|
|
Post by kyledarby on Oct 18, 2012 0:23:08 GMT -5
So Michael are you saying that it was just the nature of the business that in a one week span iver a dozen innocent Americans were slaughtered and some sodomized? How would you have responded, and or prevented this?
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Wells on Oct 18, 2012 6:04:25 GMT -5
These debates are engineered to lean the ways they are. You really don't get any facts, and still don't hear clear plans. They are BOTH wrong in many ways and the only way to "fix" these problems is to restructure them. I know Gary Johnson had no chance, but I cannot bring myself to actually voting for Romney. My question to any Republican reading this is: Was Romney initially your first pick? I don't know anyone who wanted the "flip flopper" over any of the other candidates running. I know there were some, but few and far between. It amazes me to see him up there as the o Lu one who could beat Obama". It's all a game and I have no interest playing it because its always already chosen. "You are free to choose whoever you want. Do you want my left hand or right hand?"
|
|
|
|
Post by Ron Bath on Oct 18, 2012 6:48:43 GMT -5
do you honestly believe the libertarian party tells you the truth about everything. Remember they are all politicians. Even though I am more libertarian then any other view. Just can't think of Obama for 4 more years. Also what would get more done a libertarian president or more libertarians in the house and senate. You stand a better chance of getting them in there then in the big house at this point. Also stand a better chance of changing the view of a republican then a far left liberal (socialist). Just my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by David Owens on Oct 18, 2012 10:36:22 GMT -5
I'm very on the fence in this one, and I have to say it's mostly due to the  Left after everything Romney says. Personally I absolutely hate our Wellfair system and the amount of people at home living off my tax money..... But if reducing the deficit is really a priority then there is no way we can fo that by cutting taxes, I mean this money is not magically going to appear, it has to come from somewhere, so if Romney keeps taxes the same for the wealthy and cuts taxes for the middle class where is all this extra money to reduce the deficit coming from? Also Obama says he wants to raise taxes on the 2% of people making the most money (or that's the way I took it)......why should I care if some millionairs have to pay higher taxes as a middle class person? |
|
|
|
Post by Kenneth Fredrickson on Oct 18, 2012 10:42:35 GMT -5
Redistribution of wealth is a socialist idea. Taxing hard working Americans to pay for providing free phones, contraceptives, and abortions on demand to those that don't think they should have to pay for it is Socialist. As far as anyone who thinks Obama won the debate, they are very ignorant and uninformed or they are the ones who think that the government owes them a free ride on the backs of those that work and pay taxes. If you are a mindless idiot he may have sounded OK, but if you have a brain and see what he has done and said you would easily realize that most of what he said was an outright lie or missrepresentation, or another empty promise. If you believe any promise he makes just look at his record and the last 4 years. How could you believe that the next 4 years under Obama will miraculously change when you see how disastrous the last 4 years have been.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Brown on Oct 18, 2012 10:58:49 GMT -5
I'm very on the fence in this one, and I have to say it's mostly due to the Left after everything Romney says. Personally I absolutely hate our Wellfair system and the amount of people at home living off my tax money..... But if reducing the deficit is really a priority then there is no way we can fo that by cutting taxes, I mean this money is not magically going to appear, it has to come from somewhere, so if Romney keeps taxes the same for the wealthy and cuts taxes for the middle class where is all this extra money to reduce the deficit coming from? Also Obama says he wants to raise taxes on the 2% of people making the most money (or that's the way I took it)......why should I care if some millionairs have to pay higher taxes as a middle class person? I normally stay out of political debates but you have ask a question that I am sure most dont understand. How to lower taxes yet still bring in more revenue. It because income tax revenue(ITR) is not the only revenue. ITR is basically a fixed amount of revenue. To raise more ITR you need more people working. Lowering corporate rates will allow for more employment. Lowering Personal ITR will allow for more SPENDING, which is the revenue that is way more flexible. With lower ITR people will feel better about spending money. More people working and more people spending it what drives economy. And will bring in way more money even though the ITR rate was lowered. Of course there are many many other things to consider but I hope this helps. PS. I will vote Romney. |
|
|
|
Post by kyledarby on Oct 18, 2012 11:10:05 GMT -5
To piggy back off what Bob said. The goal is to reduce the size of government so you have fewer positions funded by taxes. Also reducing taxes makes it a more business friendly environment so in theory more people will expand or start businesses and then you have a broader base of taxpayers verses just gouging the existing pool of contributors.
|
|
|
|
Post by David Owens on Oct 18, 2012 11:39:06 GMT -5
Makes sense.......so why isn't he coming out and saying that when Obama is over and over saying he doesn't have a plan?
These debates really kill me with the format, I would much rather see a topic brought up and each one talk about EXACTLY what they would do to fix a problem or their stance on an issue, rather than every question they talk about what each other has said and done. I don't follow politics year round but I think this election is one that leads to two very different places and I'm still uncertain about which of those two places would be better for our future.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Wilson on Oct 18, 2012 12:12:54 GMT -5
Romney probably would be able to explain things better if the didn't have to debate the President and the moderator at the same time.
Romney is not nearly as good at explaining things in plain English as Ron Paul. You are talking about two entirely different backgrounds. I attribute it to the reality that Romney's way of speaking is very corporate. He has spent many years talking to CFOs, corporate officers, and Board members- and he usually speaks to things as if the person listening is already up on the subject. That's not a slam on Romney, it's just my observation. He does a great job of articulating his positions, the problem is he forgets that the audience is not nearly as well versed on the topic as he is, especially when he gets on the topic of finance and trade. He uses a lot of corporate-speak.
You'll notice that Obama is very different. Obama is not a details guy like Romney is. Obama speaks in generalities and for most people that is easier to follow. Romney is the guy who wants to sit down and talk with Accounting about the general ledger and the P&L statement. Obama has no idea what those things are. He's a people-manager. He relies on others for information, which is why he so often gives the wrong information, because he repeats what he is told. That's also not a slam, it's just an observation. Ronald Reagan was by far a people guy, not a details guy. He would also get caught putting out incorrect information at times, but it wasn't nefarious. He depended on others for details and sometimes they let him down. As much as I don't like Obama's policies, I think this is usually the case with him as well.
Very rarely do you meet someone who is a numbers guy and a people guy all in one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Bluth on Oct 18, 2012 12:19:20 GMT -5
In response to Bob, Kyle and David.
In basic economic theory, cutting taxes SHOULD drive investment and growth but there has never been any historical evidence that this proves to be true. It didn't happen when Reagan slashed taxes or when Bush Jr. did either. I get that on the surface it makes sense but unfortunately history tells a different story.
Also, 20% across the board is an absurd amount to cut that would, not matter how you do the math, blow up the deficit to new record highs. Mitt doesn't get specific about the math because the math doesn't make sense. Is Obama's 5 trillion number blown out of proportion? Sure. But it is not revenue neutral like Mitt and Ryan claim.
Kyle, to your other question, I am not sure which event you are referring to where dozens of Americans were slaughtered and sodomized.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Bluth on Oct 18, 2012 12:25:18 GMT -5
Socialist Muslim lovers huh? Ok Kyle, please tell me which of Obama's policies are either socialist, or pro-Islam. Ready.....Go! Michael if you choose not to believe on your own marit none of us can convince you. Why don't you articulate to me how there isn't distribution of wealth and socialist programs under current government? Ready.............go If you want to label the policies of the New Deal as socialist then that is your perogative. The fact of the matter is that Socialist goverments have state control of certain indutries like agriculture, banking, media or energy(look at Venezuela, Cuba and others). None of these industries are state run in the US so by definition, we don't have a socialist government. The free market still controls our economy. |
|
|
|
Post by John Wilson on Oct 18, 2012 12:29:35 GMT -5
One point Romney keeps hammering is going way over Obama's head. You can hear the wind whiff by every time Romeny directs it at Obama during the debates. This goes right to your question, David.
The Democrats keep going after this "tax rates for people making $250 thousand" idea. That number has shifted up and down, but you know what I'm talking about. It keeps getting called "taxing the rich".
Romney has explained this at least five times in the debates. Most small businesses are taxed the same way that individuals are taxed. He is talking about S-corps, LLCs, sole proprietorships, PAs... all the kinds of things that make peoples' eyes glaze over. All of these companies are taxed at the end of the year on their profit, and the rate they pay is the same rate an individual would pay- just like as if their profit was a pay check for an individual. But it's not a paycheck, it's the cash the company has to operate on after they pay for overhead. It's not free money going in somebody's pocket. It's what the company puts in the bank to operate on.
$250,000 sounds like a lot of money. $1Million sounds like a lot of money. Well, it's chicken feed when it's a company's entire cash holdings after paying overhead. This is exactly why "taxing the rich" is a giant business-killer. LOWERING this rate is how the business gets to keep more of the cash it earned this year.
By letting the business keep more cash, they buy equipment and hire workers. They expand. They buy stuff and they pay more people.
So, when Obama gets that blank look on his face every time Romney explains this- it tells me that Obama has no earthly clue how a business operates. None whatsoever. If he does, then it's a really good 'stupid act' because he doesn't even try to rebut what Romney is saying. He just goes back to calling it 'taxing the rich.'
|
|
|
|
Post by John Wilson on Oct 18, 2012 12:36:55 GMT -5
If you want to label the policies of the New Deal as socialist then that is your perogative. The fact of the matter is that Socialist goverments have state control of certain indutries like agriculture, banking, media or energy(look at Venezuela, Cuba and others). None of these industries are state run in the US so by definition, we don't have a socialist government. The free market still controls our economy. The New Deal absolutely was a cluster of socialist policies. No, we don't have a Socialist government, but our government does indeed follow a lot of socialist policy at times. The New Deal, in retrospect, caused the Great Depression to go on for far longer than it would have otherwise. In the short term, many people were helped, and continue to be helped, by some of the New Deal programs. The WPA and the Rural Electrification Project were tremendously beneficial to individuals at the time. However, both of these cost enormouse sums of money that did delay recovery. Both of these programs would have been far cheaper had they been handled via private contracts with a profit incentive- the way the railroads were first developed for instance. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security- all socialist policies. That doesn't make them evil, but it is wrong to deny they are socialist policies because they are. Do they do a lot of good? You bet! Does it require a socialist approach to do these things? No, it doesn't. FDR was a socialist who used the New Deal to basically hand over total control of the US economy to the central and world banking system. Woodrow Wilson was a die-hard Socialist, and likely he was privately a Communist. Both of these guys did some good things, even if I believe that there are better ways to have done them. |
|
|
|
Post by Michael Bluth on Oct 18, 2012 12:38:18 GMT -5
One point Romney keeps hammering is going way over Obama's head. You can hear the wind whiff by every time Romeny directs it at Obama during the debates. This goes right to your question, David. The Democrats keep going after this "tax rates for people making $250 thousand" idea. That number has shifted up and down, but you know what I'm talking about. It keeps getting called "taxing the rich". Romney has explained this at least five times in the debates. Most small businesses are taxed the same way that individuals are taxed. He is talking about S-corps, LLCs, sole proprietorships, PAs... all the kinds of things that make peoples' eyes glaze over. All of these companies are taxed at the end of the year on their profit, and the rate they pay is the same rate an individual would pay- just like as if their profit was a pay check for an individual. But it's not a paycheck, it's the cash the company has to operate on after they pay for overhead. It's not free money going in somebody's pocket. It's what the company puts in the bank to operate on. $250,000 sounds like a lot of money. $1Million sounds like a lot of money. Well, it's chicken feed when it's a company's entire cash holdings after paying overhead. This is exactly why "taxing the rich" is a giant business-killer. LOWERING this rate is how the business gets to keep more of the cash it earned this year. By letting the business keep more cash, they buy equipment and hire workers. They expand. They buy stuff and they pay more people. So, when Obama gets that blank look on his face every time Romney explains this- it tells me that Obama has no earthly clue how a business operates. None whatsoever. If he does, then it's a really good 'stupid act' because he doesn't even try to rebut what Romney is saying. He just goes back to calling it 'taxing the rich.' It is safe to say Obama knows exactly what Mitt is talking about when he brings this up. Why he ignores that point is another issue but he does understand. You can't exactly fool everyone into thinking you are smart enough to graduate from Harvard Law and to teach it at the University of Chicago. It is kind of ridiculous to suggest that he doesn't understand that part of the tax code. |
|
|
|
Post by John Wilson on Oct 18, 2012 12:43:09 GMT -5
It is safe to say Obama knows exactly what Mitt is talking about when he brings this up. Why he ignores that point is another issue but he does understand. You can't exactly fool everyone into thinking you are smart enough to graduate from Harvard Law and to teach it at the University of Chicago. It is kind of ridiculous to suggest that he doesn't understand that part of the tax code. One would hope so, anyway. I was trying to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, but I have to agree with you. He is being less than honest for the purposes of holding onto his agenda. So, the bigger question is- why is hurting business his agenda? |
|
Left after everything Romney says.
