Not good for Obama

gimmesometruth27

Moonpig wrote:

Oops, now I'm falling into the stereotype trap, guess it's what happens when one gets overly exposed to it.

I meant to say - 88% of African Americans who voted, voted for Kerry. Like 95% of African Americans who voted, voted for Obama.

Saying that 95% of African Americans voted for Obama is slightly misleading.

romney is polling at 0% among african american likely voters this election cycle. that means, of those surveyed, 0% would vote for romney. as far as i know, that has never ever happened in american presidential election history.

i think that the republicans are not connecting with the african american population. their whole platform reeks of selfishness.

why would any ethnic group vote for any candidate that would cut benefits to programs that people in said ethnic group benefit from?

Moonpig

pandora wrote:

whygohome wrote:

pandora wrote:

Funny hasn't tilted any of the Seniors I know, who are mostly in the Midwest.

They think Obama has not done a thing!

He's the worst President they have seen in decades.
Not saying they like Romney either but 'Obamanation' is what his nickname is,
kind of says it all.

And I know plenty of seniors that will vote for him, blah, blah, blah. We can play this game forever, but we would both look like morons. They think"He's the worst president they've seen in decades"--such an idiotic statement. have they been awake over the past few decades as they've seen the middle class that they built be destroyed by Republican policies that always, always favor those at the top.
"Obamanation." Idiotic.

I think the seniors that "you know" need to step back into reality and enter the world of facts. Turn off the channel of con men (Hannity, Huckabee, O'Reilly) and stop listening to the most grotesque Americans in the country (Beck, Limbaugh) and start thinking for yourselves, seniors.

Or, are they the type to be swayed by bull shit like this?:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/over75.asp; and death panels, etc.

A few ways that seniors are benefiting:

The cost controls in "Obamacare" does not effect seniors, but puts controls on providers.
This is good for seniors.
"Obamacare" reverses the negative effects of the doughnut hole in prescription drug coverage that was implemented by Medicare Part D, which was implemented by the Bush administration.
This is good for seniors as the amount they pay for prescription drugs (only a 25% co-pay.) This is fixed as opposed to Medicare Part D, which had a more progressive payment system where seniors had to pay more for their drugs.
My grandparents--89 and 85--have already seen this take effect, and have benefited from provisions in Obamacare that have already taken place. Unfortunately, they are staunch conservative republicans, so they won't admit it since it goes against the narrative of Obama being an anti-America socialist.
I feel the seniors you know suffer from the same inability to think in an objective, bipartisan manner.

There's plenty more to write, but I have wasted enough time. Facts don't matter.

I was replying to the tilting of seniors... mine haven't at all.
Didn't claim a thing about yours...

Actually the majority of seniors I know are free thinkers for life ... Independents...
entrepreneurs and not into a bunch of meds.
Boy did you call that wrong
and perhaps you might want to aspire to be like them
I know I have and have done just that, they are impressive indeed.

I'm studying to learn the positives of our current President,
not through blue colored glasses.
I realize why he was elected, it was based in our first black President.
But second term should not be based on race, only accomplishments.
As I have said my biz and us personally are not better off but
I'm researching and remaining unbiased to make an informative decision
not based in party....
making my old folks proud

I think most of which are writing in Ron... gotta make a stand sometime in life :thumbup:
can't be a sellout right?

Ok, one more time. I am asking you to explain the bolded comment above, where you mention that Obama was elected because he would be the first black president.

That's it, I'm asking you to simply back it up. Either back it up or don't, but all this other nonsense about racist bollocks is simple deflection.

Again, please just back up you above comments, with fact.

Jason P

If Obama wins, it has nothing to do with race. If he loses, then the country has a great racial divide.

:fp:

The reason he won is because he had a very convincing campaign and and actually made most of us believe in hope and change in Washington.

Fools we were.

Moonpig

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Moonpig wrote:

Oops, now I'm falling into the stereotype trap, guess it's what happens when one gets overly exposed to it.

I meant to say - 88% of African Americans who voted, voted for Kerry. Like 95% of African Americans who voted, voted for Obama.

Saying that 95% of African Americans voted for Obama is slightly misleading.

romney is polling at 0% among african american likely voters this election cycle. that means, of those surveyed, 0% would vote for romney. as far as i know, that has never ever happened in american presidential election history.

i think that the republicans are not connecting with the african american population. their whole platform reeks of selfishness.

why would any ethnic group vote for any candidate that would cut benefits to programs that people in said ethnic group benefit from?

That is simply outrageous. This plus the 47% comment have gone a long way to show how he's percieved, and to be fair, it's all his own doing. No one only himself to blame.

EdsonNascimento

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

why would any ethnic group vote for any candidate that would cut benefits to programs that people in said ethnic group benefit from?

So, if [insert candidate here] doesn't give my group more money, I shouldn't vote for him even if his/her policies would benefit everyone? Why are we considering anything other than on the terms of how it would effect the country? We should all look at the election only via the prism of what benefits our own individual group? Can you please let me know which group I belong to, so I know how to view the election?

It's strange the way you put that and actually converges EXACTLY with what Romney was criticized for a couple weeks ago. Hmmm. Interesting. Though, the way you put it certainly is a bit more elegant.

Though, your point is spot on. Promising to give money to folks is certainly the easy way to win an election. You don't actually SOLVE anything, mind you. But, why would that bother anyone?

gimmesometruth27

EdsonNascimento wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

why would any ethnic group vote for any candidate that would cut benefits to programs that people in said ethnic group benefit from?

So, if [insert candidate here] doesn't give my group more money, I shouldn't vote for him even if his/her policies would benefit everyone? Why are we considering anything other than on the terms of how it would effect the country? We should all look at the election only via the prism of what benefits our own individual group? Can you please let me know which group I belong to, so I know how to view the election?

It's strange the way you put that and actually converges EXACTLY with what Romney was criticized for a couple weeks ago. Hmmm. Interesting. Though, the way you put it certainly is a bit more elegant.

Though, your point is spot on. Promising to give money to folks is certainly the easy way to win an election. You don't actually SOLVE anything, mind you. But, why would that bother anyone?

i don't understand what you are getting at. if i am on medicare or disability why would i vote for someone who would implement a budget that would have drastic effects on my health insurance or my subsidy? this is what the paul ryan budget would do.

if i were in the middle class why would i vote for romney when the details coming out now say that he will raise my taxes by nearly $2000. why would a billionaire vote for obama if they were so concerned about having to pay more in taxes?

people have their own interests at heart most times when they enter the voting booth.

i see what you did there though....

pandora

Moonpig wrote:

Ok, one more time. I am asking you to explain the bolded comment above, where you mention that Obama was elected because he would be the first black president.

That's it, I'm asking you to simply back it up. Either back it up or don't, but all this other nonsense about racist bollocks is simple deflection.

Again, please just back up you above comments, with fact.

I must repeat myself here :fp:

There is no deflection but yours. You thought my comment was racist
and attempted to call me out on something I am not.

Again,... google away and you will see the black vote
and participation in celebration at record numbers in 2008.
It goes hand in hand with, of course, the party switch that takes place
after 8 years rule.

Do you agree? This a great effect on the vote?
If not, then agree to disagree as I have already stated.

In this election, the state of the economy and 50% of our population relying
on the government's money,
funny money,
certainly gets voters out for their slice of the pie. Will we see more of the same?

Will we see the working taxpayers and business owners,
get out to stop the entitlement trend our country is sieged in?
or will we continue to move towards Socialism like some European countries?


0% of the black vote...
One poll :? and some interesting stats here to add ...http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 ... ort-romney

EdsonNascimento

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

why would any ethnic group vote for any candidate that would cut benefits to programs that people in said ethnic group benefit from?

So, if [insert candidate here] doesn't give my group more money, I shouldn't vote for him even if his/her policies would benefit everyone? Why are we considering anything other than on the terms of how it would effect the country? We should all look at the election only via the prism of what benefits our own individual group? Can you please let me know which group I belong to, so I know how to view the election?

It's strange the way you put that and actually converges EXACTLY with what Romney was criticized for a couple weeks ago. Hmmm. Interesting. Though, the way you put it certainly is a bit more elegant.

Though, your point is spot on. Promising to give money to folks is certainly the easy way to win an election. You don't actually SOLVE anything, mind you. But, why would that bother anyone?

i don't understand what you are getting at. if i am on medicare or disability why would i vote for someone who would implement a budget that would have drastic effects on my health insurance or my subsidy? this is what the paul ryan budget would do.

if i were in the middle class why would i vote for romney when the details coming out now say that he will raise my taxes by nearly $2000. why would a billionaire vote for obama if they were so concerned about having to pay more in taxes?

people have their own interests at heart most times when they enter the voting booth.

i see what you did there though....

And there you've highlighted the problem. Folks only see - what money are you taking from me? What money are you giving me? It has to be THAT simple. Unfortunately, it's also become - even if it won't help ME, how much money can I TAKE from you.

Nobody's looking at the big picture. So, if you're comment were - that's what folks LOOK at - I'm 100% sadly in agreement with you. But, when you pose it as - why would anyone consider the overall picture instead of their own immediate selfishness? Then, I have to say - that's the problem. And Obama has fostered that.

I still don't get where folks are saying Romney is the one raising taxes on the middle class. He advocates extending the current tax rates (no change while Obama intends on INCREASING taxes), and repealing Obamacare (won't be successful) which would reduce the tax on the Middle Class that Obama has already approved.

Moonpig

pandora wrote:

Moonpig wrote:

Ok, one more time. I am asking you to explain the bolded comment above, where you mention that Obama was elected because he would be the first black president.

That's it, I'm asking you to simply back it up. Either back it up or don't, but all this other nonsense about racist bollocks is simple deflection.

Again, please just back up you above comments, with fact.

I must repeat myself here :fp:

There is no deflection but yours. You thought my comment was racist
and attempted to call me out on something I am not.

Again,... google away and you will see the black vote
and participation in celebration at record numbers in 2008.
It goes hand in hand with, of course, the party switch that takes place
after 8 years rule.

Do you agree? This a great effect on the vote?
If not, then agree to disagree as I have already stated.

In this election, the state of the economy and 50% of our population relying
on the government's money,
funny money,
certainly gets voters out for their slice of the pie. Will we see more of the same?

Will we see the working taxpayers and business owners,
get out to stop the entitlement trend our country is sieged in?
or will we continue to move towards Socialism like some European countries?


0% of the black vote...
One poll :? and some interesting stats here to add ...http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 ... ort-romney

still waiting Pandora.... You made a massive over generalisation, I want facts please. 88% of african americans registered to vote, voted for Kerry in 04, Kerry was white. I don't know how many African Americans voted for Obama based on his color, but then, I didn't make the statement.

How many African Americans voted on Obama's policies or views?? These are the statistics I am looking for Pandora, plain and simple.

Please stick to just answering the question.

gimmesometruth27

that point about "taking money from you", edson, is shit. people like you that make that claim sound like petulant children. taxes are like paying dues. i don't like them, but it is part of my duty as a citizen. it is your duty as a citizen to pay, and those that can afford to do so should pay more. afterall, who is complainimg more about deficits? the poor? no, but the rich... come on man...

also, answer this question please. why would any voter vote for anyone who is going to do things against the voter's own interests? you act like your average voter is all altruistic and thinks, "hmmm, i am cutting my own throat by voting for romney, but if it is for the betterment of the country so be it.." people do not vote that way. i am sorry, but they don't. people are selfish by nature... why is it such a compliment these days for someone to be called selfless? because sadly selflessness is not a virtue that most people possess these days.

and selfish voters have been around forever. for you to say that obama created that or fostered that is simply laughable.

and by the way, there are articles all over the wed stating that romney's plan will cut taxes on the rich and raise them on the middle class. here is one of those articles.

FACT CHECK: Yes, Romney’s Tax Plan Requires A Middle-Class Tax Increase

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/0 ... ?mobile=nc

A recent study by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center found that Mitt Romney’s tax plan, which purports to be “revenue neutral,” would require households with incomes under $200,000 to pay higher taxes, on average, in order to finance tax cuts for the rich. In response, Romney economic advisor Martin Feldstein penned an op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal claiming that Romney’s plan does not require such a tax increase.

Though Feldstein uses at least three sleights of hand to obscure the point, his analysis actually confirms TPC’s central finding. Here’s why:

1) Feldstein ignores Romney’s $1 trillion corporate tax cut, which is paid for by individual income tax increases.


Feldstein purports to show how reductions in tax breaks for high-income households could pay for a handful of Romney’s tax policies, including cuts in tax rates for individuals. But Feldstein conveniently ignores Romney’s tax cuts for corporations.

Romney’s plan would give corporations an “immediate” tax cut, cutting their rates from 35 percent to 25 percent. This tax cut would cost $96 billion in 2015 according to the Tax Policy Center (TPC) and more than $1 trillion over ten years. The TPC report did not even factor this massive corporate tax cut in their analysis of Romney’s plan under the very generous assumption that it would be fully paid for by eliminating business tax breaks.

But the Romney campaign has since made clear that the $1 trillion in corporate tax cuts aren’t paid for by any reductions in corporate tax breaks. Therefore, as the TPC researchers have noted, Romney’s corporate tax cuts would require “even larger cuts to tax expenditures [i.e. tax breaks], and correspondingly larger increases in taxes on middle- and/or lower-income taxpayers,” than their original study found. Feldstein simply ignores all of this.

2) Feldstein redefines the “middle class.”


In crunching numbers to try to make Romney’s tax plan add up, Feldstein counts only those households with incomes under $100,000 as “middle class.” He purports to demonstrate that Romney’s plan can add up if deductions are eliminated for households over $100,000. But this simply confirms the Tax Policy Center’s conclusion that Romney’s plan does not add up without a tax increase on households with incomes under $200,000. (This table from TPC shows that households in the $100,000-$200,000 range stand to lose much more from the elimination of tax breaks than they would gain from Romney’s tax rate cut.)



3) Feldstein cherry-picks his numbers to overstate savings.


Finally, Feldstein uses selective and static numbers that overstate the possible savings from tax expenditure reductions. Feldstein seems to belittle the Tax Policy Center study as being based on “inevitably speculative” forecasts from a computer model. But TPC’s model is highly regarded and the same type regularly used by the Congressional Budget Office, Joint Tax Committee, the Treasury Department — and Feldstein himself — to analyze tax policies. There’s a reason everyone uses such models — it’s the only way to capture the complex interactions between tax rates and tax expenditures such as deductions and exemptions.

For his op-ed, Feldstein simply looks at numbers from tax returns from a single year, 2009. Then he makes some selective adjustments: For example, he inflates income levels on the assumption that lower tax rates would lead to higher levels of taxable income and therefore offset some of the revenue loss. Yet he fails to make corresponding adjustments to deductions to reflect behavioral responses, which means that he is probably vastly overstating the potential revenue from eliminating those deductions. Feldstein also fails to adjust for the fact that under Romney’s plan, where tax rates are reduced by 20 percent, the potential revenue gain from eliminating tax exclusions or deductions is automatically 20 percent less.

All of these choices by Feldstein have the effect of overstating how much tax revenue can be gained by cutting upper-income tax breaks. Feldstein’s rough and selective calculations are nowhere near as credible as TPC’s analysis.

Feldstein makes other highly questionable leaps and assumptions. He asserts that eliminating the estate tax would be a “revenue gainer in the long term” (because fewer inheritances would go to tax-exempt charities and more would go to wealthy heirs!). Eliminating the estate tax would cost hundreds of billions in revenue according to CBO.

In all, Feldstein’s op-ed serves only to confirm what TPC and others have found: Mitt Romney would pay for his tax cuts for the rich by raising middle-class taxes.

EdsonNascimento wrote:

And there you've highlighted the problem. Folks only see - what money are you taking from me? What money are you giving me? It has to be THAT simple. Unfortunately, it's also become - even if it won't help ME, how much money can I TAKE from you.

Nobody's looking at the big picture. So, if you're comment were - that's what folks LOOK at - I'm 100% sadly in agreement with you. But, when you pose it as - why would anyone consider the overall picture instead of their own immediate selfishness? Then, I have to say - that's the problem. And Obama has fostered that.

I still don't get where folks are saying Romney is the one raising taxes on the middle class. He advocates extending the current tax rates (no change while Obama intends on INCREASING taxes), and repealing Obamacare (won't be successful) which would reduce the tax on the Middle Class that Obama has already approved.

gimmesometruth27

here's another.

Mitt Romney admits he’ll need to raise taxes on the middle class

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr ... dle-class/

On “60 Minutes” last night, Mitt Romney said it again. “I want to keep the current progressivity in the code. There should be no tax reduction for high income people.”

You’ve heard Romney say this — or some variant of it –dozens of times before. What’s changed since then is that Romney has admitted that his tax cuts, if they’re not going to add to the deficit, will have to increase taxes on people he defines as middle income and cut them on people he defines as high income.

Before we get to that admission, a quick refresher. Romney’s tax plan proposes to cut tax rates by 20 percent. That would cost trillions of dollars, and mean a particularly big tax cut for the rich.

But Romney promises his tax cut won’t cost anything, won’t raise taxes on the middle class, won’t cut taxes on the rich, and won’t end the tax breaks for savings and investment.

The Tax Policy Center, the gold standard in nonpartisan tax wonkery, looked at the tax cut and these promises and declared the proposal “not mathematically possible.” Since Romney doesn’t want to touch tax breaks for savings and investment like the capital gains cut — a position he reiterated last night on “60 Minutes” — there just isn’t enough money in the remaining tax breaks for people making over $250,000 to pay for their tax cuts.

For awhile, the Romney campaign had no answer to this. They just said they didn’t believe the Tax Policy Center — called it biased, even though it’s run by one of George W. Bush’s top economists.

Then, slowly, right-leaning economists and outlets began releasing their own studies showing that, if you made some really, really questionable assumptions, you could kinda sorta make Romney’s math look like it might add up. And so you might have heard Romney say this to David Gregory on “Meet the Press”:


The good news is that five different economic studies, including one at Harvard and Princeton and AEI and a couple at The Wall Street Journal all show that if we bring down our top rates and actually go across the board, bring down rates for everyone in America, but also limit deductions and exemptions for people at the high end, while you can keep the progressivity in the code, you could remain revenue neutral and you create an enormous incentive for growth in the economy.

The Harvard study was done by economist Martin Feldstein, and he makes a very important decision in his paper. He writes, “I think it is very reasonable to say that people in that high-income group” — by which means people making over $100,000 — “are not the ‘middle class.’”

And so, under really, really unrealistic assumptions, he shows that the math can kind of work, but that Romney’s policies would mean a really big tax increase for people making between $100,000 and $250,000 in order to pay for a big tax cut on people making more than $250,000. But that’s okay, because people making over $100,000 are not in the middle class.

And Romney has been all over the place trumpeting this study, saying this study shows his math works out. But then ABC’s George Stephanopoulos caught him out:


GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Is $100,000 middle income?


MITT ROMNEY: No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less.

For the record, I’m actually with Feldstein on this one: I think it’s reasonable to say households making more than $100,000 are not middle income. But Romney disagrees with me, and with Feldstein.

So the study Romney is promoting — the one he says is the study you should be looking at — actually shows even under the most favorable assumptions possible, he’s going to have to raise taxes on the people he defines as the middle class. In saying that that study is credible, he has admitted he can’t make his tax promises add up. And yet he constantly, repeatedly says the opposite.

Romney has clearly calculated that there aren’t many people who read these analyses. If he just keeps saying his tax plan can cut taxes on the rich while cutting taxes on the middle class while not cutting taxes on the rich while not costing a dime, eventually, his version of this will come to be seen as the truth. And perhaps he’s right. But the numbers show what they show.

Jason P

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

that point about "taking money from you", edson, is shit. people like you that make that claim sound like petulant children. taxes are like paying dues. i don't like them, but it is part of my duty as a citizen. it is your duty as a citizen to pay, and those that can afford to do so should pay more. afterall, who is complainimg more about deficits? the poor? no, but the rich... come on man...

As soon as our elected officials start performing their duties responsibly, we can talk about increasing my duty.

cincybearcat

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

that point about "taking money from you", edson, is shit. people like you that make that claim sound like petulant children. taxes are like paying dues. i don't like them, but it is part of my duty as a citizen. it is your duty as a citizen to pay, and those that can afford to do so should pay more.

How much more? According to who? You get to decide who can afford to pay more?

Certainly taxes are required to pay for some things, but to take it for granted that they should be taken and that they should take more despite their record on spending is far more childish than one that cares about where the $ they make is going. Seems like a pretty lame argument.

EdsonNascimento

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

that point about "taking money from you", edson, is shit. people like you that make that claim sound like petulant children. taxes are like paying dues. i don't like them, but it is part of my duty as a citizen. it is your duty as a citizen to pay, and those that can afford to do so should pay more. afterall, who is complainimg more about deficits? the poor? no, but the rich... come on man...

also, answer this question please. why would any voter vote for anyone who is going to do things against the voter's own interests? you act like your average voter is all altruistic and thinks, "hmmm, i am cutting my own throat by voting for romney, but if it is for the betterment of the country so be it.." people do not vote that way. i am sorry, but they don't. people are selfish by nature... why is it such a compliment these days for someone to be called selfless? because sadly selflessness is not a virtue that most people possess these days.

and selfish voters have been around forever. for you to say that obama created that or fostered that is simply laughable.

and by the way, there are articles all over the wed stating that romney's plan will cut taxes on the rich and raise them on the middle class. here is one of those articles.

Petulant children? I'm not against everyone paying their fair share of taxes. It's the definition of fair that causes the debate. But, why should someone pay MORE taxes just so someone else can feel good? Increasing taxes to a family making $250 isn't solving anything without significant spending decreases. So, why should they be the only ones that feel "pain?" Shouldn't everyone share in that? Or is $80 to $100,000 in taxes not enough for 1 family to contribute? You want more? How much more? And for what ends? So, we can EXPAND welfare rolls instead of creating jobs?

Again, study Giuliani's NY and you will see a path to lower welfare rolls and higher employment that the liberals lead by David Dinkins explicitally said was impossible. Then, you can come talk to be about higher taxes. But, to throw good money after bad is pointless.

And, to cut you off at the pass - yes, there are folks that TRULY need help. And, they should be helped. Where that line is, like the definition of fair is up for debate. But, when you have the LOWEST LABOR PARTICIPATION RATE in 30 years AND unemployment above 8%, something ain't workin'. And, it's not the other guy's fault. And, even if you believe it is, something should be headed in the right direction. We shouldn't be left with FEWER jobs than 4 years ago.

As for Romney's admission that he would need to raise taxes on the middle class - how else do you plan on closing the deficit? So, his telling the truth is the issue. Obama hides the truth or is unwilling to make the tough decisions. It's easy to say - let's take money from the millionaires (defined as folks making $750,000 less than million :? ) and give it to YOU (general you, not picking on you) is the easy way to win an election. But, not an easy way to keep promises or solve anything.

But, yes - I personally look at things for the greater good. Now, obviously, it's colored by my own humastic personal issues and view of the world. But, I don't just pick someone because I like what they say. I look at what their true goals are (e.g. - did anyone that voted for Obama truly believe he was closing Guantanamo? If you did - I have a bridge for sale), and determine what is good for the vast majority of the country (you are never going to satisfy everyone realistically, but how close can you come?). If I have to pay a little more taxes, then fine. But, just to simply ask "rich" folks for taxes with no real job creation as a result, is silly. It doesn't do anything other than make folks feel better that they are not as far "behind" as they were before they took their money. I don't give a shit if Zuckerberg is rich beyond our wildest imaginations. Taking another $120,000 a year from him isn't changing his life, my life, your life or the welfare recipient's life.

Self centeredness is what got us deeper in the hole. Trying to have the government be everything to everybody is what continues to dig us deeper. You said who wouldn't folks be selfish? I told you why. I agreed they aren't but you somehow still turned that into a point of argument. I'm arguing for folks to look at the overall picture because, if that looks better, it will be better for (most) everyone. By looking at your own immediate help (e.g. bailout), the (not so) long term ends up being worse not better (as shown by the current state of employment after the bailouts).

The funny thing is, I'm not a big supporter of Romney. I do like the fact that his resume at least looks decent compared to a community organizing failed President. But, to be honest, I can't sit here and tell you he's the solution either. I just know what isn't.

gimmesometruth27

yes petulent children.

in most of your posts you keep bringing up "lowest labor participation rate in 30 years". why is that? it is not as if obama did not try. do you know how many votes were held on obama's jobs bill? ZERO. do you know how many votes were held on abortion this congress? a lot more than ZERO, that is for sure. these people blocked a jobs bill, when their first priority aside from making obama a one term president, was supposed to be jobs. these people are trying to sink the titanic just to make the captain look bad. reasonable people see that and they recognize that and they will vote accordingly. idealogues will not recognize that and vote accordingly.

and what is fair? clinton tax rates were fair and the middle and lower classes did better under those rate. the rich even did better under those rates.

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Petulant children? I'm not against everyone paying their fair share of taxes. It's the definition of fair that causes the debate. But, why should someone pay MORE taxes just so someone else can feel good? Increasing taxes to a family making $250 isn't solving anything without significant spending decreases. So, why should they be the only ones that feel "pain?" Shouldn't everyone share in that? Or is $80 to $100,000 in taxes not enough for 1 family to contribute? You want more? How much more? And for what ends? So, we can EXPAND welfare rolls instead of creating jobs?

Again, study Giuliani's NY and you will see a path to lower welfare rolls and higher employment that the liberals lead by David Dinkins explicitally said was impossible. Then, you can come talk to be about higher taxes. But, to throw good money after bad is pointless.

And, to cut you off at the pass - yes, there are folks that TRULY need help. And, they should be helped. Where that line is, like the definition of fair is up for debate. But, when you have the LOWEST LABOR PARTICIPATION RATE in 30 years AND unemployment above 8%, something ain't workin'. And, it's not the other guy's fault. And, even if you believe it is, something should be headed in the right direction. We shouldn't be left with FEWER jobs than 4 years ago.

As for Romney's admission that he would need to raise taxes on the middle class - how else do you plan on closing the deficit? So, his telling the truth is the issue. Obama hides the truth or is unwilling to make the tough decisions. It's easy to say - let's take money from the millionaires (defined as folks making $750,000 less than million :? ) and give it to YOU (general you, not picking on you) is the easy way to win an election. But, not an easy way to keep promises or solve anything.

But, yes - I personally look at things for the greater good. Now, obviously, it's colored by my own humastic personal issues and view of the world. But, I don't just pick someone because I like what they say. I look at what their true goals are (e.g. - did anyone that voted for Obama truly believe he was closing Guantanamo? If you did - I have a bridge for sale), and determine what is good for the vast majority of the country (you are never going to satisfy everyone realistically, but how close can you come?). If I have to pay a little more taxes, then fine. But, just to simply ask "rich" folks for taxes with no real job creation as a result, is silly. It doesn't do anything other than make folks feel better that they are not as far "behind" as they were before they took their money. I don't give a shit if Zuckerberg is rich beyond our wildest imaginations. Taking another $120,000 a year from him isn't changing his life, my life, your life or the welfare recipient's life.

Self centeredness is what got us deeper in the hole. Trying to have the government be everything to everybody is what continues to dig us deeper. You said who wouldn't folks be selfish? I told you why. I agreed they aren't but you somehow still turned that into a point of argument. I'm arguing for folks to look at the overall picture because, if that looks better, it will be better for (most) everyone. By looking at your own immediate help (e.g. bailout), the (not so) long term ends up being worse not better (as shown by the current state of employment after the bailouts).

The funny thing is, I'm not a big supporter of Romney. I do like the fact that his resume at least looks decent compared to a community organizing failed President. But, to be honest, I can't sit here and tell you he's the solution either. I just know what isn't.

EdsonNascimento

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

yes petulent children.

in most of your posts you keep bringing up "lowest labor participation rate in 30 years". why is that? it is not as if obama did not try. do you know how many votes were held on obama's jobs bill? ZERO. do you know how many votes were held on abortion this congress? a lot more than ZERO, that is for sure. these people blocked a jobs bill, when their first priority aside from making obama a one term president, was supposed to be jobs. these people are trying to sink the titanic just to make the captain look bad. reasonable people see that and they recognize that and they will vote accordingly. idealogues will not recognize that and vote accordingly.

and what is fair? clinton tax rates were fair and the middle and lower classes did better under those rate. the rich even did better under those rates.

It's always someone else's fault. :roll:

whygohome

EdsonNascimento wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

yes petulent children.

in most of your posts you keep bringing up "lowest labor participation rate in 30 years". why is that? it is not as if obama did not try. do you know how many votes were held on obama's jobs bill? ZERO. do you know how many votes were held on abortion this congress? a lot more than ZERO, that is for sure. these people blocked a jobs bill, when their first priority aside from making obama a one term president, was supposed to be jobs. these people are trying to sink the titanic just to make the captain look bad. reasonable people see that and they recognize that and they will vote accordingly. idealogues will not recognize that and vote accordingly.

and what is fair? clinton tax rates were fair and the middle and lower classes did better under those rate. the rich even did better under those rates.

It's always someone else's fault. :roll:

Where are the jobs? The stage is perfectly set for the wonders of voodoo economics to magically rescue the nation from a near depression. Where are the jobs?

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012 ... ntPage=all

"The growing antagonism of the super-wealthy toward Obama can seem mystifying, since Obama has served the rich quite well. His Administration supported the seven-hundred-billion-dollar TARP rescue package for Wall Street, and resisted calls from the Nobel Prize winners Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman, and others on the left, to nationalize the big banks in exchange for that largesse. At the end of September, the S. & P. 500, the benchmark U.S. stock index, had rebounded to just 6.9 per cent below its all-time pre-crisis high, on October 9, 2007. The economists Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty have found that ninety-three per cent of the gains during the 2009-10 recovery went to the top one per cent of earners. Those seated around the table at dinner with Al Gore had done even better: the top 0.01 per cent captured thirty-seven per cent of the total recovery pie, with a rebound in their incomes of more than twenty per cent, which amounted to an additional $4.2 million each."

Oh, that's how socialism works---all the wealth goes to the top. I got it now.

These cry-babies are fucking garbage. Its times like these that I wish I was religious so I can tell them to burn in hell. But hey, they deserve their $10, 20, 30 million salaries. I mean, at least they're not moochers like those in our military, those who are risking their lives in the desert and making a whopping average salary of $50,000. Hmmm.....$20,000,000 to run a hedge fund vs. $50,000 to risk their lives in the desert for...oil, no freedom, no oil........"God" Bless America.

pandora

Moonpig wrote:

still waiting Pandora.... You made a massive over generalisation, I want facts please. 88% of african americans registered to vote, voted for Kerry in 04, Kerry was white. I don't know how many African Americans voted for Obama based on his color, but then, I didn't make the statement.

How many African Americans voted on Obama's policies or views?? These are the statistics I am looking for Pandora, plain and simple.

Please stick to just answering the question.

did you read the link in my post you just quoted?

pandora

Moonpig wrote:

pandora wrote:

I must repeat myself here :fp:

There is no deflection but yours. You thought my comment was racist
and attempted to call me out on something I am not.

Again,... google away and you will see the black vote
and participation in celebration at record numbers in 2008.
It goes hand in hand with, of course, the party switch that takes place
after 8 years rule.

Do you agree? This a great effect on the vote?
If not, then agree to disagree as I have already stated.

In this election, the state of the economy and 50% of our population relying
on the government's money,
funny money,
certainly gets voters out for their slice of the pie. Will we see more of the same?

Will we see the working taxpayers and business owners,
get out to stop the entitlement trend our country is sieged in?
or will we continue to move towards Socialism like some European countries?


0% of the black vote...
One poll :? and some interesting stats here to add ...http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 ... ort-romney

still waiting Pandora.... You made a massive over generalisation, I want facts please. 88% of african americans registered to vote, voted for Kerry in 04, Kerry was white. I don't know how many African Americans voted for Obama based on his color, but then, I didn't make the statement.

How many African Americans voted on Obama's policies or views?? These are the statistics I am looking for Pandora, plain and simple.

Please stick to just answering the question.

We can add this one as well

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/us/po ... .html?_r=0 thanks! :shh:

and there I was basing my comment on pure feeling

I guess pigs do fly Moonpig

cincybearcat

Honestly, I find it maddening to think we are now in a place where if you question how much money the government takes from you, you are being a petulant child.

Thank you Mr. Obama for this brave new world you have created and the war you have started at home.