultimately responsible for the results. He should try being a leader at some point and not a glorified 5 year old brat.

Yes. I have thought about that. And, after careful research and a lot of thinking on the issue, I feel that they are not correct. A good leader finds a way to get things done? With this Congress?

The President is a glorified 5 year old brat? Interesting. And you are smarter than him and could do a better job than him, too.

Again, no President has had both houses in their party. And, it's no more divisive than it ever was. That's revisionist. Leaders learn the art of compromise, etc. Ask Bill Clinton if he got his way on everything.

Am I smarter than him? Not sure. I haven't seen his IQ score. Perhaps. But, whether I could or not is irrelevant.

When you cry and pout when you don't get your way - that's not a leader. That's a 5 year old brat. It is extremely clear he is a good speaker (teleprompter aside), but an extremely poor leader.

whygohome

EdsonNascimento wrote:

whygohome wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

The Republican obstuctionism - Have you stopped for a second and thought maybe THEY are correct? Isn't it possible Obama is wrong and our checks and balances are saving us from a worse fate?

Nobody is innocent in this. But, a good leader finds a way to get the job done. He is a poor leader. By insisting his way or no way, he is ultimately responsible for the results. He should try being a leader at some point and not a glorified 5 year old brat.

Yes. I have thought about that. And, after careful research and a lot of thinking on the issue, I feel that they are not correct. A good leader finds a way to get things done? With this Congress?

The President is a glorified 5 year old brat? Interesting. And you are smarter than him and could do a better job than him, too.

Again, no President has had both houses in their party. And, it's no more divisive than it ever was. That's revisionist. Leaders learn the art of compromise, etc. Ask Bill Clinton if he got his way on everything.

Am I smarter than him? Not sure. I haven't seen his IQ score. Perhaps. But, whether I could or not is irrelevant.

When you cry and pout when you don't get your way - that's not a leader. That's a 5 year old brat. It is extremely clear he is a good speaker (teleprompter aside), but an extremely poor leader.

Let's not compare the Republicans of Clinton's time with those of today.

If that's the way you see things, so be it. No point in increasing my risk of carpal-tunnel.

EdsonNascimento

whygohome wrote:

Let's not compare the Republicans of Clinton's time with those of today.

If that's the way you see things, so be it. No point in increasing my risk of carpal-tunnel.

Again - you're only seeing things the way you want to. Perhaps, Clinton gave enough to be given what he wanted (no pun intended, though that did come out very ironically).

Obama's first 2 years should have impacted the economy more than the last 2. Correct? If so, he had both houses his first 2 years. He could have used the same process he used to ram through his health care plan.

Also intersting that the previous economy is all Bush's and not the Democrat ruled Congress. Yet, now it's the Republican's fault. The fact is, the housing bubble that did the most damage to the economy was caused by CLINTON and his insistence that everyone should eat cake..err.. I mean own a house and bullying Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the banks into issuing loans folks couldn't afford driving up housing prices and resulting in the mortgage mess 12 years later. Unfortunately, Bush did nothing to slow that process, so he holds blame, as well. He just didn't set the wheel in motion. It can now be argued this Congress is trying to prevent the next wheel from heading down the hill.

whygohome

whygohome wrote:

Let's not compare the Republicans of Clinton's time with those of today.

If that's the way you see things, so be it. No point in increasing my risk of carpal-tunnel.

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Again - you're only seeing things the way you want to. Perhaps, Clinton gave enough to be given what he wanted (no pun intended, though that did come out very ironically).

That's quite rude. I am not only seeing things the way I want to. I don't spend hours everyday studying politics and economics, et al, to be a close-minded fool.

Nice pun.

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Obama's first 2 years should have impacted the economy more than the last 2. Correct? If so, he had both houses his first 2 years. He could have used the same process he used to ram through his health care plan.

Not true. It is explained here: http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com ... years.html

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Also intersting that the previous economy is all Bush's and not the Democrat ruled Congress. Yet, now it's the Republican's fault. The fact is, the housing bubble that did the most damage to the economy was caused by CLINTON and his insistence that everyone should eat cake..err.. I mean own a house and bullying Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the banks into issuing loans folks couldn't afford driving up housing prices and resulting in the mortgage mess 12 years later. Unfortunately, Bush did nothing to slow that process, so he holds blame, as well. He just didn't set the wheel in motion. It can now be argued this Congress is trying to prevent the next wheel from heading down the hill.

It can be argued, no doubt.

usamamasan1

blackredyellow wrote:

The death tax is one area that I can not defend. It is a stupid concept.

truth be told.

WE BUILT THIS! But the governement wants to make heirs pay so much in taxes that they have to sell the business, family farm, etc.

DUMB DUMB DUMB. It's not rocket surgery...

markin ball

EdsonNascimento wrote:

To help you out - 30 years ago was the 1st year of the Reagan Administration. It did not take him 4 years to get it turned around. This is the FOURTH year of the Obama administration. And, yet we're still blaming the guy before him. Which fits perfectly with how kids are being raised these days. It's not MY kid! It's someone else's fault.

So would it be okay if Obama used the same methods that Regan did to right the ship? Among other things that would mean tripling the deficit, increasing defense spending and increasing taxes for many.

Prince Of Dorkness

usamamasan1 wrote:

blackredyellow wrote:

The death tax is one area that I can not defend. It is a stupid concept.

truth be told.

WE BUILT THIS! But the governement wants to make heirs pay so much in taxes that they have to sell the business, family farm, etc.

DUMB DUMB DUMB. It's not rocket surgery...

OH please.

Honestly... YOU don't even buy that.

Prince Of Dorkness

EdsonNascimento wrote:

It's Bush's fault. Classic.

In fact... yes. It is.

And the fault of the people who voted for him... the people who helped pass all of his silly tax cuts, approve his wars and cheered as he fiddled and Rome burnt.

Trying to "lol" your way out of it doesn't change that 4 years ago the stock market was worthless, the housing market was worthless, the banks were dropping like dominoes, we were losing 800,000 jobs per month and companies that were the backbone of the county's economy were about to go under.

It's not like that anymore.

Are things perfect? No. they're not. And things haven't happened as fast as many of us would have liked.

But no amount of trying to say "yeah... blame Bush" in your sarcastic tone is going to change that in fact... it wasn't just the fault of George W Bush.. but the fault of every idiot who voted for him.

We haven't fixed the mess you made yet. How about you let us finish before playing that?

Thanks.

polaris_x

usamamasan1 wrote:

DUMB DUMB DUMB. It's not rocket surgery...

EdsonNascimento

markin ball wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

To help you out - 30 years ago was the 1st year of the Reagan Administration. It did not take him 4 years to get it turned around. This is the FOURTH year of the Obama administration. And, yet we're still blaming the guy before him. Which fits perfectly with how kids are being raised these days. It's not MY kid! It's someone else's fault.

So would it be okay if Obama used the same methods that Regan did to right the ship? Among other things that would mean tripling the deficit, increasing defense spending and increasing taxes for many.

Obama didn't triple it, but he's sent it to a place nobody imagined. Saying Reagan tripled it is being a bit dogmatic. In gross terms, everything that has come before pales in comparison to what Obama has done to the deficit.

Obama has increased defense spending - check 2!

As for increasing taxes - Reagan did that AFTER the ship was righted. Or, more correctly, as it was clear it was heading in the right direction. He did not do it right away (for the most part - and Obama has already increased taxes to the middle class). I'm not AGAINST raising taxes necessarily. It depends on the methods used and timing. Obama's plan is purely punitive with no real corresponding economic correction. Spending must be cut. Period. Otherwise, you can raise all the tax rates you want, and we're still headed for the cliff (though I'd think we're already over it with the amount Obama has spent these last 4 years. To throw more good money after bad makes little sense. And that's basically his plan.).

We need to remove the "poor me" attitude from this generation instead of feeding it. Yes, there are folks that need help. But, far too many are unnecessarily taking advantage of the system to the point that the system will eventually own us.

Again - LOWEST labor participation rate in 30 years and unemployment above 8%. That combination is almost impossible to do. So, folks have simply given up. Now that's morale for you. What else would you like to let Obama kill? He's taken our desire. He's taken our morale. I guess the spirit is next.

gimmesometruth27

EdsonNascimento wrote:

markin ball wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

To help you out - 30 years ago was the 1st year of the Reagan Administration. It did not take him 4 years to get it turned around. This is the FOURTH year of the Obama administration. And, yet we're still blaming the guy before him. Which fits perfectly with how kids are being raised these days. It's not MY kid! It's someone else's fault.

So would it be okay if Obama used the same methods that Regan did to right the ship? Among other things that would mean tripling the deficit, increasing defense spending and increasing taxes for many.

Obama didn't triple it, but he's sent it to a place nobody imagined. Saying Reagan tripled it is being a bit dogmatic. In gross terms, everything that has come before pales in comparison to what Obama has done to the deficit.

Obama has increased defense spending - check 2!

As for increasing taxes - Reagan did that AFTER the ship was righted. Or, more correctly, as it was clear it was heading in the right direction. He did not do it right away (for the most part - and Obama has already increased taxes to the middle class). I'm not AGAINST raising taxes necessarily. It depends on the methods used and timing. Obama's plan is purely punitive with no real corresponding economic correction. Spending must be cut. Period. Otherwise, you can raise all the tax rates you want, and we're still headed for the cliff (though I'd think we're already over it with the amount Obama has spent these last 4 years. To throw more good money after bad makes little sense. And that's basically his plan.).

We need to remove the "poor me" attitude from this generation instead of feeding it. Yes, there are folks that need help. But, far too many are unnecessarily taking advantage of the system to the point that the system will eventually own us.

Again - LOWEST labor participation rate in 30 years and unemployment above 8%. That combination is almost impossible to do. So, folks have simply given up. Now that's morale for you. What else would you like to let Obama kill? He's taken our desire. He's taken our morale. I guess the spirit is next.

what is romney's plan?

or should i say what is romney's plan this week?

in light of total republican obstructionism the bolded and underlined part is an unfair statement, and without seeing the bigger picture it is just you being dramatic.

EdsonNascimento

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

in light of total republican obstructionism the bolded and underlined part is an unfair statement, and without seeing the bigger picture it is just you being dramatic.

That old line. That and It's Bush's fault.

A good leader would have navigated the waters by now and not been stamping his feet and pouting like a 5 year old while Rome burns.

As a wise man once said - You can't always get what you want. But, if you try sometimes, you just might find. You get what you need..... Ooooh, yeah.

gimmesometruth27

EdsonNascimento wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

in light of total republican obstructionism the bolded and underlined part is an unfair statement, and without seeing the bigger picture it is just you being dramatic.

That old line. That and It's Bush's fault.

A good leader would have navigated the waters by now and not been stamping his feet and pouting like a 5 year old while Rome burns.

As a wise man once said - You can't always get what you want. But, if you try sometimes, you just might find. You get what you need..... Ooooh, yeah.

i am sorry dude, if you can not concede the fact that republican obstructionism is at least in part responsible for where we are then you are not living in reality.

whygohome

EdsonNascimento wrote:

markin ball wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

To help you out - 30 years ago was the 1st year of the Reagan Administration. It did not take him 4 years to get it turned around. This is the FOURTH year of the Obama administration. And, yet we're still blaming the guy before him. Which fits perfectly with how kids are being raised these days. It's not MY kid! It's someone else's fault.

So would it be okay if Obama used the same methods that Regan did to right the ship? Among other things that would mean tripling the deficit, increasing defense spending and increasing taxes for many.

Obama didn't triple it, but he's sent it to a place nobody imagined. Saying Reagan tripled it is being a bit dogmatic. In gross terms, everything that has come before pales in comparison to what Obama has done to the deficit.

Obama has increased defense spending - check 2!

As for increasing taxes - Reagan did that AFTER the ship was righted. Or, more correctly, as it was clear it was heading in the right direction. He did not do it right away (for the most part - and Obama has already increased taxes to the middle class). I'm not AGAINST raising taxes necessarily. It depends on the methods used and timing. Obama's plan is purely punitive with no real corresponding economic correction. Spending must be cut. Period. Otherwise, you can raise all the tax rates you want, and we're still headed for the cliff (though I'd think we're already over it with the amount Obama has spent these last 4 years. To throw more good money after bad makes little sense. And that's basically his plan.).

We need to remove the "poor me" attitude from this generation instead of feeding it. Yes, there are folks that need help. But, far too many are unnecessarily taking advantage of the system to the point that the system will eventually own us.

Again - LOWEST labor participation rate in 30 years and unemployment above 8%. That combination is almost impossible to do. So, folks have simply given up. Now that's morale for you. What else would you like to let Obama kill? He's taken our desire. He's taken our morale. I guess the spirit is next.

When do facts come into play in your lame attempts at criticism?

This is classic:
"Again - LOWEST labor participation rate in 30 years and unemployment above 8%. That combination is almost impossible to do. So, folks have simply given up. Now that's morale for you. What else would you like to let Obama kill? He's taken our desire. He's taken our morale. I guess the spirit is next."

I guess it is now YOU who are seeing things the way you want to see them.

Taxes are incredibly low on the job creators and on corporate America (if you take loopholes and deductions into consideration). Where are the jobs? Corporate profits are skyrocketing; Wall St. is through the roof. Where are the jobs? CEOs are still making their $10, 20 million a year. Where are the jobs?

What a joke.

whygohome

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

in light of total republican obstructionism the bolded and underlined part is an unfair statement, and without seeing the bigger picture it is just you being dramatic.

That old line. That and It's Bush's fault.

A good leader would have navigated the waters by now and not been stamping his feet and pouting like a 5 year old while Rome burns.

As a wise man once said - You can't always get what you want. But, if you try sometimes, you just might find. You get what you need..... Ooooh, yeah.

i am sorry dude, if you can not concede the fact that republican obstructionism is at least in part responsible for where we are then you are not living in reality.

Everyone has their own set of facts these days, Gimmie, don't even bother. We just have to get this "radical," marxist, kenyan, muslim socialist out of office and the banks and Wall St. and Uncle Corporate America will take care of us all.

I love how my friends and family members who work on Wall St and in the banking/financial sector laugh in the faces of people who spit this rhetoric....and I love how they all vote for the evil, anti-capitalist, anti-business socialist. They must hate American too

EdsonNascimento

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

in light of total republican obstructionism the bolded and underlined part is an unfair statement, and without seeing the bigger picture it is just you being dramatic.

That old line. That and It's Bush's fault.

A good leader would have navigated the waters by now and not been stamping his feet and pouting like a 5 year old while Rome burns.

As a wise man once said - You can't always get what you want. But, if you try sometimes, you just might find. You get what you need..... Ooooh, yeah.

i am sorry dude, if you can not concede the fact that republican obstructionism is at least in part responsible for where we are then you are not living in reality.

So, someone saying, "No," is the end of the discussion? Again, I am in a leadership position. If I can't get done what needs to get done, it stops with me. It does not go further than that. If you want a leader that points fingers, good for you. I prefer one that actually leads.

whygohome

EdsonNascimento wrote:

So, someone saying, "No," is the end of the discussion? Again, I am in a leadership position. If I can't get done what needs to get done, it stops with me. It does not go further than that. If you want a leader that points fingers, good for you. I prefer one that actually leads.

You're comparing your leadership position tot hat of being President?!?!

wow. I have seen it all.

EdsonNascimento

whygohome wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

So, someone saying, "No," is the end of the discussion? Again, I am in a leadership position. If I can't get done what needs to get done, it stops with me. It does not go further than that. If you want a leader that points fingers, good for you. I prefer one that actually leads.

You're comparing your leadership position tot hat of being President?!?!

wow. I have seen it all.

Exactly. What I do is far less important. And, yet the concept of leadership is the same. You can't just bully folks into doing stuff and then cry later they didn't do what you wanted.

Why is it so different? Clearly, it's on a different level. But, the concept of leadership itself is a common concept whether you're in front of a classroom giving a speech in 2nd grade, in charge of a billion dollar company or the President of the US. I'll let you guess which one I am. But, don't worry. You know who everyone is here.