Neither Obama nor Romney is going to affect me as I live my life the same regardless of who is the president. I guess it also helps that I contract for a security/defense agency who will get their funding REGARDLESS of the economic situation so my employment (and so-called high income) is pretty much guaranteed.

Still.....

Why would anyone with a upper-middle class income or lower vote for Romney??

Let me guess Porscheguy - you are black, correct?

Its funny, you say Obama couldnt do anything w/o Congress blocking his every move, but he somehow managed to jam healthcare through w/o a single Republican vote.

Look, Obama has been lying to you for the last 4 years, why do you continue to believe all the BS? He's now telling you that Romney and Ryan are going to dismantle Medicaid - but he was the one who just robbed $700B from it to fund Obamacare.

"The same can be said of Mitt Romney, who claims that he will balance the budget but whose actual proposals consist mainly of huge tax cuts (for corporations and the wealthy, of course) plus a promise not to cut defense spending.

Both Mr. Ryan and Mr. Romney, then, are fake deficit hawks. And the evidence for their fakery isn’t just their bad arithmetic; it’s the fact that for all their alleged deep concern over budget gaps, that concern isn’t sufficient to induce them to give up anything — anything at all — that they and their financial backers want. They’re willing to snatch food from the mouths of babes (literally, via cuts in crucial nutritional aid programs), but that’s a positive from their point of view — the social safety net, says Mr. Ryan, should not become “a hammock that lulls able-bodied people to lives of dependency and complacency.” Maintaining low taxes on profits and capital gains, and indeed cutting those taxes further, are, however, sacrosanct. ..."

"And we’re talking about a lot of loophole-closing. As Howard Gleckman of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center points out, to make his numbers work Mr. Ryan would, by 2022, have to close enough loopholes to yield an extra $700 billion in revenue every year. That’s a lot of money, even in an economy as big as ours. So which specific loopholes has Mr. Ryan, who issued a 98-page manifesto on behalf of his budget, said he would close?
None. Not one. He has, however, categorically ruled out any move to close the major loophole that benefits the rich, namely the ultra-low tax rates on income from capital. (That’s the loophole that lets Mitt Romney pay only 14 percent of his income in taxes, a lower tax rate than that faced by many middle-class families.)
So the Ryan budget is a fraud; Mr. Ryan talks loudly about the evils of debt and deficits, but his plan would actually make the deficit bigger even as it inflicted huge pain in the name of deficit reduction."

Quote: (08-12-2012 10:42 PM)Brian Wrote:  

Let me guess Porscheguy - you are black, correct?

Quoting because this is most generalizing racist shit I've read on the internet all day. FWIW, I'm the whitest white guy you'll ever meet. I own guns, a tractor, and full size, 4WD, American made pickup truck.

Quote: (08-12-2012 10:42 PM)Brian Wrote:  

Its funny, you say Obama couldnt do anything w/o Congress blocking his every move, but he somehow managed to jam healthcare through w/o a single Republican vote.

I also said their ultimate goal was to get him out of office in one term. They let it pass because they thought he'd hang himself with it.

Quote: (08-12-2012 10:42 PM)Brian Wrote:  

Look, Obama has been lying to you for the last 4 years, why do you continue to believe all the BS?

Why do you believe the BS about trickle down economics? The only job creation that comes from lowering taxes on the rich are housekeeping and gardening jobs for the very people who benefited from the tax break.

Quote: (08-12-2012 10:42 PM)Brian Wrote:  

He's now telling you that Romney and Ryan are going to dismantle Medicaid - but he was the one who just robbed $700B from it to fund Obamacare.

Then maybe it's time to raise some fucking taxes? And FWIW, they don't want to dismantle it entirely. They just want to privatize it. They want to make it so a handful of people rake in billions of dollars from it, because this is somehow better for me, and makes things more efficient despite the fact that medicare already has an overhead of only 2% and most of the major healthcare providers are at 14%-15% overhead costs.

instead of making this a discussion of the pros & cons of Obama vs romney, I'm still interested in the logic behind Romney's choice.

1. From what I can tell, Romney is a SERIOUS executive who prepares meticulously. You don't rise to the top and make millions by being incompetent, good morals or no. Whether you agree with him or not. He's been laying the groundwork for his race for over four years. I think he's got some more cards up his sleeve.

2. Romney is getting more money than Obama. That usually reflects betting strategies. In 2008 Obama raked in way more than McCain, from corporate donations also. Corporations donate to who they think is going to win, not to who they like. It looks to me like the bets are on Romney.

I expect Romney to open a full-scale barrage on Obama this fall and it's going to wear him down. Whether Romney can hold his own against Obama in the debates is another question - Obama is so articulate.

Another thing I've noticed is the degree to how the US debate is polarized. Right and left have moved further away from each other than ever. Most people could be expected to agree on central issues in 1980. Today it's 50-50. It's impossible for an outsider to get a serious opinion from someone whose bias does not absolutely shine through. It's FAR worse than in Europe, for instance.

I don't think so, ElJefe! The left is still left with some even centrist tendencies, and the right has moved extremely far to the right. Of course, I admit that I'm European so I might be biased because I'm viewing it in comparison to not only US history, but European politics too.

It isn't that the left has moved left, but the right has really moved right. The healthcare reform now referred to as Obamacare has its origins in the Heritage Foundation, not exactly a bastion of leftism.

The right hasnt moved as far right as you say. Things have gotten so out of whack that whenever someone says "I dont think we should spend more then we make consistently w/o any plan to change it" you are labeled as a radical right wing tea party racist. Thats all most "right wingers" want - spend what you make. Apply the same logic to the country that you do to business and personal expenses.

So, who are our choices to vote for?

Romney? Hold on tight there daddio.


Obama? Careful tall guy, you may topple your bike and skin your knee.


Wouldn't it be great if we had a leader with actual balls who could negotiate with Putin:


Obama is the kind of pussy who doesn't even run his own household. He is the kind of guy, and if you have ever done sales you hate this kind of guy, who has to ask his wife permission to buy something. Don't get me wrong, I am no fan of Putin, at all, and I would much rather be in America right now (let's swap the women though). But dammit Obamas meeting with Putin have been embarrassing. Just look at the body language of this video - hunched over, barely making eye contact, babbling, tying his shoe, etc.:






I guarantee if you send Michelle in that shit won't happen. And that is the point, he doesn't even wear the pants in his marriage.



Edit: I call this the Putin test. If you think a man's wife is better able to handle Putin face to face, then he is out.

Quote: (08-13-2012 08:56 PM)Brian Wrote:  

The right hasnt moved as far right as you say. Things have gotten so out of whack that whenever someone says "I dont think we should spend more then we make consistently w/o any plan to change it" you are labeled as a radical right wing tea party racist. Thats all most "right wingers" want - spend what you make. Apply the same logic to the country that you do to business and personal expenses.

There is some truth to what you're saying in that people on the left sometimes use charges of racism to smear conservative economic arguments. That being said, there is a certain amount of actual racism on the right. I used to defend the tea party movement, but you can only see so many pictures of Obama as a pimp or as a monkey before you put two and two together.

The problem with the tea party is that it started as a largely libertarian movement (I know some of the people who were organizers of the 2009 protests), but then quickly grew to include a large contingent of white populists. It may be true that most right conservatives just want to spend what we make, but they also tend to elect leaders who are completely dishonest about what we're spending. So you have a movement that fosters this "OMG brown people are taking our country and our jobs and bankrupting up by collecting welfare." In truth we're being bankrupted by out of control defense spending and an unsustainable system of middle-class transfers.

Republicans are slightly better on entitlement reform and Democrats are slightly better on cutting defense spending, but neither party is really serious. They do just enough to keep their partisans happy while the whole system keeps chugging along towards insolvency.

I do think that Paul Ryan is somewhat sincere about fiscal reform. We'll see how that holds up now that he's on a national ticket.

I pretty much agree with everything you just posted jr, but Ryan's voting record disturbs me - and that is what we have to go on.

Quote: (08-13-2012 09:22 PM)durangotang Wrote:  

So, who are our choices to vote for?

Romney? Hold on tight there daddio.


Obama? Careful tall guy, you may topple your bike and skin your knee.


Wouldn't it be great if we had a leader with actual balls who could negotiate with Putin:


Obama is the kind of pussy who doesn't even run his own household. He is the kind of guy, and if you have ever done sales you hate this kind of guy, who has to ask his wife permission to buy something. Don't get me wrong, I am no fan of Putin, at all, and I would much rather be in America right now (let's swap the women though). But dammit Obamas meeting with Putin have been embarrassing. Just look at the body language of this video - hunched over, barely making eye contact, babbling, tying his shoe, etc.:

I guarantee if you send Michelle in that shit won't happen. And that is the point, he doesn't even wear the pants in his marriage.

Putin is a bad ass.

But he also seems like a gangster, in the old school sense. Not sure if I would want someone like him running the USA.

But a bad ass he is nonetheless.

Putin is Nikita Khrushchev To Obama being JFK. JFK was a white shoe beta in his first years and the Soviets dicked him around accordingly. He eventually manned up to the task but Khrushchev made a game of toying with him.





I can't even think of whom is more of a bumbling beta Romney or Obama both are wimps. Biden and Ryan seem more like top dogs then their bosses IMO.

Just look at the body language in that second pic.

Obama=How can I help/please you?

Putin-I'm gonna fuck this guy.

most leaders of foreign countries are ultimate alpha's in every sense of the world. they rose to power of countries that are basically like gangs - by being the baddest dude out there. most of them risked their lives many many times, basically went all in to get where they got, and would kill anyone who dared challenges their rank as the ultimate alpha. guys like Putin are literally killers. compare that to more westernized countries where its more a function of money and how likable you are to the masses.

http://gawker.com/5934271/how-paul-ryan-will-screw-you

Quote: (08-13-2012 10:59 PM)The_CEO Wrote:  

http://gawker.com/5934271/how-paul-ryan-will-screw-you

That article is riddled with factual and conceptual errors. Are you really going to reference something that criticizes a politician for not signing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act? I would hope that anyone who reads this forum knows that the "women get paid less for the same work" thing is utter nonsense.

As another example, the whole section on government workers is just wrong. The government pay scale is composed of grades and steps. When you get promoted from one grade to the next, you get a pretty substantial pay raise. Even if you don't get promoted, every year you get bumped up to the next step and that comes with more pay. Even if the whole scale remains frozen, as it's been for the last two years, federal workers still get a pay raise every year.

Gawker is really a joke. It's gossip for women, with some attempts at real journalism so women can pretend that they're not reading TMZ. Even Deadspin, their sports site, has mad feminine tendencies.

Quote: (08-14-2012 06:12 AM)j r Wrote:  

Quote: (08-13-2012 10:59 PM)The_CEO Wrote:  

http://gawker.com/5934271/how-paul-ryan-will-screw-you

That article is riddled with factual and conceptual errors. Are you really going to reference something that criticizes a politician for not signing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act? I would hope that anyone who reads this forum knows that the "women get paid less for the same work" thing is utter nonsense.

As another example, the whole section on government workers is just wrong. The government pay scale is composed of grades and steps. When you get promoted from one grade to the next, you get a pretty substantial pay raise. Even if you don't get promoted, every year you get bumped up to the next step and that comes with more pay. Even if the whole scale remains frozen, as it's been for the last two years, federal workers still get a pay raise every year.

Gawker is really a joke. It's gossip for women, with some attempts at real journalism so women can pretend that they're not reading TMZ. Even Deadspin, their sports site, has mad feminine tendencies.

You're right.. that was lazy, and agree re: Gawker

Ron Paul is alpha in my book. Philosophically consistent, bold enough to vote alone in congress 20+ years, and intelligent enough to rebuke sophists.

Most of you are only acquainted with the senior version.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi1nxu-Sy-w

Quote: (08-13-2012 01:51 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  

instead of making this a discussion of the pros & cons of Obama vs romney, I'm still interested in the logic behind Romney's choice.

1. From what I can tell, Romney is a SERIOUS executive who prepares meticulously. You don't rise to the top and make millions by being incompetent, good morals or no. Whether you agree with him or not. He's been laying the groundwork for his race for over four years. I think he's got some more cards up his sleeve.

2. Romney is getting more money than Obama. That usually reflects betting strategies. In 2008 Obama raked in way more than McCain, from corporate donations also. Corporations donate to who they think is going to win, not to who they like. It looks to me like the bets are on Romney.

I expect Romney to open a full-scale barrage on Obama this fall and it's going to wear him down. Whether Romney can hold his own against Obama in the debates is another question - Obama is so articulate.

For somebody who has been preparing for 4 years, Romneys seems to have no clue how to defend the furies of attack coming from Obama. I still don't understand why he can't throw a punch. Obama has not really said what he will do in the next 4 years. Romney seems to have to clue what it takes to win. He looks to me that he is scared of his own accomplishments. Obama has this one in the bag for sure.

Quote: (08-14-2012 02:53 PM)Craig Wrote:  

Ron Paul is alpha in my book. Philosophically consistent, bold enough to vote alone in congress 20+ years, and intelligent enough to rebuke sophists.

Most of you are only acquainted with the senior version.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi1nxu-Sy-w

Classic.

"Why don't they (the government) put you on a diet? You're a little overweight!"

-"let's run down what we know about Ryan's collection of Tough Choices. Ryan claims, as Romney recently has, that he can affect growth by closing loopholes, but he has never specified which loopholes, and as we're learning from the Tax Policy Center, there aren't enough loopholes to close to achieve the desired ends. (Hence, you're stuck raising taxes on the middle class, or scuppering the entire government, or both.)
His plan to balance the budget is to not balance the budget. He's considered a "deficit hawk" -- but as he's put his rubber stamp on all of the Bush administration's budget-busting initiatives, that's a lot like calling an arsonist a fire-fighter. As Jacob Weisberg learned, to some chagrin, Ryan's budget plan "projects an absurd future, according to the Congressional Budget Office, in which all discretionary spending, now around 12 percent of GDP, shrinks to 3 percent of GDP by 2050."-

Quote: (08-14-2012 07:40 PM)The_CEO Wrote:  

-"let's run down what we know about Ryan's collection of Tough Choices. Ryan claims, as Romney recently has, that he can affect growth by closing loopholes, but he has never specified which loopholes, and as we're learning from the Tax Policy Center, there aren't enough loopholes to close to achieve the desired ends. (Hence, you're stuck raising taxes on the middle class, or scuppering the entire government, or both.)
His plan to balance the budget is to not balance the budget. He's considered a "deficit hawk" -- but as he's put his rubber stamp on all of the Bush administration's budget-busting initiatives, that's a lot like calling an arsonist a fire-fighter. As Jacob Weisberg learned, to some chagrin, Ryan's budget plan "projects an absurd future, according to the Congressional Budget Office, in which all discretionary spending, now around 12 percent of GDP, shrinks to 3 percent of GDP by 2050."-

If Jacob Weisberg says so it must be true.